Can everyone admit that playoffs produce

It was a strange final - but nothing beats March Madness for excitement. And I don't care about a football playoff. I enjoy all the controversy (though its a bit too much these days) and the magnitude of each game.

It was a strange final - but nothing beats March Madness for excitement. And I don't care about a football playoff. I enjoy all the controversy (though its a bit too much these days) and the magnitude of each game.

I can agree with that. College basketball produces an exciting 3 weeks. College football creates an exciting season.

Maybe if they made the college basketball playoffs best 2 out of 3. Anybody can have an off night - but can a lousy team do it two or three nights in a row - there ya go. The NBA playoffs take forever, so usually the best teams really do rise to the top at the finish line. Usually.

Maybe if they made the college basketball playoffs best 2 out of 3. Anybody can have an off night - but can a lousy team do it two or three nights in a row - there ya go. The NBA playoffs take forever, so usually the best teams really do rise to the top at the finish line. Usually.

For picking a tournament winner, it's interesting. For picking a season champion, no way. Personally I wish we'd drop the BCS and go back to the old bowl alliance.

For picking a tournament winner, it's interesting. For picking a season champion, no way. Personally I wish we'd drop the BCS and go back to the old bowl alliance.

So then how would we have found out whether Auburn or Oregon should be the national champion?

Alabama or Texas?

Florida or Oklahoma?

USC or Oklahoma?

Texas or USC?

The BCS has given us answers to all of these questions. It doesn't answer every question, (ask Auburn) but it does a much better job than the old system.

I see both sides of the arguments re NCAA national championships in football and basketball. There's no perfect solution in my opinion. Hubby likes it the way is. I'm not sure. Is UConn the best team? My guess is not.

I need to look up how it's done in NCAA baseball. I'll bet it's not 1 loss and out.:idontno:

I like that a "lesser" team can get on a hot streak, or just plain lucky, or a favorable bracket, and win the tourney. It adds to the excitement and mystique.

That it's possible for 5 slow guys who can't jump or run very well but are determined and well coached can pull off the upset against a team of much better athletes.

I need to look up how it's done in NCAA baseball. I'll bet it's not 1 loss and out.:idontno:

It is basically three rounds of double elimination tournaments.

So then how would we have found out whether Auburn or Oregon should be the national champion?

Alabama or Texas?

Florida or Oklahoma?

USC or Oklahoma?

Texas or USC?

The BCS has given us answers to all of these questions. It doesn't answer every question, (ask Auburn) but it does a much better job than the old system.

Alabama-Texas would have played, UF-OK would have played. Auburn would have played TCU and split with Oregon if they got past Wisc. We would be less likely to have LSU with 2 losses as a ridiculous national champion in 2008. AU-OK would have played in 04 and split it with USC. The BCS is no better in determining a national champion than the bowl alliance was unless you take their word for it. That said, college football still produces the most legitimate champion for the sports leagues in the US.

My point was that playoffs produce asinine champions as we saw this week.