I am so sick and tired of hearing about a playoff system in Division 1-A College Football. I read the article, "A Vote for USC Is a Vote for Change", by Lee Russakoff this afternoon, and I have finally boiled over.
So I have decided to respond to Mr. Russakoff and every other media member and fan out there.
Dear media members in favor of a playoff in college football,
You really need to stop all your talking about a playoff system. I realize the BCS is not a perfect system, but no system we ever come up with will ever be good enough for you.
This is because you will be unhappy unless the two teams you WANT to see playing for a national championship actually end up in the title game.
Your minds are all biased. Why do you think a team like Utah that went 13-0, beat an Alabama team that ALL of you voted the No. 1 team in the country for almost half the season, and will still probably not win any sort of championship?
This is because you didn't think they were good enough. I realize computers play a factor in determining the best team in the country, but two-thirds of the BCS formula is the human polls.
Don't even try and tell me I just made a reason for us to have a playoff, either. I didn't see Utah anywhere near the top of your precious and pretty much meaningless AP Poll.
Let’s face the facts here, folks. The only reason the AP Poll is around is because every sportswriter in America would be on strike if we got rid of it.
Ok, now it's time to look at your proposed solution to the BCS "problem."
The favorite amongst writers, ESPN analysts, fans, and even President Obama seems to be an eight-team playoff.
The top eight teams in the BCS are seeded by their ranking and will play on the sites of the four current BCS bowl games. They all seem to agree this is the only way to find a consensus No. 1 team.
Why do we need a system so everyone can agree on a champion? This system allows fans everywhere to believe they have the best team in the country.
Besides, more often than not, the hotter team ends up winning a playoff and not necessarily the best team.
Look at the NFL playoffs last year. Do the majority of you really think the New York Giants were really better then the undefeated New England Patriots?
Also, do you really think the best team in college basketball wins the NCAA tournament every year? No, there are so many teams and so many upsets that the higher seeds don't even make the Final Four.
86 comments Last one added 5 months ago — Leave a Comment
Iceman 6 months ago
This is good stuff Zach, I agree. While I don't think the bcs is perfect, It is still much better than a playoff. I will take a great regular season and a few good bowl games over a crappy regular season and 2 good playoff games. Playoffs is one of many reasons why the nfl regular season is so boring and useless, dont turn my saturday games into sunday sleepers.
Edit Comment Cancel
Greg Cooksey 6 months ago
iceman
I have a heck of a lot more fun watching football on sauterday then on sunday ( especially since I live in Cleveland lol) but I am not so sure that some of the bowl games being played these days are any better then some of the "sunday sleepers".
I love bowl season but the past few years it has been alarmingly rediculous, it is also sad because it seems like bowl season is more about corporate sponsers making a ton of money then it is about putting teams who truely deserve to be in a bowl game in one. This past bowl season was not all that exciting anyway, atleast I know that I was disapointed with it.
I say cut down on some of them and only play the ones that truely make sense to play.
Edit Comment Cancel
Christopher Whalen 6 months ago
Iceman,
How many games do you watch a year of the NFL? If you see enough, you can see they aren't "Sunday Sleepers" to the majority of its fans. There is a reason the NFL is No. 1 in ratings and merchandise in professional sports in North America, the excitement of many of its games.
Please tell me how any of the games played last weekend were "Sunday Sleepers"? Even the Dolphins-Ravens game was not decided until the fourth quarter.
Edit Comment Cancel
Greg Cooksey 6 months ago
Zach
This is a good artical and you make some good points. However I have on porblem.You say that this system is designed so that schools would stop scheduling weak non-confrence opponets. If that is so then why is it still happending? Florida had Citidal on thier schedule this year, Texas played both Rice and Florida Atlantic, Ohio State played Youngstown State for the second year in a row. It may be desingned that way, but what it was supposed to stop is still happening.
Edit Comment Cancel
Zach Dirlam 6 months ago
but it isnt happening as often as it once was
Edit Comment Cancel
mindi green 6 months ago
Zach--I agree with everything you said!! No matter what kinda play-off system there was people would bitch and moan!! And pres-elect Obama needs to worry more about the econmy and the middle east than he does College Gameday or a new play-off system!!
Edit Comment Cancel
Zach Dirlam 6 months ago
im glad you agree. The main reason there is even a debate is b/c USC keeps stubbing their toe in an easy Pac 10 game
Edit Comment Cancel
Steve Cottrel 6 months ago
Okay. Fine.
But at least the BCS should divide up the money more evenly. How can it be justified to have Cincinnati and VA Tech split $36 million and TCU and Boise State split $1.5 million.
It isn't about "scheduling" "fairness" or even about 'finding a national champion." It all about keeping and controlling the money.
Edit Comment Cancel
Jesse Long 6 months ago
I disagree very strongly with the point you are trying to make in this article. You are saing that human conjecture in the polls and the mystical formulas that are supposed to punish weak scheduling (but don't, referr to Greg's comment above) are better indicators of which teams are the best then actually letting the teams play one another? As you said, almost every other sport, from high school to professional, have playoff games, not polls...
"Also, do you really think the best team in college basketball wins the NCAA tournament every year? No, there are so many teams and so many upsets that the higher seeds don't even make the Final Four. "
Obviously these upsets often occure because faulty POLLING places teams at a higher seed then they truly deserve and "under dogs" then beat them to proove they are the better team in the only way that matters in sports, by playing the game!!!
Edit Comment Cancel
Brad Frank 6 months ago
Great article.
College football does not need a playoff system because it will create no fewer problems than the BCS currently has. The beauty of college football is the importance of the regular season. In no other sport does the course of the regular season have so much impact on the placement of teams in postseason play.
In college football, the regular season is a tournament, a playoff, if you will.
Though the college football regular season is not a true playoff in the sense that it eliminates a team that loses. But the loss does severely hinder the chances of a favorable matchup in the postseason.
What a great concept. Again, like you argued, no need for a playoff in college football.
Edit Comment Cancel
Zach Dirlam 6 months ago
im glad someone understands what i am getting at here.
Edit Comment Cancel
Christopher Whalen 6 months ago
It's ironic that ESPN has a slew of analysts who want to see a playoff who often ignite the debate with any college coach that will listen, yet ESPN has a television deal with the BCS that goes until 2014. You do not see the network saying how they would be willing to renegotiate that deal in order for a playoff to take place. They want all the millions promised to them, then the playoff format.
