[Francis_MH]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If Hawaii is that good, they win in playoffs.

If Hawaii sucks, they get killed first round, discussion over.

[/ QUOTE ]
This argument is illogical for advocating a playoff. If Hawaii is a fraud, they would likely take a playoff spot away from a team that actually had a better chance of winning than they did. It's not like the NCAA basketball tourney where almost any team that has even a remote chance of winning is included. In an 8-team playoff including Hawaii, it would probably exclude ASU and Tennessee would would both beat the [censored] out of Hawaii.

[/ QUOTE ]

right

in addition to the huge advantage it would give the team seeded, mythically, as #1 with having one less game on the way to the title

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying a playoff system is perfect, no system is. But is a million times better than the trainwreck that exists now. I would much rather have a slightly flawed system where teams could fight it out on the field than a [censored] system based on popular opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I just don't think it's a playoff is a "more perfect" system. In general, the difference between the #12 team and the #8 team is less than the difference between #2 and #3 (at least imo, I'm open to arguments that's not true). With the amount of variance in college football, any top 8 team can win the tournament. So a tournament just adds more selection bias and, to at least a small extent, cheapens regular season performance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, according to this forum, the #8 team (USC) is light years ahead of the #12 team (Hawaii). As of last week's BCS standings, #2 WV and #3 OSU are pretty close. What about when Auburn went undefeated in the SEC and was #3, missed out on the championship game where USC smoked Oklahoma. I think a #3 team has a much more valid argument in making the championship game than some 3 loss team does for the 8th seed in a playoff, especially when #2 and #3 have equal records and similar SOS.