T1B

I'm amazed that some of you guys have such energy for debating a playoff system.

It's so far from happening that I see no reason to even talk about it.

Seer:

Excellent News!!!!!!

We can now get away from those pesky, annoying Triple Crown races.

Finally, no Kentucky Derby, no Preakness, no Belmont....

Pathetic...nice argument, 'tard. Any further invalid comparisons you wanna drop?


RF:

This is quite possibly the dumbest fucking sentiment I've ever seen posted in this forum, but coming from you, it's really no surprise.

Not surprised that you're totally closed-minded, though.

With a playoff system, involving 12-16 teams, any controversy of who gets in/doesn't get in would be minimal compared to a system in which a true champion is actually determined, on the field and not through some polling system that takes two out of three or four teams with the same record and similar schedule strengths.

The impracticality is obvious, idiot.

And, unlike you and many other fuckupsd, I don't reallt care about a "true" national champion. It simply cannot happen in college football without a fundamental change in how the game is perceived and scheduled. And it simply is not going to happen.

And yeah, polling worked out pretty well in 2003. You apologists seem to forget that there was a spilt national champion despite the BCS. And how about a few years earlier, when Nebraska backed its way into the MNC after not even qualifying for its conference championship game?

And here goes the dumbfuck, again, totally misrepresenting my posts....I am not defending the current system, asshole. get a fucking clue.

I have, many times before. If you'd get away from tossing GOP salad for a few minutes a day and start reading forums other than your own daily blog, you might have noticed.

:roll:

I'm all for a Pac 10 - Big 10 Rose Bowl, but then I'm senile so never mind.

DrDumbfuck wrote:Not surprised that you're totally closed-minded, though.

Oh, ok. I'm closed-minded because I favor a D-1 playoff. Gotcha.

DrDetroit wrote:And, unlike you and many other fuckupsd, I don't reallt care about a "true" national champion.

Obviously.

It simply cannot happen in college football without a fundamental change in how the game is perceived and scheduled. And it simply is not going to happen.

Right.

Sincerely,

Div. 1A, II and III

totally misrepresenting my posts....

oh dear. meltdown complete

PSU, wtf?

When a poster completely bastardizes your posts why is it to call that out? Fuck off, cunt. had it been anyone else but me saying that you'd be happily agreeing with them.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised as you, too, probably do the same thing when left wihtout an argument.

I was arguing that polls are a requirement in any type of playoff scheme thereby negating any perceived advantage that playoff might have over the current situation.

But RF reads that mean I would also favor eliminating the college basketball tournament?

And that's not an obvious misrepresentation of my argument, PSU?

Nice job KYOA, PSU...

Here is what I really like about the NCAA.

Eventually College football will get a playoff, probably something like a 4 team format. Then they will see the money and then they will decide that if 4 teams produce X dollars then 8 teams would be 2X dollars. Then these guys will likely get the idea that if 8 teams produced 2X than 16 teams would produce 16X dollars (fuzzy math).

You guys get the idea, all of this will be spurred on by conferences and teams getting screwed out of the Dollars and the power of GREED.

DrDetroit wrote: I was arguing that polls are a requirement in any type of playoff scheme thereby negating any perceived advantage that playoff might have over the current situation.

If the best teams wind up playing each other in a playoff system, what difference does it make where they finish in the regular season polls??

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:

DrDetroit wrote: I was arguing that polls are a requirement in any type of playoff scheme thereby negating any perceived advantage that playoff might have over the current situation.

If the best teams wind up playing each other in a playoff system, what difference does it make where they finish in the regular season polls??

Nice presumption that you have there...the problem is determining who are the "best teams" and you need polls for this. I notice that you ignored my prior point regarding this.

DrDetroit wrote:

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:

DrDetroit wrote: I was arguing that polls are a requirement in any type of playoff scheme thereby negating any perceived advantage that playoff might have over the current situation.

If the best teams wind up playing each other in a playoff system, what difference does it make where they finish in the regular season polls??

Nice presumption that you have there...the problem is determining who are the "best teams" and you need polls for this. I notice that you ignored my prior point regarding this.

Doc, the fact is, the more teams that get a chance to play for the title, the better, even if that means only two more teams. The system may never be perfect, but the idea is to increase the # of teams eligible to compete for the title. Right now, only two teams are eligible. That is not enough.

