There are 120 FBS teams. It's just not practical to do a large playoff. So no matter what, you're going to have to settle for somebody else choosing to narrow it down to 4-8 teams.

I am confident that the coaches, at least, are knowledgeable enough to vote accurately enough. AP is fine too, it's their jobs to track this stuff. Maybe we should go to an American-Idol-like voting system to seed the playoffs? Again, though, too many conferences, and of course too much money, for it to be practical. Bowls are fun.

How many times have the so called experts said they knew who was the best team in the NFL only to have them lose in the playoffs. Put another way how many times has the team picked to win the super bowl actually won the super bowl? I think the polls are nothing more then something to keep the fans amused and I take about as much stock into them as I do the odds in Vegas for the NFL. Sure they are fun to look at but until I see the proof people can talk all they want and it sounds like the adults on Peanuts.

As far as how many teams in division 1. You have a point and I don't have a answer I just can say that is why I don't pay attention to who "the best team is in the country" as I feel its to subjective.

Edit: I looked it up and there are 148 teams in division 2 and they have a playoff system leading to a title game so it can be done.

The Division II playoffs have FIVE rounds, though, with first-round byes (that would be hugely controversial). They can compress that some (it's a much lower-quality game). But if you stick with one game per week to give teams adequate time for prep and recovery (and to suggest they compress that anymore won't fly - you've got injury and scheduling concerns)... you're talking about 5 weeks of playoffs? That is absurd. March Madness is over and done with in just over two weeks.

8 teams, three weeks, is probably the most folks could hope for. But that's not enough for conferences to have auto-bids, so we'd still rely on polls, computers, or some other stuff that would annoy the second-tier schools of the FBS. And drawing it out three weeks (or worse, weekday games) would be a huge hit financially. It's possible. But the current system just isn't bad enough to justify it.

I can't, off the top of my head, name a single instance where I disagree with the ultimate national champion choice. So it can't be that bad. Sure, unpredictable things happen in the NFL playoffs. But college football has a lot more teams, and I have no problem rating consistency as an important factor. It's tough to go undefeated, then still win the big game. That's good enough. Better, in fact, than a 10-6 Giants team that beats an undefeated New England team in the Super Bowl. Am I comfortable saying the Patriots were still the better team in 2007? Absolutely. They had a bad day. The Giants had 6 bad days. I LIKE the way college football does it. With 120 teams, I like rewarding the one that has the least (or least-bad) bad days, and there's nearly always an easy choice, which is why voting works.

Virginia Tech's #10 rating at the beginning of the season doesn't really count. The preseason rankings are a huge guess, based largely on where teams ended up the year before. Obviously, VT has shown from its performance that it didn't deserve to be ranked #10, which is why it has since dropped to #23.

You just made the "college football argument" for keeping the bowl games, one that I have heard for years. That's why I don't follow division 1 as I feel its to subjective and nothing said can change my mind.

As far as the NFL. Who even wins the super bowl is the best team of the year. I don't care who had a good or bad day the fact is the fact and the better team won. That can't be said for division 1 collage football but it can be said for the so called lower division.

This rating doesn't make any sense. I think whoever compiled it got Utah State and U. of Utah mixed up.

And see, I don't agree. Everybody knew back in the 90's that the NFC Championship was the real Super Bowl. And recently the same could be said for the AFC. How is that any different from a good college football conference beating up on itself, only to have its number one get pitted against some random lesser team from another conference. Seems like the same thing to me. The randomness in one comes from pollsters, and in the other in comes from the good fortune of being in a weak division or a weak conference.

That's part of football. Bad day doesn't equal bad team. That's why I much prefer a series like every other major sport does. But the game of football doesn't lend itself to that. Also doesn't lend itself well to one game elimination playoffs. The voters pick up the intangibles that football otherwise can't account for.

Find me one person (outside of the NY/NJ area) who doesn't think the 2007 season was a gross disappointment. Maybe New England was the wrong team, but there were three other AFC teams that probably also could have won that game. No way you can tell me the best team in football won that year, unless you're doing it on faith. EVERY system is flawed.

time will tell... they seem to keep winning in the ACC.. and they keep climbing back up the charts...

um.. utah plays tcu because they are in your conference.. so it isn't a matter of having any balls..you don't have a choice! just like how the rest of the wac has to face boise state....
boise has played TCU twice with a winning split.. and Oregon TWICE and won both times.. I dunno where you're getting off...the others boise state hasn't played because they don't want to schedule them...