Edit Comment Cancel
Robb Humphrey 6 months ago
Okay enough is enough
Many do not know what I am working on, but I can assure you that if more people thought like you, my project I have spont countless hours on would be for NAUGHT! There is no way that you can say a playoff would not make things better. True, everyone talks about a 8 seed, but that IS impossible.
However, I will let you in on a little secret before I completely let the rhetorical cat out of the bag (well at least I thought it was rhetorical...sorry puddytat) You ready???
...its about the money... No duh, right?
No one will change ANYTHING unless we change the way things are happening. The reason that these big schools play low level schools is to aid the other school and to promote wins before the harsh schedule. The NFL has "warm-up" games which give the players opportunities to test out old injuries, skillsets, and pick a starter for a position versus what we have now. I say being as the team in there starting in practice three or four weeks early, you start early. They don't need to be stadium fillers, just warmup games. No, don't tell me that scout teams can go play, because you don't get PAID with a scout team. Every school in my proposal will be encouraged (mandated) to play 2 offset teams every beginning of the season. Nowsee, you made me let some of the fur out of the bag as well, but long story short, don't criticize me BEFORE I produce the damn thing.
I'm THIS close. Before you generalize your fellow writers, look around. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has been using his time, effort, and impeccable writing skills (wink!) to promote a new look for 2010 in FBS.
Robb
Edit Comment Cancel
Zach Dirlam 6 months ago
you cant compare NFL to college football. The players in the NFL are getting paid to play football and niothing else. In college, athletes have classes and exams and practices to deal with every day. It is a tough burden that is put on these kids and adding more games to the year will only add to this burden and eventually the true meaning of the word "student-athlete" will be lost.
Edit Comment Cancel
12 6 months ago
There are four teams that have a right to claim they are the best in my opinion...Utah, Florida, Texas, and USC. It would have been great to see these four play it off on the field instead of in the media. I don't have the answer to a playoff system that would satisfy everyone, and no one else does either, but surely some form of a playoff would be better than than leaving us undecided as we are now.
Edit Comment Cancel
Zach Dirlam 6 months ago
it is being decided on the field. Utah being left out is a result of human element. They were ranked highly in the computers, but the human polls kept them down in the rankings. USC stumbled against an unranked Oregon St. team. Florida went on to demolish all challengers after a loss to an Ole Miss team that we found out was very underrated for most of the year. The one team that could have a gripe is Texas, but hey if they wouldn't have dropped that pick against TTU then they wouldnt have lost and there would be no need for this conversation. It's being decided on the field already. Florida is the righrful champion.
Edit Comment Cancel
12 6 months ago
Quote"The one team that could have a gripe is Texas"
I disagree, but even if only one team has a gripe, that's one team too many. Sorry. but your arguement is weak. The BCS is not the answer. Only a playoff will decide the true champion. Looks like you're overwhelmingly in the minority, not only here but in all of the college football world. If the fans were to vote on it, a playoff would win hands down.
Edit Comment Cancel
Zach Dirlam 6 months ago
somebody is always gonna gripe. A playoff wont stop anyone from complaining. Someone is always left out. There is no perfect system and a playoff will not change anything for college football.
Edit Comment Cancel
12 6 months ago
But it would be better than what we have now.
Edit Comment Cancel
Zach Dirlam 6 months ago
We would have the same conflicts we have now. It will fix absolutely nothing.
Edit Comment Cancel
78Lion 6 months ago
When the media controls the story for the majority of the year, as they did with the oral fixation on the Big 12 South, something must be done. I am not a fan of a playoff as I don't believe it solves the fundamental problems. Media who have no idea who they are talking about, coaches who have no idea who they are voting for, and computer polls that get fixed every year they disagree with humans.
With a playoff the teams will still be decided by these inaccurate tools. It would be very easy to make a case that USC is the best team in the country. That point, IMHO is not debatable. However, the media with its fixation on the Big 12 south (who went 1-3 in bowls) made sure that USC was not included. I'm not a fan of using bowls to determine conference strength as I believe the individual matchups in the bowl games favor certain conferences. However, the media whipped up the Big 12 South so much that any of the big 3 (Texas, Oklahoma and Texas Tech) would have gotten into the big game depending on how the cards fell. Two of the three lost their bowl game and the other needed a last drive to beat BCS whipping boy Ohio State. (By the way, Oklahoma as just lost its 4th straight BCS bowl game).
Media controls the message and gets what it wants because ignorance is voting.
Edit Comment Cancel
Mike Muratore 6 months ago
While I am a fan of the tradition of the bowls, I ditest the BCS. It is a joke. It's still driven by who's bringing the most revenue. Otherwise there is no way OSU gets in this year... This year also showed why the system is flawed... between Utah, Florida, Oklahoma, Texas, and USC you had 5 teams that had a legitimate claim to why they should be #1. Even after the bowls, only Oklahoma is crossed off that list.
Plus, the argument that extending the season is bad for the kids wears thinner and thinner every year that they hold the championship game on January 9th.
You could still have a semi-playoff and use the BCS games...
A week or two after the Conference championship games, play the round one games. This year, seed the BCS conference winners with a chance at a title, Florida, USC, Oklahoma, Penn State, and invite other strong teams that may have a claim- this year 1 or 0 losses with a strong schedule- Texas, Alabama, Utah, and Biose State. Seed them 1-8:
1. Florida
2. Oklahoma
3. Texas
4. USC
5. Utah
6. Alabama
7. Penn State
8. Boise State
and set up campus-site home games for the top 4 seeds-
Boise State @ Florida
Penn State @ Oklahoma
Alabama @ Texas
Utah @ USC
You'll emerge with four winners... for argument's sake, let's say Florida, Oklahoma, Texas, and USC
On January 1, you bring back Cincinatti and Virginia Tech and let them into a BCS game, and maybe you still bring in Ohio State and Utah...
Use the current BCS games, two being the "playoff" and two being traditional conference v. at-large bowls.
This year, the Orange site had the championship, so use the Fiesta and Sugar bowls as the semi-final games...
Fiesta: Florida v. Oklahoma
Sugar: USC v. Texas
Rose: Penn St. v. Utah
Orange: Cin v. VT
On Jan 9 the winners of the Fiesta and Sugar play at Glendale for the title.
It doesn't drastically chance what we have, keeps the bowl structure, and gives a playoff.
Plus it could add an on-campus playoff... because the most exciting college football is STILL on campus.