DrDetroit wrote:

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:

DrDetroit wrote: I was arguing that polls are a requirement in any type of playoff scheme thereby negating any perceived advantage that playoff might have over the current situation.

If the best teams wind up playing each other in a playoff system, what difference does it make where they finish in the regular season polls??

Nice presumption that you have there...the problem is determining who are the "best teams" and you need polls for this. I notice that you ignored my prior point regarding this.

I don't see anything wrong with polls determining who those 4 best teams are, and then letting those teams actually play each other. Like I said, rarely does the controversy extend past 4 teams anyway.

What you want is a system that is perfect, which is unreasonable. You concede that a perfect system is not possible, so you choose to keep things the way they are - which is a shoddy system at best. I propose to make an improved system, conceding that it will not be perfect. But, again, the idea is to imrove it.

While I'm in favor of a playoff, I think some of you guys are a little too quick to discount Dr. D's arguments against it.

One of the things that makes CFB unique is the incredible importance of the regular season. Every game literally does matter. The more teams you put in a playoff at season's end, the greater margin for error every team has, and ultimately, the less the regular season matters.

I agree that March Madness is probably the single most entertaining event in sports, year in and year out, but it also comes at the expense of the regular season. The general public couldn't care less about the CBB regular season, outside the occasional Duke/UNC or Louisville/UK game, and even those don't really matter, in the grand scheme of things.

Like I said, I support a playoff. More often than not, three or more teams have a legitimate argument that they deserve a shot at the NC. So I'm kind of playing devil's advocate here. I just don't think you guys should be so quick to pile on Dr. D just because he's against a playoff. It's not quite as cut & dried as you might think. Really, the only playoff-based league that consistently holds people's interest during the regular season is the NFL, and I imagine that has a lot more to do with gambling & fantasy football than the compelling storyline of a Week 12 game between the 49ers & Titans.

Just know that if CFB does get a playoff, OSU/Mich, Auburn/Bama, UF/UGA, CU/NU, OU/Texas, etc. will never be the same again.

I don't think the effect would be as big as in BBall considering there are about half the games during a college football season. Plus the playoff field would be vastly smaller than a field of 64. Both factors would allow for a smaller margin of error during the regular season.

MiketheangrydrunkenCUfan wrote:While I'm in favor of a playoff, I think some of you guys are a little too quick to discount Dr. D's arguments against it.

One of the things that makes CFB unique is the incredible importance of the regular season. Every game literally does matter. The more teams you put in a playoff at season's end, the greater margin for error every team has, and ultimately, the less the regular season matters.

In a 16 team playoff, yes, but in a 4 team playoff, each regular season game would be just as important. Most teams that finish in the top 4 are 0 and 1 loss teams. That means, like today, if you lose more than 1 game, you probably wouldn't make it.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:

MiketheangrydrunkenCUfan wrote:While I'm in favor of a playoff, I think some of you guys are a little too quick to discount Dr. D's arguments against it.

One of the things that makes CFB unique is the incredible importance of the regular season. Every game literally does matter. The more teams you put in a playoff at season's end, the greater margin for error every team has, and ultimately, the less the regular season matters.

In a 16 team playoff, yes, but in a 4 team playoff, each regular season game would be just as important. Most teams that finish in the top 4 are 0 and 1 loss teams. That means, like today, if you lose more than 1 game, you probably wouldn't make it.

Yeah, but a 4 team playoff really isn't much better than what we have now. How often are there exactly 4 teams that are clearly the best 4 teams in the country?

Take last year, for example. USC, OU, and Auburn would be locks, but who do you take for the 4th team? A Utah team that played an admittedly weak schedule but absolutely crushed everyone on it? Texas, who has already lost to OU? Cal, who has already lost to USC? Louisville, whose only loss was a squeaker to Miami and who were arguably playing the best football in the nation at the end of the season? What about Boise St.? They were undefeated too.

Bottom line is, someone is still going to have a legit gripe. Of course you could say that about the 9th, 17th, or 33rd best team too, but the arguments become less compelling the further you go down the list. I'd have a lot easier time telling the perceived 9th best team in the country "sorry, better luck next year" than the 3rd or 5th.

If they do eventually adopt a CFB playoff, it needs at least 8 teams, or it will be as big a fraud as the BCS. How can you tell a team that won every single game they played that they have no shot at the NC? It would've happened last year - possibly to two teams.