There is only one real super bowl for the NFL and it is seen all over the world and is the most watched tv show. I am the person who did not think the 2007 season was a disappointment as the best team won, well it was not Denver so with that in mind I was disappointed but I still say the best team won. I don't care who had a bad day. Bla bla bla.

I agree nothing is perfect but I will take the NFL and division 2 model any day over division 1. In the end there is no debate as to who the best team is like you see in this thread for divison 1.

There's no debate over who the WINNER is.. there is and always will be debate over who the best team is from year to year. The best team in 2007 was the Patriots, only you Eeyore would argue that they weren't; the Super Bowl Champions were the Giants.

You could probably play all the bowls you want and look at all the stats you want and come up with a good approximation of who the BEST team in any given year is. The great thing about sports in general and which the Bowl system robs sports fans of, is the possibility of hard work, luck, grit, etc letting the lesser team WIN on a given day.

You can count me as a second person who wasn't disappointed in the 2007 season. But the Giants win wasn't great because the Giants were better; it was great just for the fact that they won, the same as when any underdog wins (hello 1998???).

Even a 4 team playoff (or 8 team playoff which incorporated the major bowls into the bracket) would inject that kind of excitement into college football. We already have computers, coaches, sportswriters and a single game to tell us who the best college football team is every year. What we don't have is any idea who the college football "champion" is some years.

I suppose it's almost anti-American of me that I am not enamored by underdogs. I found the Giants winning to be just plain dumb.

I like the college system for what it is - a good approximation of the real world. Where life is a popularity contest, the big guys have a (maybe unfair) advantage, and if the underdog is going to make it, he has to overcome nearly insurmountable odds. But more often than not, he winds up just being disappointed. Life doesn't have playoffs.

That's why sports are fun though... to watch.. not to play.. if you're better you hate it when underdogs win (by beating you).

And it IS sort-of anti American to be un-enamored by underdogs. The hope to do nothing and get rich is more American than the word "American". What's a better American story than not doing the kind of recruiting that a Duke or Kentucky can, not practicing hard enough to go 24-0 during the regular season, not really shooting FT's all day to get better and then when it counts turning it on and making a deep run in March Madness.

Haha. Funny that I hate reality TV, I suppose because I don't want my entertainment to replicate the real world, or even try. It's an escape. But sports... I don't know, I always thought of sports differently. It's not entertainment, nor just an escape. More like training for the real world.

(I much prefer to play, or coach at least, rather than watch... or at least try and view it as if I was playing... although football isn't normally my thing. But as far as football goes, my teams are part of the "haves" so it's more fun to just rib the other guys.)

I'd rather play too.. but anyone who's ever met me knows what a joke me playing football would be (a tragic joke - as my quick death on the field would be). When I'm bowling, playing volleyball, racquetball, or whatever else my geek-a-fied frame is ideal for I don't even think of who's better or not.. I just think I better win or it's going to be a long week planning how to do better next week.

Nice. Let me know when you're in town, I'll take my stocky frame and go lose at raquetball to you. Haha.

Boise State game is on TV. You'd have to be a fan to enjoy this.

You're on.. if not sooner, then in July when I move there.

And I don't give a rat's ass about the NFL because the regular season is largely pointless. When you can lose 6 games and still win the Super Bowl, that means the only part that counts is the playoffs.

Luckily, we both have leagues that we enjoy.

Now don't screw with the one I like. The one where you actually have to win more games than anybody else in order to be crowned a champion.

I said they equal each other out. Nevada is 24th in the BCS standings, Baylor is 25th (and 24th in AP, where Nevada isn't ranked).

Also, the BCS strength of schedule isn't determined by what a team was ranked when it played another. It's adjusted weekly based on ranking/record.

Utah will probably have the greatest strength of schedule of non-AQ contenders when all is said and done with games coming up against Air Force, TCU, Notre Dame, and San Diego St.

A playoff with eight teams could be pretty nice. Keep the same system as now and instead of 1 and 2 playing each other, the top 8 in the BCS rankings go into a playoff.

But the current system is also interesting. It's unique to sports really. It also makes the entire regular season one intense playoff. Lose a game and you're probably done.

The current system rewards the team with the best SEASON, and not necessarily the best team. You have to show up for all 11 games.