Sorry for the long post... but the BCS is broken. There needs to be SOME fix.
Edit Comment Cancel
Zach Dirlam 6 months ago
and you know what? every team having a claim they are the best is what makes college football so great.
Edit Comment Cancel
aaron hacker 6 months ago
Zach, just stop. Your argument is weak. People play sports to win. You sound like a soccer dad trying to explain to his kids why they should have fun and not care they got snubbed because Ohio State brings more fans and money to the promoter's pockets. You are naive if you think college football is great because every team thinks they are good. That just doesn't make ANY sense whatsoever. Even people against a playoff don't claim that one of the benefits of college football is the mass confusion on the clear winner.
You realize that Notre Dame gets 1.5 million dollars whether they get into the BCS or not? Meanwhile, a team that CLEARLY should have been in a BCS game ahead of OSU (Boise State was #9 in the BCS rankings, ahead of OSU) loses out on $18 million and instead goes to the Poinsetta bowl and gets $750,000. Why don't you go explain to Boise State why they shouldn't be upset about the BCS failing?
Edit Comment Cancel
Zach Dirlam 6 months ago
i was simply saying that this is part of what makes college football great. everyone can politic for their team and say they're the best, but two teams get a chance to prove it. Boise sure did deserve that BCS bid huh? If they couldn't beat TCU then they would not have been in the game with Texas for as long as OSU was. It isnt mass confusion about who the winner is unless you listen to ESPN. Look at the schedules and quality opponents. UF and OU had the most. UT got left out, but it was the Big 12's tiebreaker that left them out not the BCS. The money payouts arent going to change much no matter what system you put in place. Utah this year has established the so called "lower tier" conferences as contenders. Things are beginning to change already. A playoff is not the answer.
Edit Comment Cancel
Gob Bluth 6 months ago
So being a hot team at the end of the season does not make you the BETTER team? Give me a break. Why have playoffs in any sport then, Einstein. It is the uncertainty and excitement of the playoffs that drives ratings and interest. Football should have a playoff, like the NFL, MLB, NBA, NCAA Div-2, NHL, etc.. and not be scored like figure skating or gymnastics. I am sure every Florida fan agrees with this article, but non-fans of either team could have not cared less about this game, or any of the BCS games.
Edit Comment Cancel
aaron hacker 6 months ago
Zach, you're an idiot. If playoffs were such an imperfect system they wouldn't be used in EVERY OTHER SPORT ON THE FACE OF THE PLANET. In the immortal words of Winnie the Pooh: "Now it's time to think think think"
Have fun watching your meaningless post season games. I loathe college football, and not because my team "got left out." Because I am a fan of March Madness and the Cinderellas of the world. Unlike you, I enjoy DRAMA and UNCERTAINTY in my life. Every year, it is certain that a BCS National Championship game will be held that will pit two BCS conference teams against each other. However, who's to say that with a playoff, Utah doesn't run the table? You can't say they wouldn't. If you could, you'd be an idiot (and I guess you are?). You say moronic statements like "the hottest teams win - just look at the Patriots." That's about the dumbest thing I've ever heard (and I'm a Buffalo Bills fan - see Scott Norwood). You really think any of the teams that Davidson played last year, or Bradley or George Mason played thought "man, I wish those guys weren't so hot right now, we're totally better than them. Not fair!!"
No, because they understand sport. They understand that a playoff means it's win or go home. They don't go into the game thinking "boy, we're good, but they're hot."
Learn something about competing and then come back and rewrite this article. Playoff systems are perfect because there will ALWAYS be the chance that Cinderella shocks the world. The BCS does not and never will give that chance.
Edit Comment Cancel
Zach Dirlam 6 months ago
and you know what? college football is unique and great because it doesnt have a playoff. It gives the people a voice and then it leaves the margin for error to the computers. A playoff will not solve any of the debates we have going on right now. Someone will always be left out and someone will always complain that they are the best team that just didnt get their shot.
Edit Comment Cancel
aaron hacker 6 months ago
The debates would be much quieter with 16 teams getting a shot - see New England Patriots not getting in over San Diego this year. Hmmm, I thought San Diego didn't deserve to even be in the playoffs?? And they beat the Colts?? MAN! that's like an upset of Cinderella proportions!! nooooo, that's so BORING and UN-UNIQUE.
Seriously, you know you are running out of logic when you start saying things like "College football is unique and great because it doesn't have a playoff" really? does that make it better? I wouldn't think so.
If it was so unique and great, wouldn't other sports start to capitalize on the process and institute some sort of system like the BCS??
MLB, NFL, NBA, NCAA Soccer, Lacrosse, Baseball, Softball - They're all on the BCS system in the next 10 years!!! Riiiiiiight.. Unique and GREAT, huh? I doubt it.
Edit Comment Cancel
Zach Dirlam 6 months ago
It doesnt matter how quiet the debate is there still is going to be someone complaining. But you see those kind of things every week of the college football season. It is why the regular season is like a big tournament or a playoff as you would refer to it. Why should college football conform to everyone else's system of determining a champion? Why can't they crown a champion with a voting system? You know why the NFL and MLB and NHL dont have s system like this ? The coaches or media members dont get to vote on who's the best. The fact is these guys on ESPN won't shut up until they can decide who gets to play for a national title instead of a computer that is 1/3 of the BCS equation.
Edit Comment Cancel
Mike Muratore 6 months ago
But Zach, the regular season, as exciting as it may be... is not anywhere remotely like a playoff... because the conferences don't play each other. You can't compare an 11-1 team from the Big 12 to an 11-1 team from the Big 10 to an 11-1 team from the SEC. They are not all equal. Or what about Utah? They won all their games. By your definition, the "regular season as tournament" idea, shouldn't Utah have been in the championship game? Weren't they the best team? And if not, doesn't it invalidate your entire argument?
College football is great... but can be greater with a playoff to crown a champion. Not a 64 team tourny, but an 8ish team playoff... or even a plus 1... ANYTHING to better solve this mess.
Edit Comment Cancel
Zach Dirlam 6 months ago
And because the conferences dont play each other is part of the reason we have the computer rankings.
Edit Comment Cancel
Chris Schei 6 months ago
This article is so stupid. He even uses the old BS "regular season would be boring" excuse. Memo to Zack- ALL EXCUSES ARE USED TO AVOID THE TRUTH ABOUT THE BCS- IT"S ALL ABOUT MONEY.
So, you're reasons are null and void.
How about we do this- the top two teams in the RPI standings play for the championship in college basketball. The next 28 teams in the RPI standings play meaningless exhibition games, with both schools getting a share of the tv revenue money. Should we do that?
NOOOOOOOOOOOO! Because that would be the biggest sham on the face of the earth. No, wait, the second biggest sham, since THAT IS WHAT THE BCS IS. That's how they do it, only that is college basketballs' equivalent.
And you know what? teams that lose in the NCAA tournament wont win the championship because they lost in the tournament. So, instead of telling a National championship worthy team "sorry, no room for you," there are 65 teams that have a chance to win 6 games in a row. if you lose, you're out.
I'm so sick of idiots defending the BCS. Sick of it. People that try to defend the BCS are the biggest hypocrites on the face of the earth. The BCS isnt perfect, but a playoff would be no better. Of course a playoff would be no better, because there wouldnt be as much MONEY involved, beacuse THAT IS THE SOLE REASON FOR THE BCS, IS MAKING AS MUCH MONEY AS POSSIBLE. THEY DO NOT GIVE A CRAP ABOUT THE BEST TEAM WINNING. THEY CARE ABOUT MONEY AND MONEY ONLY.
Edit Comment Cancel
aaron hacker 6 months ago
Don't forget, too, that there's a couple simple retorts to the "regular season wouldn't matter" statement:
A) Um, Yes it would?
B) The post season doesn't matter now, so which is worse?
Edit Comment Cancel
Zach Dirlam 6 months ago
when did i ever say any of that in my article? i actually didnt.
Edit Comment Cancel
Matt H 6 months ago
Zach, the AP Poll actually does matter. It's been in existence since 1936 and has crowned a National Champion every single year. The AP Poll is so respected, that when the BCS picked LSU to be the 2003 National Champions and the AP Poll picked USC to be the National Champions, a split title was awarded! The AP Poll most definitely matters, sir.
And yes, Utah finished the season ranked number 2 in the AP Poll, which is pretty much at the top. And has been in the top 25 all season. Do your research.
1 Star for poor research, bad arguments, and an absolute lack of understanding in how the system works.
Edit Comment Cancel
Zach Dirlam 6 months ago
dude i know the AP poll exists, but in reality would it really matter if it went away? That was the point i was making. It's there because if it wasnt all the media members would be up in arms because they didnt get a say in who the best team was. Also this was written before the release of the final AP poll so i had no idea Utah would come out #2, but they were not ranked that high until the Sugar Bowl even with a strong resume the whole year. I did my research son.
Edit Comment Cancel
Nate Dunn 6 months ago
The regular season would not be boring because teams would be fighting to get into the playoffs. Even if you played all the bowl games like it is now and then take the final 4 teams in the AP or BCS rankings (Florida, Utah, USC, and Texas) to play 3 more games, that would be better than it is now. At least the spot would be earned on the field.
Edit Comment Cancel
Zach Dirlam 6 months ago
3 more games is the issue. People continue to raise the expectations of these STUDENT athletes. They have a tough enough burden to bare already.
Edit Comment Cancel
Nate Dunn 6 months ago
Yeah, I hear ya but it would only be 4 teams as opposed to many involved in a long playoff system. I would be for making the regular season a bit shorter and then having each conference champion go into a playoff. That would be cool. I realize there are only 12 FBS conferences (including independents) which is an issue. Maybe the top 4 teams from the FCS could be invited or something. Just a thought.
Edit Comment Cancel
aaron hacker 6 months ago
You obviously have never been a student athlete in college if you think they're "burdened." GIVE ME A BREAK. Have you even ever been in a class with one of them? I doubt that also. They are far from burdened.
Edit Comment Cancel
Zach Dirlam 6 months ago
but still with your system then No.5 gets left out and No.6 would complain because they're left out. The fact is someone will always complain no matter what system we come up with. A 4 team playoff will solve nothing.
Edit Comment Cancel
Nate Dunn 6 months ago
It's better than nothing at all. At least there is some sort of competition for it. No matter how many teams go to a playoff, someone has to be left out. There has to be a cut-off at some point. That's just life. I would be more satisfied if the 4 "best" teams played for the top spot.
Edit Comment Cancel
Zach Dirlam 6 months ago
But seriously, the complaint is, well No. 4 could beat No.1 or No.5 could beat No.2 or No.2 couldnt beat No.3 or No.6. I mean i really do understand what you are saying Nate. I respect everyones opinion about a playoff. I just don't see this resoliving ANY of the problems everyone says this will.
Edit Comment Cancel
Bob Fowler 6 months ago
Just to clarify, you do know that college football does have a playoff --- in every division EXCEPT Div 1A (or whatever they call it now)? So it seems to me that if a playoff is good enough for Div 1AA, 2, and 3 it should be good enough for the big boys.
Basically, every argument against a D-1A football playoff can be refuted with one answer: "What about the NCAA basketball tournament?"
As far as complaining about being left out, sure somebody's going to get left out. But it seems to me that it's a whole lot easier to be sure you at least picked the top 8 or top 16 instead of the top 2. You had OK and FL in the BCS title game, but there were others (AL, USC, Utah) that had a legitimate shot at winning.
Then there's the idea of "Well, the best team doesn't always win the NCAA BB tournament". Nobody ever said that the best team always wins in any tournament from Jr. high to the pros. But at least, in a playoff, the decision is made on the field.
And one final note: If anybody thinks a D-1A football playoff wouldn't make gobs of money, you need to think again.
Edit Comment Cancel
Zach Dirlam 6 months ago
you know what it's good enough for 1AA, 2 and 3 because no one really cares about those divisions. Quick name me the champion of each of those subdivisions this year. You probably cant without looking it up. The regular season is like a big tournament now. Win your games and you will play for a title, but if you lose then we'll have to see how you stack up to the other teams which is where computer rankings come in. A playoff will not stop the arguing. Stop listening to idiots like Mark May who think the only way to find the best team is through a playoff.
Edit Comment Cancel
aaron hacker 6 months ago
Zach, do you even really watch college football? Are you an ESPN executive in disguise?? Are you worried that your 9 bowl games will be axed if there were to be a playoff??
There's no way you're a college student, that's for sure. Every college kid in the country thinks a playoff system would be sweet. I'm guessing you're like a throwback to the days of Notre Dame winning championships every year, even though the consensus says they aren't #1 (see 1970ish)...