MiketheangrydrunkenCUfan wrote:
Just know that if CFB does get a playoff, OSU/Mich, Auburn/Bama, UF/UGA, CU/NU, OU/Texas, etc. will never be the same again.

Are you kidding? Rivalry games will always be rivalry games, because the gauntlets have been thrown down already. Can't undo history....and with UCLA / USC it's a cross-town rivalry.

The Seer wrote:

MiketheangrydrunkenCUfan wrote:
Just know that if CFB does get a playoff, OSU/Mich, Auburn/Bama, UF/UGA, CU/NU, OU/Texas, etc. will never be the same again.

Are you kidding? Rivalry games will always be rivalry games, because the gauntlets have been thrown down already. Can't undo history....and with UCLA / USC it's a cross-town rivalry.

Gotta agree with this. Not to mention that if it's a 4-team playoff, you'll still have to go undefeated to guarantee yourself a spot. Not saying that there'll never be a one-loss team in the mix (hell, in 2003 every team had at least one loss), but in a four-team set, there's likely to be at least one one-loss team left out.

My ideal set up would be a 16-team field that involves every team in the country...not just 6 or 7 conferences. With this current system, only the "BCS conferences" are relevant. You will never see a team out of the MAC, Sun Belt or the WAC in the title picture. You had Utah last year out of smaller conference go unbeaten and get shut out of everything. They played in a BCS game but had nothing to show for it and had little to say in the title picture. They were punished simply for being Utah.

The regular season can still keep it's importance with a playoff. When you consider a mediocre team from a major conference or a smaller conference has a goal is to just become bowl eligible just to play in some useless game the middle of December in a half-empty stadium and minimal TV audience. This current system essentially eliminates any small conference school right away. What does a Ball State or Louisiana-Monroe have to play for every year? If you aren't going to include every conference in the mix, than don't include them in Division I-A. If you make every team in the country eligible for a tournament...every team will want a chance win their conference or post a great record to make the field.

My solution to the playoff dilemna...
1. Adopt a 12-game regular season schedule for every team with no more than 2 bye weeks. A team cannot play more than 4 non-conference games in a season. A 13th game will be played in the event a school makes it to conference title game. Schools must play only Division I-A opponents. The 15 week season will wrap up with the last weekend of November being the conference title weekend.

2. Make all remaining Independents join a conference...Notre Dame to the Big East or Big Ten, Army and Navy to Conference USA, Temple returns to the Big East.

3. Merge the WAC and Mountain West Conferences in to one two division conference...call it the WAC.

4. Merge the Sun Belt with Conference USA but have a few teams from the existing Conference USA join the Big East.

5. After all conference realignment, you will have 9 conferences (ACC, Big XII, Big Ten, Big East, Conference USA, MAC, Pac-10, SEC, WAC). Each conference will have a title game playing off the division winners (ex--SEC or ACC) or the two top teams in a one division conference (ex--Big Ten).

6. The bowls will be eliminated outright but the sites can and will be used in tournament play.

6. The winner of each of the 9 conferences receive automatic bids to the tournament and 7 at-larges will be selected by a panel similar to that who select the basketball tournament field.

7. The field will be ranked 1-16. Sites will be predetermined before the season and the higher ranked teams will be allowed to play closer to home but not in their home stadium for the first round.

8. The first round will be played on the first weekend of December with two primetime games on Friday night and the other 6 on Saturday. The second round will be following week with all games on that Saturday in different sites than the first round.

9. The semifinals will be the third week of December in two seperate predetermined sites. Games will be played back-to-back on that Saturday. The national championship game will be played the following week on Monday night. The NFL will have to give up that day to the NCAA of course for this to be possible. If not, just simply play the title game on a Saturday night.

10. Winner of the playoff wins the Sears Trophy or whatever they give away and will be named the undisputed national champion of Division-I collge football.

The Seer wrote:

MiketheangrydrunkenCUfan wrote:
Just know that if CFB does get a playoff, OSU/Mich, Auburn/Bama, UF/UGA, CU/NU, OU/Texas, etc. will never be the same again.

Are you kidding? Rivalry games will always be rivalry games, because the gauntlets have been thrown down already. Can't undo history....and with UCLA / USC it's a cross-town rivalry.

Imagine, if you will, an alternate universe in which we have a playoff system and USC sucks donkey balls. UCLA comes rolling into the SC game at 10-0 with a playoff spot locked up. USC, having fallen on hard times since the bathhouse raid that got Leinart, Bush, and White suspended for the season, are limping in at 4-6. USC makes a game effort, and is only trailing by 3 going into the 4th quarter. Karl Dorell decides to "honor the great tradition of the rivalry" and leave his starters in to try to preserve the lead. They end up winning, but Maurice Drew breaks his leg and is lost for the remainder of the season. The suddenly one-dimensional Bruins end up getting knocked out in the first round by 15th seed 9-2 Colorado, who pulled their starters at halftime in a meaningless loss to 3-8 Nebraska. Every UCLA fan is calling for Dorell's head for making such a dumbass decision in the name of "tradition." He eventually gets shitcanned and accepts an assistant coaching gig back at CU, who go on win 4 consecutive NCs.

The only way the rivalry games will retain their importance is if

a) both teams are definitely out of the playoffs.

or

b) both teams are on the fringe of the playoffs.

or

c) they're played early enough in the season so that both teams still have something to play for.

Situation "a" sucks because both teams suck, so who really cares outside of those two teams' fan bases. Situation "b" is cool, but highly unlikely to happen year in and year out. Situation "c" sucks, because then we'd just have the inverse of what we have now, with teams scheduling their creampuffs at the end of the season instead of the beginning, thus turning the last two or three weeks of the season into virtually unwatchable, glorified scrimmages.

1.Like it.
2.Going to run into trouble with ND thinking they have the right to stand alone. I say fuck em. Leave them out if they don't want to join a conference. CFB has made too many allowances for them already.
3.Seems right.
4.Logical
5..Big 10 would probably divide into divisions, especially if they added a 12th team.
6. Makes too much sense.
7.This will add new thread topics for sure. Let the debate begin. I can see it now State ranked #17 (as if!) Bab's pissing herself regarding media biases. Fucking beautiful.
8.Insert travel arguments here. Students, fans etc. I know it works for hoops, just pointing out what the powers always resort to.
9.This would dwarf the Final Four in B-Ball. This and the Title game would give the Super Bowl a run for its money. I would love to see it happen. 16 teams would be perfect.
10. Makes so much sense. Rack Shoalzie. Too bad this will not happen soon enough. The BCS system cheats us out of what would be a Grand Spectacle. Fuck 'em.

Jimmy Medalions wrote:I'm amazed that some of you guys have such energy for debating a playoff system.

It's so far from happening that I see no reason to even talk about it.

This is a How-I-Would-Structure-A-Playoff wet dream thread.

Please take all comments containing elements of realism elsewhere. Thanks.

MiketheangrydrunkenCUfan wrote: One of the things that makes CFB unique is the incredible importance of the regular season. Every game literally does matter. The more teams you put in a playoff at season's end, the greater margin for error every team has, and ultimately, the less the regular season matters.

The problem with the current system and "every game mattering" is you wind up with cowards who like Georgia who are affraid to play a real OOC schedule that inclides these crazy little lthings like travel and hotel rooms, its been 40 years since the Bulldogs last left the south to play a game. With a playoff though you would need to take the scheduling out of the cowards who run schools like that and have the NCAA generate schedules with equal amounts of road and home games for everyone trying to vie for a spot in the playoff.

WolverineSteve wrote:I can see it now State ranked #17

Perfect.

Shoalzie wrote:My ideal set up would be a 16-team field that involves every team in the country...not just 6 or 7 conferences. With this current system, only the "BCS conferences" are relevant. You will never see a team out of the MAC, Sun Belt or the WAC in the title picture. You had Utah last year out of smaller conference go unbeaten and get shut out of everything. They played in a BCS game but had nothing to show for it and had little to say in the title picture. They were punished simply for being Utah.

The regular season can still keep it's importance with a playoff. When you consider a mediocre team from a major conference or a smaller conference has a goal is to just become bowl eligible just to play in some useless game the middle of December in a half-empty stadium and minimal TV audience. This current system essentially eliminates any small conference school right away. What does a Ball State or Louisiana-Monroe have to play for every year? If you aren't going to include every conference in the mix, than don't include them in Division I-A. If you make every team in the country eligible for a tournament...every team will want a chance win their conference or post a great record to make the field.

My solution to the playoff dilemna...
1. Adopt a 12-game regular season schedule for every team with no more than 2 bye weeks. A team cannot play more than 4 non-conference games in a season. A 13th game will be played in the event a school makes it to conference title game. Schools must play only Division I-A opponents. The 15 week season will wrap up with the last weekend of November being the conference title weekend.

2. Make all remaining Independents join a conference...Notre Dame to the Big East or Big Ten, Army and Navy to Conference USA, Temple returns to the Big East.

3. Merge the WAC and Mountain West Conferences in to one two division conference...call it the WAC.

4. Merge the Sun Belt with Conference USA but have a few teams from the existing Conference USA join the Big East.

5. After all conference realignment, you will have 9 conferences (ACC, Big XII, Big Ten, Big East, Conference USA, MAC, Pac-10, SEC, WAC). Each conference will have a title game playing off the division winners (ex--SEC or ACC) or the two top teams in a one division conference (ex--Big Ten).

6. The bowls will be eliminated outright but the sites can and will be used in tournament play.

6. The winner of each of the 9 conferences receive automatic bids to the tournament and 7 at-larges will be selected by a panel similar to that who select the basketball tournament field.

7. The field will be ranked 1-16. Sites will be predetermined before the season and the higher ranked teams will be allowed to play closer to home but not in their home stadium for the first round.

8. The first round will be played on the first weekend of December with two primetime games on Friday night and the other 6 on Saturday. The second round will be following week with all games on that Saturday in different sites than the first round.

9. The semifinals will be the third week of December in two seperate predetermined sites. Games will be played back-to-back on that Saturday. The national championship game will be played the following week on Monday night. The NFL will have to give up that day to the NCAA of course for this to be possible. If not, just simply play the title game on a Saturday night.

10. Winner of the playoff wins the Sears Trophy or whatever they give away and will be named the undisputed national champion of Division-I collge football.

ditto

SoCalTrjn wrote: The problem with the current system and "every game mattering" is you wind up with cowards who like Georgia who are affraid to play a real OOC schedule that inclides these crazy little lthings like travel and hotel rooms, its been 40 years since the Bulldogs last left the south to play a game.

Is that literally true?

Serious question. I really don't know.

I know Georgia never plays anybody OOC but that's utterly ridiculous if that's literally true.

Shoalzie, all sounds good, but totally impractical. Like I said before, this would require a fundamental change in how college football is played and scheduled. 15 week schedule ending the last week of November followed with 4-5 weeks of tournament play?

I'm sorry, but these are student-athletes. There's a reason why there's a long layoff between the end of regular season play and the bowl games. And I don't care about your arguments that the student-athlete concept is so diluted now that it really makes no difference. Bullshit. It shouldn't be the way it is now and it definitely shouldn't be tossed to satisfy the needs of snobs who feel it necessary to crown a "true" national champion.

We're discussing this from two different starting points. I don't feel the same need for a "true" NC as many others here do. I'm just not that invested in the emotional desire for it. I'd rather eliminate the BCS bullshit and get back to the traditional bowl tie-ins and schedules wth one wrinkle...that schools should be punished harshly in the polls for playing non-D-I teams.

Doc, if the Div II and III student athletes are capable of doing it, why not DI?

Believe the Heupel wrote:It's true. SCT uses this over-belabored factoid to try to build WAY too many straw houses for his arguments, but it's true.

Well, if that's true, it is fairly difficult to take Georgia seriously. I've always felt that a lot of SEC teams have pathetic OOC schedules ("But look at our conference schedule!" doesn't wash with me, not when these teams have built their reps almost strictly by beating each other) but this just takes the cake.

Never travel? That's really ridiculous.

And how can basketball players pull off 2 games a week for 5+ months (if you make it to the finals), plus the practicing, etc., and not football players?

Now just to make it clear, I don't know where I stand on a play off, but as of now I'm more against it than for it.

As for Fredo, it comes from BC basically sucking the dick of Miami, VaTech, and the ACC so that they could come along as well. Some ND posters started calling them Fredo because they "went against the family" of the Big East to secure a better financial position for themselves. That's my understanding.

DrDetroit wrote: and it definitely shouldn't be tossed to satisfy the needs of snobs who feel it necessary to crown a "true" national champion.

Georgia's idea of sacking up and hitting the road to play someone decent is going to Clemson once every 10 years. Even then, that's only about 200 miles away.

Killian wrote:And how can basketball players pull off 2 games a week for 5+ months (if you make it to the finals), plus the practicing, etc., and not football players?

Now just to make it clear, I don't know where I stand on a play off, but as of now I'm more against it than for it.

As for Fredo, it comes from BC basically sucking the dick of Miami, VaTech, and the ACC so that they could come along as well. Some ND posters started calling them Fredo because they "went against the family" of the Big East to secure a better financial position for themselves. That's my understanding.

RACK!

The 3 to 4 week period for the proposed playoff would occur while class would be out for the semester, so it is workable, especially when you are talking about 1 game a week and not 2 to 3 basketball that are played each week.

You are correct about Boston College. They weren't even rumored to go to the ACC at the beginning of the realignment talk. There was more talk of Syracuse going than BC. I'm glad BC left, otherwise USF would have never been a thought to join the Big East.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Doc, if the Div II and III student athletes are capable of doing it, why not DI?

I don't believe that D-II and D-III football players have the same time committments wrapped up during the regular season like D-I. Am I wrong?

DrDetroit wrote: I don't believe that D-II and D-III football players have the same time committments wrapped up during the regular season like D-I. Am I wrong?

I don't know for certain either, but why wouldn't they? They have a regular season they have to play, and they have to practice as well.

While I dont' usually like playoff talk and think it would diminsh the factors that make CFB so great, that was an interesting proposal.

However, one glaring problem I see is you end up having a 15, 16, 17 game season for a lot of teams. CFB should fall somewhere between HS ball and the NFL.

And for comparisons sake, I don't think looking at DIA, DII or DIII ball doesn't really compare to DI. They are a different animal and DI asks for a lot more effort and time from its players.

Additionally, the NFL is a different breed as well. They are paid to play, they are professionals and the majority are at a different physical level.

Re: Sky's post...that's about where I was going. DII and DIII players simply don't have the same time committments as DI players. I know a little about this as I went to a DIII college and don't remember the fottball players spending much more time than I did training for cross-country track...each about three hours a day counting actual practice time, lifting, meetings, etc.

I think we would all agree that DI football players have significant time requirements as it is now during the regular season. And while I get that part of that time in late December is off-time from classes, there's still three weeks of December of classess and exams. Preparing for playoff games during those weeks while also wrapping up class projects and then preparing for exams?? I think that is pushing the limits too far.

DrDetroit wrote:

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Doc, if the Div II and III student athletes are capable of doing it, why not DI?

I don't believe that D-II and D-III football players have the same time committments wrapped up during the regular season like D-I. Am I wrong?

Take into account that div 1AA, div II, etc., most of those kids have no shot at the NFL, so they're at school to get an education, meaning they're not majoring in underwater juggling like many of your major conference blue chippers and such. Your major program kids, on average, will take LESS classes, take LESS challenging classes, and will have MORE offered in the way of tuition and scholarships. So a championship team at the div1aa or div ii or div iii level has all these things to overcome that div 1 players do not, again on average, and they STILL pull of a 16 game season. So after seeing the system work in every other branch of collegiate football, you're going to tell me it will fail in division 1? Your logic is off.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Take into account that div 1AA, div II, etc., most of those kids have no shot at the NFL, so they're at school to get an education, meaning they're not majoring in underwater juggling like many of your major conference blue chippers and such.

Most D-I football players have no shot at the NFL. And D-I football does not exist to be a farm league for the NFL anyway.

Your major program kids, on average, will take LESS classes, take LESS challenging classes, and will have MORE offered in the way of tuition and scholarships. So a championship team at the div1aa or div ii or div iii level has all these things to overcome that div 1 players do not, again on average, and they STILL pull of a 16 game season. So after seeing the system work in every other branch of collegiate football, you're going to tell me it will fail in division 1? Your logic is off.

Has all what to overcome? Having no shot at the NFL is not a hurdle to preparing for and playing college football.

And that many DII/DIII players might take more classes in the semester than DI players is irrelevant. You haven't demonstrated that DI players have significantly less class time in the first place.

These supposed hurdles simply do not exist.

Sudden Sam wrote:True. It's not like most D1 kids are going to miss much valuable classroom time.

Explain.

Doc, even getting into the semantics of the players' lifestyles is irrelevant. Logic is on my side. The playoff system works in EVERY other branch of collegiate football, and you're making the claim that it has NO chance whatsoever on the div 1 level. On what evidence do you have to make this claim? I am bringing evidence that it works on every other level, so what evidence can you bring that it cannot work?

So far your only argument has been a vague, at best, "there's too many time constraints". That's not a very convincing argument.