There's no reason why Mizzou shouldn't at least be in it since the game is in Arrowhead. Afterall, OU only beat KU by 14 and that was at home.

#1 Alabama has to play #4 Florida. I would imagine that if Florida knocks off Alabama they would jump to the national championship. But, with all the hype between OU and Texas, wouldn't it be nice if Bama lost to florida moving OU to #1 and Texas to #2 and playing for the National Championship?

I am a KU fan...............................................
 

but I think MU has the desire and talent to shit-can OU and put TX back in play. You can't blame the Tigers for possibly looking past the Jayhawks this weekend. It's human nature. GO TIGERS!

Oh definately. OU knocked MU out of National Champion contention last year, what better motivation that to return the favor this year to OU.

No. That would be stupid and unwarranted. We've already seen OU/UT on a neutral field. Florida is playing ball better or as good as anyone in the country and if they beat the undefeated, #1 team in the country, they DESERVE to play for the National Championship.

The problem is nobody likes Florida.

Personally they should just get rid of the whole north/south breakup of the conference and just send the two best teams in the entire conference to the Championship game.

This.

The reality is it doesn't matter that Skip is jealous of Florida. In beating Alabama, Florida would have victories over #1, #4, #6, #20 and #25 and would play for the National Championship.

It's pretty ridiculous that both teams playing for the Big 12 Championship both got beat by Texas.

Using that as the only argument would still not put Texas in the drivers seat. It's a three way tie. Using that as the only argument would put Texas Tech over Texas. It was decided on the FIFTH tie breaker. It was decided correctly. Go Sooners.

I see your point, but I think there's only one year where there's been a clear one and two, which was USC and Texas... every other year there's either more than two teams without any bad losses or fewer than one team without a bad loss.

In 2007, LSU lost to Arkansas, USC to Stanford, WVU to Pittsburgh, Georgia to South Carolina. In 2006, Florida, LSU, OSU, Wisconsin, Boise State, and Michigan didn't have any bad losses. In 2004, we ended up with 3 undefeated teams from BCS conferences, plus Utah.

Yeah, under the playoffs a team might be forgiven for a bad loss, but with today's parity and the fact that they are just college kids, it's sort of a given that there will be bad losses; and it's not guaranteed a bad loss will be forgiven.

A plus one is a step in the right direction, but IMO there are too many good teams to pick the two with the least number of bad losses or the team that was able to get through the Big 11 without a loss or whatever.

I would say 8, and don't forget that a playoff system doesn't eliminate bowls, it just makes for better BCS matchups. It's not until you go back to 2005 where there's a clear 1 vs. 2, and the year before that there were 3 undefeated BCS teams. Given the years below, I'd take the playoff every time.

2008:
Alabama: Undefeated
UF: Yeah, they have one bad loss in September, but they can obviously play with anyone in the country, and they have a few quality wins.
OU: No bad losses, quality wins.
Texas: No bad losses, quality wins.
USC: One bad loss in September
Texas Tech: One bad loss to a very good team, but a few quality wins.
Utah: Undefeated
Boise State: Undefeated

Why a playoff works: Everyone on the list has <2 regular season losses, and everyone except for Ball State has 2+ losses.
Issues: USC is the only team on the list that doesn't really have a quality win (even though they smacked OSU around) AND has a bad loss, and Ball State is left out.

Why the BCS works: The SEC and Big 12 Championships act as a playoff.
Issues: Look at all the good teams! There are a lot of questions regarding the B12 South, and USC is right there. Outside of the possible SEC/B12 NC, the matchups are going to SUCK... Penn State vs USC and the ACC versus perhaps Texas, instead of playoff matchups like USC vs the SEC runner-up or an OU/BSU rematch.

2007:
LSU: One bad loss, but a few quality wins.
Georgia: One bad loss, and didn't lose after 10/6.
USC: One bad loss, a couple of quality wins.
Mizzou: Beat Texas Tech and Illinois, lost to OU twice.
WV: One bad loss, a couple of iffy-quality wins.
Kansas: One loss by 8 points to the mighty Mizzou Tigers (see what I did there?)
OU: A couple of bad losses, and a couple of quality wins.
OSU: A couple of iffy-quality wins, one bad loss

Why a playoff works: Everyone needed a second chance to prove themselves, and all teams left out had 2+ losses.
Issues: The only question is between VTech and a second or third B12 team. Mizzou might get screwed.

Why the BCS works: Are you kidding? Did anyone really deserve to be in the NC game?
Issues: LSU, Mizzou, WVU, Kansas, and OSU lost their last game. There was only one 1-loss team, and they didn't have a quality win. Mizzou got screwed.

2006:
UF: A few quality wins, no bad losses.
OSU: A couple of quality wins, no bad losses.
LSU: A couple of quality wins, no bad losses.
USC: A couple of bad losses.
Boise State: Undefeated.
Louisville: A couple of quality wins, one bad loss.
Auburn: A couple of quality wins, a couple of bad losses.
Michigan: One quality win.

Why a playoff works: UF, OSU, and LSU were the best 3, and in hindsight BSU was for real.
Issues: None, really. Everyone on the outside had 2+ losses, and Wisconsin lost to Michigan.

Why the BCS works: There was a pretty clear 1 vs 2, and OSU/Michigan acted as a playoff.
Issues: OSU benefited from playing in the Big 11; LSU had no bad losses and more quality wins. BSU went undefeated.

So does Harris.

College football is my favorite sport but its credibility took another hit today:shake: