Well, with all of the BCS controversy, this year, and the past few, what system do you think we should go with in the future?

Personally, I think we need to keep the bowl system in tact. If you go to a playoff system like NCAA basketball, season games just don't mean as much. I say play the bowl games under the BCS format...if there are any problems with the top spots, play an extra game at the end to decide the champ. If #1, 2, and 3 have the same record....have #2 and 3 play, giving #1 a bye, and then allow the winner of that game to play the #1 team!
Personally, I don't think Cal really can whine......I mean, do the #4 and #5 spots really matter that much anyway? Texas has gotten the shaft a few times now. Although I'm not typically a Texas fan, for the sake of th Big 12 and Mack Brown, I'm glad they got into the Rose Bowl. Cal will have their chance in the future.

First of all, as a Big 10 guy, screw it, we'll beat them losers anyway....

I read an article last night on how the BCS actually did it's job by getting the # 1 and 2 teams in the end. The coaches and the media all voted Auburn #3, and that's what should happen. However, I still think the BCS is seriously flawed. A playoff might be better as long as you don't have an insane amount of teams that could be eligible. Maybe the champions of all the conferences and round that number to where you have only 16-24 teams in playoff brackets. There may be a little luster taken off of the regular season, but as long as you have rivalries like OU-Texas, Michigan-Ohio State, and the like, the regular season will stiil have it's appeal.

The thing is, often, a playoff is not necessary. For example, in 2000, Oklahoma was the only undefeated team. Why do they still need to prove themselves? This year, it might make sense, but as you can see from the polls, Utah, and Boise State would have probably been left out of a playoff being replaced by someone like Texas or Cal.

If we had a playoff, we'd have just as much bellyaching as we do now. It would solve nothing. I think the current system is decent. Maybe we should relpy even less on the human voters and force teams like Auburn to schedule someone other than the Citadel in their off season.

I was looking at our 2010 schedule. We've scheduled Florida State. I went onto the Florida State website to see how their schedule looked that year. In the previous week, they have scheduled, you guessed it: The Citadel!

Some will never learn

Actually, I believe Utah and Boise State both were confrence champs. Also, in my brackets, they would have made it because they were both in the top 24 anyway. the only teams that would be left out would be the lower ranked teams (around 20-25). I agree that it really doesn't matter because people will still whine and moan about something.

A playoff would diminish the regular season.

Back to the old system?

We'd have Michigan vs. USC in the Rose, Oklahoma vs. Boston College or Va Tech (maybe Texas or Cal) in the Orange, Auburn vs. Miami in the Sugar, so no, it would be just as bad by any standard and probably worse.

The BCS is the best we can do short of a playoff. This ain't the NFL so we don't need to try to solve our problems in the same way the NFL does. The BCS system did what it was supposed to do. Occasionally, a team will get screwed. This year, with the SEC and the lackluster OOC schedule, the SEC and Auburn can look in the mirror if they want to find someone to blame for their misfortune.

As for Cal, Texas has been jobbed several times in the BCS in the past few years. It was their turn to go. I doubt we would even be talking about it had Texas gone somewhere besides the Rose Bowl. Pac-10 and Big 11 people are such whiners about their precious "tradition".

I wouldn't feel put out at all if some Big 11 team were playing in the Cotton. Big deal?

I'm actually glad that Texas went to a BCS bowl....not only is it good for the Big 12, but it's good for OSU.....had it not been for Texas going to the Rose, OSU would've gone to the Independence Bowl. The Alamo is a more impressive bowl.