Edit Comment Cancel
Zach Dirlam 6 months ago
i am an avid college football fan so dont even try to bring that in to question. No i am not a college student. But seriously why do you have a problem with the BCS? How does it not give us a match up of the two best teams? Take a look at the losses OU and UF had. OU lost to No.1 texas by 10. UF lost to an Ole Miss team that won 9 games and killed TTU in the Cotton Bowl. USC lost to Oregon St. Utah put together a great resume and is the only team that should have any kind of complaint right now. Texas lost to an overrated TTU team on the last play. Like i said before, Texas being left out is the fault of the Big 12's tiebreaker and cannot be used as a strike against the BCS. The BCS is a perfect mix of the human polls and non biased computer rankings.
Edit Comment Cancel
aaron hacker 6 months ago
Being a fan of SPORT, I dont want a matchup of the "two best teams." I want a playoff to determine the best team IN THE NATION (which is what the BCS is claiming to do - crown a national champion). You, on the other hand, would rather enjoy watching boring meaningless regular season games (yes, they are meaningless when OSU gets into a BCS game ahead of deserving smaller schools) and claim that the BCS gives us the best "matchup." This is where you don't understand what sport should be about. From what I can tell, you are a Michigan fan. Which may explain it, since you really don't have much invested in the BCS system as of late. Just wait until you get snubbed for the supposed national championship game. We'll see if you'll be happy to watch another team play in the "title game" then, or if you'd prefer a playoff.
Edit Comment Cancel
Zach Dirlam 6 months ago
it happened to Michigan 2 years ago. The voters decided Florida was better then UM, and the computers said that as well. Obviously they turned out right b/c Florida beat OSU in the Champ. and Michigan got trounced in the Rose Bowl. Look, USC is the perfect example of my point. They think they can schedule one quality non conference game, lose to a crappy Pac 10 team, dominate the rest of the year against the same weak schedule and then get into the title game. It doesnt work like that. Win your games and you will get to the title game.
Edit Comment Cancel
aaron hacker 6 months ago
GO READ:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/04/sports/ncaafootball/04score.html?em
Edit Comment Cancel
Mike Muratore 6 months ago
Zach, I'll give you credit for posting the article... but man you're getting hammered here.
They could easily play a tournament with the top 8 teams and include the bowls, and have the regular season matter just as much as it does now, AND crown a true champion, AND do it all in the same time frame that they do it now.
The ONLY and I mean ONLY is because of the TV and advertising revenue generated by the BCS series of games.
All other reasons are total crap.
REAL student athletes, in DII, DIII, and FCS that actually go to class and aren't all on free rides somehow manage to handle the enormous strain of a playoff while maintaining class, and manage not to burn out or die...
Plus the fact that the lesser flight of Division I college football is called the "football CHAMPIONSHIP subdivision" and the so-called top tier is the "football BOWL division"... isn't that admitting that it is horse crap right there?
I don't see how you can believe that this system is fine and gives us the two best teams year in and year out. You can't think that USC and Utah deserved a shot... and probably Texas as well!
Wow.
Edit Comment Cancel
Zach Dirlam 6 months ago
Look, there is a big difference with the time put in for practices and stuff like that at levels like 1AA, D2, and D3, otherwise there would be no difference. Why do you think there are seperate divisions? Second, if you're trying to say USC deserved a shot you're not going to convince me. They stubbed their toes on another unranked Pac 10 opponent yet again and then played a weak schedule to close the year. Like i mentioned in the article Texas got left out b.c of the big 12's tiebreaker no the BCS. Utah had only played 2 ranked teams all season until Alabama. UF's and OU's resumes were better than Utah's going into that final week and that is why Utah got left out. The Utes had one quality win out of conference and that was Oregon St. They need to go out of conference and score a quality win if they want a shot at a title.
Edit Comment Cancel
Mike Muratore 6 months ago
You're saying that they don't put as much time in at the DIII level? Tell that to coach Keheres at Mount Union... they put in every bit the hours that a DI staff puts in. There is actually no difference in how hard the kids work... and that isn't the reason AT ALL for the division separation.
It has everything to do with # of scholarships (DII and DIII give no scholarships for athletics), size of program, and size of school. It has nothing at all to do with the amount of work that they put in.
As for the rest of your argument...
None of those teams play each other... how can you say one loss for USC to a PAC-10 team should hurt them more than Texas's loss to Texas Tech, or Oklahoma's loss to Texas who lost to Texas Tech who got torched by Old Miss who Alabama crushed, and Utah demolished Alabama...
Why can't you see why this is a mess. You can't say that one of these teams is better than each other, because there is no frame of reference. When you do start digging and look at common opponents... it REALLY gets murky.
By that logic, Penn State, who rolled Oregon State, should have been better than USC who LOST to Oregon State. But you put them on the same field, and USC ran over them.
And for the thought that "no matter where you cut it off someone will feel robbed..."
That is true. But still, playing off between 8 teams leaves LOTS more satisfaction than picking two and calling them the best based on ratings.
Edit Comment Cancel
J J 6 months ago
Zach,
The main argument for a playoff system is the unsatisfying matchups produced by the BCS polls and computers. The voters selected overrated teams that then performed very poorly in the title game. Some examples include: Nebraska in 2001, Oklahoma in 2003, Ohio State in 2006, Ohio State in 2007, Oklahoma in 2008. That's basically half of all the BCS championship games ever played. In more years than not, there is a 3rd team that has a good claim to being in the championship game.
Would an all out playoff be a good thing? They do it in I-AA, but maybe a 4- or 8- team playoff would be best. Regardless of what format is chosen, the fact is most of us would like to see the best 2 teams play each other and resolve the trash talk on the field. Utah was undefeated and won decisively against a highly rated SEC opponent. USC lost to unranked Oregon State at OSU, but Florida lost to unranked Ole Miss at home. Oregon State and Ole Miss both ended up ranked at the end of the season. Texas beat Oklahoma by 10 points, the same margin of victory that Florida won by.
Finally, the Giants were better than the Patriots. They proved it by winning their playoff games against other elite teams and by beating the Patriots in a real championship game.
Edit Comment Cancel
Zach Dirlam 6 months ago
Your argument about an "unsatisfying matchup" is garbage. You are right about Nebraska in '01, but they changed the system back in 04 and it has been better since then. OSU was the only other undefeated team outside of Boise St. in 06 so you cant say they shouldnt have been there. In 07 they backed in, but USC would have been in if they would have beaten lowly UCLA. So essentially that was SC's semifinal and they lost. This year's game was a good one. Yes you can argue that Texas should have been their, but again that was the Big 12's tiebreaker not the BCS. OU and UF had the two best resumes out of anyone in the country and deserved to play for a title.
Edit Comment Cancel
78Lion 6 months ago
Zach,
You wrote "The BCS is a perfect mix of the human polls and non biased computer rankings."
I can argue that the BCS has NEVER gotten it right unless there were two undefeated teams at the end of the season.
This year USC was the best team in the country, IMHO. Heavy marketing by ESPN of the Big 12 South and a lack of mention of USC created a poll that leaves USC out.
Last year, it took the massaging of "We are undefeated in regulation" and the marketing of CBS to bring LSU to the big game
2006 - media manipulation pushed Florida ahead of Michigan because they don't want a rematch in the big game
2005 - WOW they got it right - Two undefeated teams Texas and USC
2004 - Three undefeated teams - can't get it right.
2003 - split national championship with LSU winning the "Championship game and USC getting the AP
2002 - WOW they got it right - Two undefeated teams in Ohio State and Miami
2001 - BCS rewards us with Nebraska after their humiliating defeat in the Big 12 championship - They in turn show us they had no place in the championship game
2000 - FSU is put into the game over Miami who beat them earlier in the year.
1999 - WOW - two undefeated teams - FSU and Virginia Tech
1998 - without the Rose bowl tie in OSU is left out of the championship game - thus the tie in that now exists.
MEDIA DRIVEN CHAMPIONSHIPS MUST END.
Edit Comment Cancel
Zach Dirlam 6 months ago
They changed the system back in 04 so anything before that is irrelevant to me. Would everyone please shut up about USC. They lost to an unranked Pac 10 opponent and then played a weak schedule to finish the year. Don't tell me there was no attention payed to USC because everytime you turn on sportscenter somebody complains about USC not bein ranked high enough and they're the best. The 06 argument is invalid b/c Florida beat OSU in the big game and UM had their shot and lost. The 07 argument is also invalid b/c LSU went on to win that game as well. Do some research and come back with a different argument b/c this one is garbage.
Edit Comment Cancel
aaron hacker 6 months ago
Seriously, I think we should all just stop commenting on this ridiculous article. He doesn't have a leg to stand on and says things that even the proponents of the BCS don't claim: "The BCS is a perfect mix of the human polls and non biased computer rankings."
Are you kidding me??? I, for one, am not going to waste any more of my time with this banter. The kid, respectfully, has no idea what he is talking about. End of story. Whether you agree with the BCS or not, he doesn't have any meaningful points, and answers factual comments with opinion. There is no changing his opinion or view, because he will always be right.
Edit Comment Cancel
78Lion 6 months ago
The changes made in 04 were trivial in the nature of the selection process. They replace the AP with a bunch of misfits and change the computers because they failed to match the human polls. Still, idiots who don't watch games voting based on 30 second sound clips from the media. Similar to our presidential elections these days, by I digress. Prior to 04 is no different and yet again, given the choice, the BCS hasn't gotten it right yet.
USC lost to a similar team as Florida and on the road not at home. UCS won the rest of their games against a conference that ultimately went undefeated in bowl games this year. Florida played a tough schedule as well. The point is not that Florida and USC didn't. It's Oklahoma that didn't belong. The crap you hear from ESPN about USC not getting love started after the final BCS poll. Sure, now they are complaining about USC not getting into the big fame. Easy way to deflect the fact that they caused it with their pimping of a vastly over rated Big 12 South (1-3 in bowl games)
The fact that Florida and LSU won the championship game doesn't take away from the fact the media influenced who got there. Both teams beat Ohio State who plays in a weak conference with one or two other quality teams. Yet, in the current climate, undefeated big football school gets in. Don't doubt that another school put in over the media hyped LSU and Florida would have beaten them as well. Please don't try to defend the current situation by claiming they get it right. Give an choice they never have.
Edit Comment Cancel
Zach Dirlam 6 months ago
It doesnt matter. All you guys are arguing about Utah being undefeated and not playing for a title and having no reason why they should not be there. So if that holds true then OSU had no reason to NOT be there in 06. Also Ohio St. was the #1 team in both those games. If the other teams would have taken care of their business the last 2 weeks of the year they wouldnt have been there. If teams would win their games they would get in.
Edit Comment Cancel
Zach Dirlam 6 months ago
It doesnt matter. All you guys are arguing about Utah being undefeated and not playing for a title and having no reason why they should not be there. So if that holds true then OSU had no reason to NOT be there in 06. Also Ohio St. was the #1 team in both those games. If the other teams would have taken care of their business the last 2 weeks of the year they wouldnt have been there. If teams would win their games they would get in.
Edit Comment Cancel
78Lion 6 months ago
Yet Nebraska didn't take care of business in their championship game and were still voted in. You are talking in circles and getting confused. By the way, where did I mention Utah anywhere in my reply.
Care to try again after reading my post. You will notice that it doesn't argue for or against a playoff.
Edit Comment Cancel
Zach Dirlam 5 months ago
the Nebraska case is one of the big reasons the system was adjusted in 04.
Edit Comment Cancel
J J 5 months ago
Zach,
Your case is so flimsy that you're beginning to contradict your own arguments.
First let me clear this up once and for all: Florida also lost to an unranked team - at home. USC lost away to Oregon State. So stop saying that USC didn't get in because they didn't take care of business. In any case, at the end of the season, both Ole Miss and Oregon State ended up ranked, which shows the unreliability of the regular season polls. It turns out that a lot of the teams that USC beat during the regular season were also underrated, and that the Big 12 was overrated. Please go over the final AP rankings and you'll see what I mean.
You're saying that Ohio State belonged in the title game because they were ranked number one, but they were only ranked number one because they were undefeated in what appeared to be a strong conference. It turned out that the Big 10 was not so big. Now Utah this year went undefeated in an underrated conference and took it to the runner-up of the mighty SEC. So how can you not give them a chance? The Big 12 was overhyped and OU, Texas, Texas Tech, and Ok State proved that. The Pac 10 was underrated and their 5-0 record in the bowl games proved that. It is ridiculous to say that "if teams would win their games they would get in", because at the end of the season so many teams have identical records. The point is, we CAN NOT base a team's quality solely on how many losses they took, or who they lost to, and the results of so many lopsided BCS title games prove that.
The problem is, the voters and computers can only do so much to determine the rankings before and even after the bowl season. So much of the voters' decision-making is irrational, based on false assumptions, or flat out bias. That's why we need a few extra games to sort things out.
Edit Comment Cancel
Zach Dirlam 5 months ago
a playoff will solve none of the problems we have. Someone will always whine when they dont get in because they would be "snubbed", someone will always complain they had a less favorable matchup then another team did, and "we could beat them, but instead we had to play these guys", the same crap will continue to happen. A playoff will not solve the "problem" the BCS supposedly causes.
Edit Comment Cancel
J J 5 months ago
OK, so you are finally conceding that the system we have is not so good after all, unless you actually favor a system that generates chaos and inconclusiveness.
Now, if we had, say, an 8-team playoff, do you really think there would be any 9th-ranked teams complaining that they got snubbed?
I'd say that every year we'd have an outright champion. Letting teams actually play each other instead of speculating and trash-talking seems logical to me.
Edit Comment Cancel
Zach Dirlam 5 months ago
yes there really would be a 9th team complaining. No matter how far you expand the field until you get to a ridiculous number like 32 or 64 you will always have somone complaining and saying their team has as much a right to be there as that other team. I never conceded the BCS is a great system, but it is not a bad system either. I even admitted the BCS is not a perfect system in the first sentence of the article. A playoff is not going to stop any of the arguments about who is the best and will not give us a "true undispituted" champion like everyone thinks.
Edit Comment Cancel
aaron hacker 5 months ago
Zach, you are wrong. I HAD written out a length reply to why, but there was an error with this site (not the first, and it's getting a little frustrating - Save Draft of article (600 words so far) = NOTHING).
At any rate, I will summarize:
You predicated this article on the idea that a playoff system is not better than the BCS. In fact, you tell everyone that thinks there should be a playoff system to "Shut Up."
NOW, you've been thoroughly badgered and are trying to change your position on the matter - you are claiming that a playoff system wouldn't fix what you agree is wrong with the BCS (so why change it?) I find this to be the equivalent of arguing semantics with a politician (funny how the BCS is all politics, and here we are with a proponent of one - and he's acting like a true politician).
However, I have the solution to finally show you why are you wrong. Are you ready? Pay attention, because you may just learn something:
First of all, the BCS at it's core is supposed to do ONE THING - deliver the consensus #1 : The BCS National Champion. In general, the BCS has never claimed to deliver the best team in the nation, it has only claimed to deliver the BCS national champion. This is one of the things that the proponents of the money train known as the BCS cling to.
Now, if you don't agree with that statement of facts, we may have a bigger problem on our hands (other than this long "brief" response). I'll assume you can agree to what I just stated about the BCS and move on...
A playoff system is better than the BCS because at its core, it provides THREE meaningful ROUNDS of competition. Not only does a playoff system offer more meaningful games than the BCS (SEVEN compared to ONE), the opportunity for more money for the schools that advance is evident as well. As of now, the BCS delivers $18,000,000 per game (roughly, see the link in my other post). But, with the BCS, you only get to play once. Do you think USC and Florida would be interested in 3 times that amount??
You see, the BCS will ALWAYS be inferior to a playoff because a playoff will ALWAYS provide more MEANINGFUL games.
If you have an argument to this, you are just stubborn and will never agree with any opinion other than your own. OR - you just can't stand going against the article you've written.
Unfortunately, for us, it requires an open mind to sway someone's opinion.
Fortunately, for us, you are in the minority.
Edit Comment Cancel
aaron hacker 5 months ago
also, just found this on another site - seems to me that the ratings should speak for themselves...
http://awfulannouncing.blogspot.com/2009/01/nfl-playoff-ratings-steady-college.html
Edit Comment Cancel
Zach Dirlam 5 months ago
I have not once changed my position so i dont think how you badgering me has caused some sort of change in my view. I even admitted that the BCS is not a perfect system, however i have not said it is not a good one. No system we ever have will deliver a consensus number one and a playoff will solve none of the current problems we have. It really doesnt matter to me that i am the minority in this situation becuase i am going to stand up and speak about what i believe is right.
Edit Comment Cancel
aaron hacker 5 months ago
hahahaha. And that, my friends, is proof. Ignoring every point I made in the comment, not addressing the clear advantage of a playoff system, and saying gross generalizations like "a playoff will solve none of the current problems we have" shows how ridiculous this conversation has become. Like I said, you make a point, he ignores the point, and just parrots back what he's been saying since the start.
Hilarious.
Edit Comment Cancel
Zach Dirlam 5 months ago
How did i not adress your point? Your main argument was that the BCS does not deliver a consensus national champion. A playoff isnt going to give us that. No. 9 and No. 10 will complain b.c they could've beaten any one of the teams in the playoff so they deserved a shot. These are the kind of arguments we are having about the BCS championship right now. So how exactly is a playoff going to change all the arguing? While a playoff may also provide 3 rounds of "meaningful games", then the regualr season will lose alot of its meaning. The regular season is already meaningful. We have 15 weeks of meaningful games.
There was a point in time where i was all for a playoff and said down with the BCS. But then i did have an "open mind" as you said in your comment. I realized all the points i am stressing. No one will stop complaining their team deserved a shot and sports writers at places like ESPN, ABC, etc. will never shut up until THEY can control who is playing for the national championship.
Edit Comment Cancel
aaron hacker 5 months ago
A) The sports writers already control who plays for a national title. They have 2/3rds of the say.
B) You trying to say that #9 and #10 would complain is just goofy. That's like saying teams from the NFL or NBA or any other sport with a playoff would complain. It's just untrue. Especially because you are assuming the complaining will continue because the playoff teams will be chosen based on the BCS. The BCS is what people are complaining about - but I'll link my article when I finally get it done later and you can see more of what I'm talking about.
C) If there is a playoff, there will be no more "complaining" and there will be a CONSENSUS national champion. Do you think #9 and #10 will be complaining that they would've won 3 games? No. They wouldn't. IF they complain - like I said, this is a big if - they will say "we should've gotten our shot." But that's it. No one will claim they could've run the table, because in a playoff atmosphere, that's just a dumb comment.
D) If you REALLY enjoy the whiny annoying complaining and campaigning from coaches nowadays then by all means - back the BCS. That's why they do it, because there's only ONE meaningful game.
E) I just can't think you fully understand the concept of sports and playoffs. I have to believe you don't play any sports because people that are "fans" but don't actually play the sport don't usually understand why playoffs are so important.
F) Would you rather have "meaningful games" all season (or until you lose a game, then they aren't meaningful anymore), or a meaningful post season? You are saying you'd rather have the regular season the way it is - meaningful for every game. But, what you fail to realize, is that EVERY bowl game (I would argue that this includes the BCS national championship) is meaningless. PLUS, every game would still be meaningful to the big squads because if they get 1 loss, the smaller squads will take their spot in the playoff.
G) Taking the competitive edge out of the post season is just plain wrong. Like I said many times in these friggin comments - if you don't understand this then you either don't play any sports, or just don't want to go against what you've written.
Edit Comment Cancel
Zach Dirlam 5 months ago
actually they dont have 2/3rds of the vote. Coaches have a third, the Harris poll which is some media members and former players and coaches and then the computers. They wont stop complaining until they control the entire format and who plays for the title. And yes those teams that are left out of the top 8 would complain. The NFL plays 16 games, but there are no rankings so they are judged strictly by wins and losses, but in college football we have too many teams to just look at wins and losses. So you have rankings and when someone gets left out then you're gonna have someone complaining.
Edit Comment Cancel
aaron hacker 5 months ago
I'm done. Good luck with your insanity.
Edit Comment Cancel
Andrew Mason 5 months ago
Sorry for being 10 days later but i just saw it so good job. People dont seem to understand that a playoff system will not change jack sh*t.
IE this years NFL playoffs. the 11-5 patriots don't get in but the 8-8 chargers do and they knock off the 12-4 colts. Everyone should be happy that record in the playoffs means nothing? NOPE. People complained the Chargers got in over the pats and the ONLY reason they won over the Colts was because of the home game. I mean its not like the Colts didn't stop Darren Sproles at all...it must have been the home game.
NHL playoffs have the same people complain that the division winners get home ice but that is the stated goal of each team. WIN YOUR DIVISION. then worry about the playoffs. Everyone complain the caps got home ice over Philly but is it Washington's fault Carolina, Tampa, and Atlanta went down the drain and continue to this year? I seem to recall Tampa and Carolina won the Cup in 2004 and 2006.
Then people complain the NBA playoffs are wayyy too long.
Ironically only the MLB playoffs seem to be the only that escapes criticism because of the intensity of each game.
NCAA football playoffs will not change anything. People say make it like March Madness. What put 64 of 119 teams in it? Its not going to change anything unless you take the bowl game rules of taking 6-6 and above. But then you have the possibility of a 7-5 team winning the national championship...Also playing a 8 team playoff at the sites will be completely unfair! USC played a home game against PSU essentially. Unless they change it so one team does not have an extra home game it will still be unfair.
Alright im done.
Edit Comment Cancel
Zach Dirlam 5 months ago
Thank god someone understands my point.
Edit Comment Cancel
Andrew Mason 5 months ago
haha no problem. People always seem to think a playoff is better than the BCS but they never actually try to figure out logistics of it. They just call for an 8 team playoff which A) doesnt make sense B) they give no further explanations how to do it.
Edit Comment Cancel
aaron hacker 5 months ago
Your argument makes no sense.
If you think saying "people will always complain" and then backing it up with various broken statements about other sports is a valid argument... well, then I guess I'm not surprised you agree with the author of this article.
The BCS is broken. Saying that even if we fix it people will still complain is ignorant.
But, F me for coming back to this page anyway.
Edit Comment Cancel
JESSI SHARPE 5 months ago
16 teams is as far as it needs to go. You take the 11 conference champions and the remaining five from the BCS. That gives every Cinderella UTAH out there their chance. Simple solution. Every game is a bowl game. Sure Florida might have won 4 bowl games this year, well I guess that is just more money for them. Even if you dont make every game a bowl game this will work.
Edit Comment Cancel
Andrew Mason 5 months ago
16 is a terrible idea. Of the 5 you put in who do you take? Disregarding the results of the bowl games who do you put in? Bama, Texas ok. but who after that? Missouri, BC, FSU, OSU, TCU, etc could all make claims. Do you just take the 11 champions then after you take them do you take the next 5 from the coaches poll?
Edit Comment Cancel
Bill Stell 5 months ago
Here is a different perspective for you. Some of us don't watch college football for this very reason. BCS rules are such that an undefeated, unknown nationally, team has absolutly no chance to play for the championship no matter how good they are. That is why the NFL system is watched by millions of viewers every year even if their home/favorite team went 0-16. BECAUSE IT MATTERS, THE UNDERDOG MAY WIN, THE FAVORITE MAY FALL APART, OR MAYBE THE FAVORITE WILL SHOW WHY THEY ARE IN THE PLAYOFFS. Until the NCAA has a playoff system there will be more people like me who never watch college football game when I can get all the stats online. Why should I when deserving teams get locked out and only the big name schools get the glory.
Edit Comment Cancel
JESSI SHARPE 5 months ago
Okay let me break it down. You take the 11 conference champs. Then you take the remaining 5 that did not win a conference by where they rank in the BCS. That gives all the Utah's, Boise States, etc their stake at glory. If it was a 4 team playoff Utah still would have not got in. 8 is just boring. Beside the conference champions the 5 team that would have made it was TEXAS, ALABAMA, TEXAS TECH, OKLAHOMA STATE AND TCU.
Edit Comment Cancel
Zach Dirlam 5 months ago
they'd have their stake at glory if they go out of conference and play some big time programs. Its no secret that the BCS doesnt exactly favor the mid major conference teams. So whats the solution? GO OUT AND PLAY SOMEONE!!! Utah had one quality win in non conference before the Sugar Bowl, Oregon St. They had UM on their schedule, but they were terrible this year. Boise had one out of conference win and that was at Oregon. Their conference schedule was terrible and then they lost to TCU in their bowl game. If we use the system you propose there would be just as much arguing over who should get the last 5 spots for teams that didnt win your conference. Why cant you people understand a playoff will solve NOTHING!!!!
Edit Comment Cancel
aaron hacker 5 months ago
the statement of "go out and play someone" shows your intelligence when it comes to college football. you can't just "go out and play someone." I dont have time to explain to you the ins and outs for scheduling. I would look it up if I were you, if you want to be taken seriously.
Edit Comment Cancel
Leave a Comment
You must register to post a comment.