TCU into the BCS...?

Celeval · 11-08-2003, 10:40 PM

TCU was #9 coming into this week in the BCS rankings... now with FSU, Miami, and Virginia Tech all losing in front of them, what are the odds they move up to 6, and get a spot?

MrBug708 · 11-08-2003, 10:48 PM

The team barely beat Arizona

cthomer5000 · 11-08-2003, 10:56 PM

remember guys, there are 8 BCS spots. 6 guaranteed (BCS conference champs) and then the 2 highest non-conference champs.

Bearcat729 · 11-08-2003, 10:58 PM

Bah, UC will beat them next week

Abe Sargent · 11-08-2003, 11:00 PM

TCU for BCS has a nice ring to it, and I am rooting all the way. Shock to the System!

-Anxiety

JonInMiddleGA · 11-08-2003, 11:04 PM

I'm not even going to pretend that I know how the heck the BCS works exactly right. But I'll take a shot at the next release.

1) Oklahoma
2) USC
3) Ohio State
4) LSU
5) Michigan
6) Georgia
7) TCU
8) Miami

fof playa · 11-08-2003, 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by cthomer5000
...and then the 2 highest non-conference champs.

FYI, the at-large spots don't have to go to conference champs. ie, Ohio St. and Michigan will probably both make it.

General Mike · 11-08-2003, 11:42 PM

Here's how I think the next BCS will shake out, based on this week's results:

1. Oklahoma
2. USC
3. Ohio State
4. LSU
5. Michigan
6. TCU
7. Georgia
8. Texas
9. Tennessee
10. Washington State

If my understanding is correct, the BCS does not have to take TCU unless they are in the top 4, then they get an automatic bid. I personally, root for chaos and hope that TCU runs the table.

cthomer5000 · 11-08-2003, 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by fof playa
FYI, the at-large spots don't have to go to conference champs. ie, Ohio St. and Michigan will probably both make it.

I don't think I made myself clear. There are 6 automatic BCS bids - for the conference champs. The other 2 bids are "at large" and go to the highest ranked BCS teams which were not champions of the Big 6 conferences. This is why TCU has a shot.

sooner333 · 11-09-2003, 12:16 AM

TCU will have its SOS go up because they played Louisville. They will also move up in the computer polls because of the win. They probably won't have too much movement in the human polls. I think they could go up to seven. They'll *probably* be behind Florida State and ahead of Miami and VA Tech (they've only beat one good team, lost to a decent team, and lost to a moderate team...not that TCU has beaten anybody good other than Louisville, but they haven't lost).

I'm pulling for the Horned Frogs to make it to the BCS, so we can see if they a) play a good game (win or lose) and find out they truly belong, and the BCS will be pressured to adding a non-power conference champ to the mix, or b) they get thrashed by a good team and they can stop bitching (more likely, although I've always been a "mid-major" advocate).

As the higher teams keep losing, the chances go up that they make the top 6. Michigan still plays Ohio State. I'm sure that TCU would benefit by having one lose then beat the other. So if Michigan lost to Northwestern (I wish.....) then beat Ohio State, that would benefit TCU, because while one would still win the Big 10, the other would probably be out of the BCS mix, or at least the top 6 allowing TCU a chance to move up.

TroyF · 11-09-2003, 12:24 AM

See, I'd rather they go undefeated and get left out of the BCS, then beat the hell out of the team they face in their bowl game.

In my mind, there isn't a better scenario out there.

TroyF

sooner333 · 11-09-2003, 12:40 AM

Yeah, but then we have a year or more to hear from TCU people, and people from those conferences in general about how they've been shafted and how they're going to Congress. If they get in and suck, then they will shut up. If they do well, then the nation will agree with them. Otherwise we're going to hear this crap forever. This is their chance with the contract negotiations coming up in the near future.

TroyF · 11-09-2003, 12:46 AM

I want to hear about it. I want it to be LOUD!!! Very LOUD.

TroyF

Wasabiak · 11-09-2003, 12:50 AM

Where's a playoff system when you need one?

sooner333 · 11-09-2003, 01:11 AM

Why do we need a playoff system? The whole season is a big playoff, that's why its so great. I like the concept of one game at the end that's for it all. Nobody cares in the NFL if you win your last game if you go to the playoffs. Brett Favre might play one series. But, if you're USC playing UCLA and knowing that if you lose that another team is right on your heels, you know that your best players are playing until the game is in hand.

Look, a playoff works for basketball because its a tournament sport, and that's great. It's exciting, but can you say the best team wins every year? In football, the season is shorter, each game means more and I think that is great for the sport. Everyone knew that Miami and Ohio State were the two best last year, why would we need 8 teams to find out who the top 2 were? True, USC may have people saying that they shouldn't be #2 and another team should, but the criteria set up is supposed to be an accurate reflection of who the top teams are (and I think it does a pretty good job in general, despite the whiners say).

The BCS is good for college football compared to the back-room deals. A playoff would get rid of the importance of the regular season and while the postseason may be more exciting, the months leading up to it would have less importance, and you'd still have the #8 and#9 teams arguing over whether they should be included or not.

the_meanstrosity · 11-09-2003, 01:16 AM

sooner333 is right.

Let's let the formula decide who's champ. We don't even need a championship game...we've got the FORMULA.

I'm sorry sooner333, but that's crazier than letting TroyF drive the Sooner schooner. Formulas are good for making home brewed beer, not for rewarding football championships.

sooner333 · 11-09-2003, 01:21 AM

How do you plan on selecting the teams to get in? Look, someone is always going to be mad. Let's just set all 117 teams in a random playoff and determine who is the best team instead of playing a regular season. Because, then we wouldn't have to have a formula. Oh wait, that's the worst idea I've ever heard of. I'm just saying the regualr season is what makes college football great compared to other sports. I know that each game could mean the difference of playing for a title or playing a good game against a good team. There is a difference. Yeah, yeah, playing for seeding is important in college basketball, but still, there isn't that sense of urgency. If your team loses a conference game, hey, its all right, you're going to the tourney anyway because you have a winning record.

lynchjm24 · 11-09-2003, 01:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by cthomer5000
I don't think I made myself clear. There are 6 automatic BCS bids - for the conference champs. The other 2 bids are "at large" and go to the highest ranked BCS teams which were not champions of the Big 6 conferences. This is why TCU has a shot.

They only have to take TCU if they are ranked in the Top 6 of the BCS - otherwise they can just skip them and take say.... Notre Dame.

lynchjm24 · 11-09-2003, 01:27 AM

And a note to the ACC. The BCS doesn't even have to take a conference champ if they aren't in the top 15. You've been warned.

Lucky Jim · 11-09-2003, 01:42 AM

Warn the Big East too, what's going on over there.

Wasabiak · 11-09-2003, 01:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sooner333
A playoff would get rid of the importance of the regular season and while the postseason may be more exciting, the months leading up to it would have less importance, and you'd still have the #8 and#9 teams arguing over whether they should be included or not.

No it wouldn't. How do you figure? You would still have to be in the top 8 to get in. So you are saying that the last regular season game for the 7th ranked team would be unimportant? The regular season games are important regardless of how you set up the post season. Whether it's BCS or playoff brackets, you still gotta win season games to get there.

Of course, i wouldn't like the idea of a playoff either if i was a Sooner fan. Imagine the 8th ranked team upsetting them in the 1st round. At least if you lose to the 2nd ranked team, it doesn't look so bad.

Abe Sargent · 11-09-2003, 02:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lucky Jim
Warn the Big East too, what's going on over there.

Pittsburgh gets a major raise this weekend and is sitting atop the Big East. They win out, with wins that include Miami and WVU, the current #2 and #3 teams in the Big East, and Pitt'll end up with a high ranking and this entire conversation will have been moot.

-Anxiety

sooner333 · 11-09-2003, 12:20 PM

Look, OU would have gone to a playoff last year despite having no business of being there. Maybe 2001 as well...great defense (maybe even better than this years, although that's a tough one), but no offense.

The BCS rewards a combination of teams that have played well all season and teams that play well toward the end (you have to do both). The postseason gives much more value to determine the best team at the end of the season. I like rewarding a team that has played well all season long rather than just better toward the end.

Buccaneer · 11-09-2003, 01:19 PM

Anyone had a problem matching up Miami and OSU for last year's championship? A playoff system would not have guaranteed that and even my beloved pre-BCS bowl matchups would deemed that impossible (Rose Bowl=Big10+Pac10). Lots of folks are saying OU-USC this year. Assuming they both win out, why not have them play for the championship?

the_meanstrosity · 11-09-2003, 01:48 PM

Buccaneer,

I didn't have a problem with OSU and Miami, but I did have a problem with Nebraska getting into the title game a few years ago and then getting their @$$ handed to them. Or how about the co-champions from a few years ago. The college football championship is a joke.

There is no reason not to have a playoff. Football playoffs work...just ask the NFL.

illinifan999 · 11-09-2003, 02:16 PM

How many teams make the playoffs?

No matter what system you use, someone will always bitch about how come they're not in it. It's impossible to satisfy everyone's thirst.

sooner333 · 11-09-2003, 02:22 PM

When has college football had co-champions since the implementation of the BCS?

I'll go ahead and cover that one for you...zero times.

The NFL has playoffs, and yes, the are entertaining. However, the regular season isn't as exciting as college football's because there isn't the complete sense of urgency. Let's face it, without fantasy football, most people wouldn't care about games that didnt' involve their teams. I can sit down and watch games that have no bearing on my favorite team or my rivals in college football because the games are intense. Did you see Miami lose out on their chances or VA Tech for that matter? Clemson beat FSU and now they are out. That's urgency and that's excitement.

MJ4H · 11-09-2003, 02:44 PM

Ive always thought a 6 team playoff would be great for college football. Yes youd still have some whining about not getting into the playoffs, but at least the better teams will get in more easily with 6 teams than with 2. No system is perfect, but imo this is an improvement. You improve the chances of getting the best teams in, you maintain the importance of the regular season (even if you are in the top 6, you will need to keep winning to get that first round BYE - a huge advantage), and you will get 5 of the most intense college football games possible. You could even retain the bowl system nearly as it is now.

mckerney · 11-09-2003, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MattJones4Heisman
Ive always thought a 6 team playoff would be great for college football. Yes youd still have some whining about not getting into the playoffs, but at least the better teams will get in more easily with 6 teams than with 2. No system is perfect, but imo this is an improvement. You improve the chances of getting the best teams in, you maintain the importance of the regular season (even if you are in the top 6, you will need to keep winning to get that first round BYE - a huge advantage), and you will get 5 of the most intense college football games possible. You could even retain the bowl system nearly as it is now.

How would you work a 6 team playoff?

MJ4H · 11-09-2003, 02:49 PM

#1 and #2 get a bye in week 1.
#3 plays #6
#4 plays #5

next week is semis
#1 plays one winner and #2 plays other winner and next week is the finals.

ScottVib · 11-09-2003, 04:32 PM

One situation (far fetched) that I'd love to see them try to handle.

In a season full of upsets the teams that finish #1 and #2 both fail to be labeled their conference champions. (Say for instance The Big Ten has a tie for the conference title one team is ranked #1 and the other team hasn't been to the Rose Bowl/Championship Bowl assignment in a longer time, that team would be declared the champion, meaning suddenly the Big 10 has 2 auto bids. Repeat this for another conference). Because the year was full of upsets a non-BCS bowl team finishes #6 in the BCS standings guarenteeing them a spot.

Suddenly you have 9 guarenteed bids and only 8 spots, and from what I can tell there is nothing in the BCS rules to handle this possible (albeit highly unlikely) occurance. The lawsuit that would come out of this situation would change the BCS faster then any movement by Tulane's President.

Of course when they set up the BCS they didn't even put in a conference membership clause, which means next year a 6 team Big East keeps it's autobid (what nice payouts for those teams).

SunDancer · 11-09-2003, 05:10 PM

I love to see the Bowl System go back to its old system, the Pac-10/Big 10 Rose Bowl, ACC/SEC Sugar Bowl, Big East/At-large (and if a conference champion from the non-BCS conference earns a top eight ranking standing after the regular season, they get the berth here) Orange Bowl, Big 12/At-large (highest at-large BCS ranked team, expect Big 12 team. The Orange Bowl will get second at-large team (either second highes at-large BCS ranking team, non-BCS conference champ that is in the top eight of final BCS regular season rankings, or will switch with Fiesta Bowl if the Big 12 has the highest at-large BCS ranked team). The champions of those bowl, plus the two highest remining BCS ranked teams, will be put into a 6-team playoff. The top two BCS ranked teams earn the first round byes, with No. 3 playing No. 6, the winner of that game playing No. 2 and No. 4/5 winner playing No. 1. A conference may not send no more than two teams, and may not face each other until the championship game. A rematch may not occur until the semi-finals.

I think this is a great system. It makes the bowl games a "playoff", but maintains the bowl system and prestige. It also plays a big role in fielding a playoff system that would be the best of teams.

Lucky Jim · 11-09-2003, 05:33 PM

Part of me thinks that the recent trend toward expanding conferences and conference championship games will help balance the lack of a playoff. But I also think that the shakeup with the ACC is going to lead to an 8 team playoff. They're going to have to change things, and hopefully the pressure will be intense enough to force a playoff onto the table. I just can't buy the argument that a playoff would lessen the intensity of the regular season, if anything it might increase it, teams with a loss or two still have a lot to play for. And as far as the other argument that a playoff would marginalize the importance of the other bowls that some people throw around, that's just ridiculous. Every bowl but the championship is marginalized in the current setup.

digamma · 11-09-2003, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by cthomer5000
I don't think I made myself clear. There are 6 automatic BCS bids - for the conference champs. The other 2 bids are "at large" and go to the highest ranked BCS teams which were not champions of the Big 6 conferences. This is why TCU has a shot.

This isn't quite right. The BCS at large slots can go to anyone who qualifies for an at large slot. I think this is anyone ranked in the top 12 or top 15 of the BCS. There are guarantees for anyone who is in the top 6 in the BCS and not guaranteed a spot, and a Notre Dame clause as well if they have 9 wins and a certain BCS ranking. However, the top two at large teams according to the rankings are not automatically given the two bowl slots.

On the play-off discussion, I agree with sooner333. College football has the greatest play-off system in sports already in place: a regular season with huge games that actually matter.

the_meanstrosity · 11-09-2003, 06:35 PM

sooner,

I realize the co-championship wasn't awarded during the BCS. The co-championship was Penn State and Nebraska in what...1997? I can't recall the exact year.

And how about Nebraska in the title game a few years ago when they weren't even the best team in their own conference. Just because of some stupid formula.

And just because people whine about playoffs doesn't make them a good idea. People whine all the time about the NCAA basketball tourney, but you have a true champion when it's all said and done.

SunDancer · 11-09-2003, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by the_meanstrosity
but you have a true champion when it's all said and done.

A true champion? I remember, what was it 2/3 years, we had a final four with lower teams of No. 7 and 8 teams. The NCAA tourney doesn't crown a true champion. You might argue it, but it crowns the team that is the playing the hottest. If you want a true champion, cut the tourney field down, or go to a best-of-three/five series.

the_meanstrosity · 11-09-2003, 11:30 PM

Sundancer,

To be the best team in the nation, you've got to bring your A game for the entire tournament. Any team that can beat 6 of the top 64 teams in the nation deserves to be called the national champion.

sooner333 · 11-10-2003, 12:09 AM

the_meanstrosity,

They can be called whatever you want to call them, but they're still not the best team.

the_meanstrosity · 11-10-2003, 12:22 AM

You don't think the team that survives out of 64 of the best teams in the nation isn't the best? Just look at last season's NCAA tourney. Was Syracuse the best in the regular season? Probably not. But they were certainly the best team in the post season. And that's when it counts.

Pumpy Tudors · 11-10-2003, 12:34 AM

So why have a regular season? Why not just make the whole season a tournament? If the only thing that matters is the best team in the postseason...

the_meanstrosity · 11-10-2003, 12:38 AM

Pumpy,

Regular season is to find out who the top 64 teams are. Then you put them on the court against each other to find out the best of the best. Why do you think they play a Superbowl, World Series, Stanley Cup, etc? Other than money of course.

SunDancer · 11-10-2003, 12:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by the_meanstrosity
Pumpy,

Regular season is to find out who the top 64 teams are. Then you put them on the court against each other to find out the best of the best. Why do you think they play a Superbowl, World Series, Stanley Cup, etc? Other than money of course.

Yes, but the NCAA Tourney does not put the best 64 teams in the field. 64 teams in a tourney is ALOT for a "true" champion.

Remember, the worst teams in all conferences can go to the NCAA Tournament through conference tourneys. (that's half of the field right their) Stanley Cup plays best of seven series with the highest percentage of teams. It's not just a 6 game "dance". The Superbowl, and NFL sends the top 6 out 16 teams to the playoffs in each conference, the top two teams in each conference are byes, and four of the six spots are given to division champs.

the_meanstrosity · 11-10-2003, 01:24 AM

SunDancer,

It's very rare that the "worst" team gets in the tourney from a conference. I am not a big fan of conference tournaments. I think they are worthless and essentially exhaust teams before the NCAA tourney.

You are correct that there aren't 64 deserving teams in the nation. But those few extra teams don't hurt anyone and with parity in basketball, they are just the icing on the cake. I love watching the first round 5 and 12 seed games. The 12 seed teams normally aren't good enough to win the NCAA, but they are good enough to challenge "ranked" teams and provide a true test to see if a team is championship material. Whomever wins the national title will have been tested thoroughly. That's a championship team.

The NHL, NBA, and MLB play a best of 5 or 7 series. But those teams are also playing on their home field. The NCAA tourney is on a neutral court. Either way, the format is the same. Win you're in...lose you go home.

The NFL sends 12 teams out of 32 while the NCAA tourney sends 64 out of 120+ (possibly even more than that) D1A college basketball teams. I don't see a big difference in the ratio.

I'd rather see the best teams in the nation play it on the field rather than let a popularity contest choose who the championship contestants are. Most of the people who vote in the polls do so half-heartedly...especially the coaches' poll. And sadly, those polls are included in the formula. Ugh.

sterlingice · 11-10-2003, 01:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by the_meanstrosity
The NFL sends 12 teams out of 32 while the NCAA tourney sends 64 out of 120+ (possibly even more than that) D1A college basketball teams. I don't see a big difference in the ratio.

While there about 120 teams in Div I-A football, there are over 300 in Div I-A basketball.

SI

Buccaneer · 11-10-2003, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by the_meanstrosity
Buccaneer,

I didn't have a problem with OSU and Miami, but I did have a problem with Nebraska getting into the title game a few years ago and then getting their @$$ handed to them.

I agree, that is why I still favor the way it was done before this BCS complexity. It was a subjective choice (coaches and sportswriters polls) of who is champion or co-champion and it worked well for a long time. It wasn't definitive but neither is the BCS or a playoffs. Let OSU go out to the Rose last season and play the Pac10 champion and have Miami play in the Orange or Sugar. If they both won, so be it. It matters not at all that we must have a clear champion. The bowl games (at least before they got out of control) was a reward for a successful season and a great trip for the team and fans to a nice place. No reason to make it any more important that it is and that is why I have always been against a playoff system.

Butter · 11-10-2003, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Buccaneer
...and that is why I have always been against a playoff system.

Well, that and you're 105.

sterlingice · 11-10-2003, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Butter_of_69
Well, that and you're 105.

Back in your day, did they play paper-rock to see who won the national title, Andrjeoiajiofdhasjhgajkghkjashgjkas? I mean, I'm pretty sure they hadn't even invented scissors yet. Then again, had they even invented paper? Or rocks even?

SI

Buccaneer · 11-10-2003, 10:01 AM

Sheesh, just go back to the early 1990s, like when CU and GTech were co.

Ben E Lou · 11-10-2003, 10:04 AM

The lack of a playoff system is pretty clearly financially related. None of the traditional anti-playoff arguments wash, particularly in light of the fact that every level other than the big boys has as playoff system.

sterlingice · 11-10-2003, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Buccaneer
Sheesh, just go back to the early 1990s, like when CU and GTech were co.

I've heard about that game from my great, great, great grandfather. And wasn't that back when football had five downs and there weren't any Detmers holding clipboards in the NFL and K-State was coming off possibly the worst decade in history and football was played with rocks and no helmets and stuff? Oh those days of yore.

SI

11-09-2003, 02:16 PM	#26
illinifan999 Pro Rookie Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: VA	How many teams make the playoffs? No matter what system you use, someone will always bitch about how come they're not in it. It's impossible to satisfy everyone's thirst. __________________ Chicago Eagles 2 time ZFL champions We're "rebuilding"

11-10-2003, 12:34 AM	#40
Pumpy Tudors Bounty Hunter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Pittsburgh, PA	So why have a regular season? Why not just make the whole season a tournament? If the only thing that matters is the best team in the postseason... __________________ No, I am not Batman, and I will not repair your food processor.

11-10-2003, 10:04 AM	#49
Ben E Lou Morgado's Favorite Forum Fascist Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Greensboro, NC	The lack of a playoff system is pretty clearly financially related. None of the traditional anti-playoff arguments wash, particularly in light of the fact that every level other than the big boys has as playoff system. __________________ The media don't understand the kinds of problems and pressures 54 million come wit'!

11-08-2003, 10:48 PM	#2
MrBug708 Head Coach Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Whittier	The team barely beat Arizona

11-08-2003, 10:58 PM	#4
Bearcat729 College Benchwarmer Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Cincinnati, Ohio	Bah, UC will beat them next week __________________ Bearcat729 on XBox Live and PSN Last edited by Bearcat729 : 11-08-2003 at 11:06 PM.

11-08-2003, 11:00 PM	#5
Abe Sargent Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Catonsville, MD	TCU for BCS has a nice ring to it, and I am rooting all the way. Shock to the System! -Anxiety __________________ Check out my two current weekly Magic columns! https://www.coolstuffinc.com/a/?action=search&page=1&author[]=Abe%20Sargent

11-08-2003, 11:04 PM	#6
JonInMiddleGA Hall Of Famer Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Behind Enemy Lines in Athens, GA	I'm not even going to pretend that I know how the heck the BCS works exactly right. But I'll take a shot at the next release. 1) Oklahoma 2) USC 3) Ohio State 4) LSU 5) Michigan 6) Georgia 7) TCU 8) Miami __________________ "I lit another cigarette. Unless I specifically inform you to the contrary, I am always lighting another cigarette." - from a novel by Martin Amis

11-08-2003, 11:42 PM	#8
General Mike Pro Starter Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: The State of Rutgers	Here's how I think the next BCS will shake out, based on this week's results: 1. Oklahoma 2. USC 3. Ohio State 4. LSU 5. Michigan 6. TCU 7. Georgia 8. Texas 9. Tennessee 10. Washington State If my understanding is correct, the BCS does not have to take TCU unless they are in the top 4, then they get an automatic bid. I personally, root for chaos and hope that TCU runs the table.

11-09-2003, 12:16 AM	#10
sooner333 College Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Norman, OK	TCU will have its SOS go up because they played Louisville. They will also move up in the computer polls because of the win. They probably won't have too much movement in the human polls. I think they could go up to seven. They'll probably be behind Florida State and ahead of Miami and VA Tech (they've only beat one good team, lost to a decent team, and lost to a moderate team...not that TCU has beaten anybody good other than Louisville, but they haven't lost). I'm pulling for the Horned Frogs to make it to the BCS, so we can see if they a) play a good game (win or lose) and find out they truly belong, and the BCS will be pressured to adding a non-power conference champ to the mix, or b) they get thrashed by a good team and they can stop bitching (more likely, although I've always been a "mid-major" advocate). As the higher teams keep losing, the chances go up that they make the top 6. Michigan still plays Ohio State. I'm sure that TCU would benefit by having one lose then beat the other. So if Michigan lost to Northwestern (I wish.....) then beat Ohio State, that would benefit TCU, because while one would still win the Big 10, the other would probably be out of the BCS mix, or at least the top 6 allowing TCU a chance to move up.

11-09-2003, 12:24 AM	#11
TroyF Coordinator Join Date: Oct 2000	See, I'd rather they go undefeated and get left out of the BCS, then beat the hell out of the team they face in their bowl game. In my mind, there isn't a better scenario out there. TroyF

11-09-2003, 12:40 AM	#12
sooner333 College Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Norman, OK	Yeah, but then we have a year or more to hear from TCU people, and people from those conferences in general about how they've been shafted and how they're going to Congress. If they get in and suck, then they will shut up. If they do well, then the nation will agree with them. Otherwise we're going to hear this crap forever. This is their chance with the contract negotiations coming up in the near future.

11-09-2003, 12:46 AM	#13
TroyF Coordinator Join Date: Oct 2000	I want to hear about it. I want it to be LOUD!!! Very LOUD. TroyF

11-09-2003, 12:50 AM	#14
Wasabiak High School Varsity Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Beulah, ND	Where's a playoff system when you need one?

11-09-2003, 01:11 AM	#15
sooner333 College Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Norman, OK	Why do we need a playoff system? The whole season is a big playoff, that's why its so great. I like the concept of one game at the end that's for it all. Nobody cares in the NFL if you win your last game if you go to the playoffs. Brett Favre might play one series. But, if you're USC playing UCLA and knowing that if you lose that another team is right on your heels, you know that your best players are playing until the game is in hand. Look, a playoff works for basketball because its a tournament sport, and that's great. It's exciting, but can you say the best team wins every year? In football, the season is shorter, each game means more and I think that is great for the sport. Everyone knew that Miami and Ohio State were the two best last year, why would we need 8 teams to find out who the top 2 were? True, USC may have people saying that they shouldn't be #2 and another team should, but the criteria set up is supposed to be an accurate reflection of who the top teams are (and I think it does a pretty good job in general, despite the whiners say). The BCS is good for college football compared to the back-room deals. A playoff would get rid of the importance of the regular season and while the postseason may be more exciting, the months leading up to it would have less importance, and you'd still have the #8 and#9 teams arguing over whether they should be included or not.

11-09-2003, 01:16 AM	#16
the_meanstrosity College Benchwarmer Join Date: Oct 2002	sooner333 is right. Let's let the formula decide who's champ. We don't even need a championship game...we've got the FORMULA. I'm sorry sooner333, but that's crazier than letting TroyF drive the Sooner schooner. Formulas are good for making home brewed beer, not for rewarding football championships.

11-09-2003, 01:21 AM	#17
sooner333 College Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Norman, OK	How do you plan on selecting the teams to get in? Look, someone is always going to be mad. Let's just set all 117 teams in a random playoff and determine who is the best team instead of playing a regular season. Because, then we wouldn't have to have a formula. Oh wait, that's the worst idea I've ever heard of. I'm just saying the regualr season is what makes college football great compared to other sports. I know that each game could mean the difference of playing for a title or playing a good game against a good team. There is a difference. Yeah, yeah, playing for seeding is important in college basketball, but still, there isn't that sense of urgency. If your team loses a conference game, hey, its all right, you're going to the tourney anyway because you have a winning record.

11-09-2003, 01:27 AM	#19
lynchjm24 College Benchwarmer Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Hartford	And a note to the ACC. The BCS doesn't even have to take a conference champ if they aren't in the top 15. You've been warned.

11-09-2003, 01:42 AM	#20
Lucky Jim Mascot Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Washington, DC	Warn the Big East too, what's going on over there.

11-09-2003, 12:20 PM	#23
sooner333 College Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Norman, OK	Look, OU would have gone to a playoff last year despite having no business of being there. Maybe 2001 as well...great defense (maybe even better than this years, although that's a tough one), but no offense. The BCS rewards a combination of teams that have played well all season and teams that play well toward the end (you have to do both). The postseason gives much more value to determine the best team at the end of the season. I like rewarding a team that has played well all season long rather than just better toward the end.

11-09-2003, 01:19 PM	#24
Buccaneer Head Coach Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Colorado	Anyone had a problem matching up Miami and OSU for last year's championship? A playoff system would not have guaranteed that and even my beloved pre-BCS bowl matchups would deemed that impossible (Rose Bowl=Big10+Pac10). Lots of folks are saying OU-USC this year. Assuming they both win out, why not have them play for the championship?

11-09-2003, 01:48 PM	#25
the_meanstrosity College Benchwarmer Join Date: Oct 2002	Buccaneer, I didn't have a problem with OSU and Miami, but I did have a problem with Nebraska getting into the title game a few years ago and then getting their @$$ handed to them. Or how about the co-champions from a few years ago. The college football championship is a joke. There is no reason not to have a playoff. Football playoffs work...just ask the NFL.

11-09-2003, 02:22 PM	#27
sooner333 College Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Norman, OK	When has college football had co-champions since the implementation of the BCS? I'll go ahead and cover that one for you...zero times. The NFL has playoffs, and yes, the are entertaining. However, the regular season isn't as exciting as college football's because there isn't the complete sense of urgency. Let's face it, without fantasy football, most people wouldn't care about games that didnt' involve their teams. I can sit down and watch games that have no bearing on my favorite team or my rivals in college football because the games are intense. Did you see Miami lose out on their chances or VA Tech for that matter? Clemson beat FSU and now they are out. That's urgency and that's excitement.

11-09-2003, 02:44 PM	#28
MJ4H Coordinator Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Hog Country	Ive always thought a 6 team playoff would be great for college football. Yes youd still have some whining about not getting into the playoffs, but at least the better teams will get in more easily with 6 teams than with 2. No system is perfect, but imo this is an improvement. You improve the chances of getting the best teams in, you maintain the importance of the regular season (even if you are in the top 6, you will need to keep winning to get that first round BYE - a huge advantage), and you will get 5 of the most intense college football games possible. You could even retain the bowl system nearly as it is now.

11-09-2003, 02:49 PM	#30
MJ4H Coordinator Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Hog Country	#1 and #2 get a bye in week 1. #3 plays #6 #4 plays #5 next week is semis #1 plays one winner and #2 plays other winner and next week is the finals.

11-09-2003, 04:32 PM	#31
ScottVib High School Varsity Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: My Computer	One situation (far fetched) that I'd love to see them try to handle. In a season full of upsets the teams that finish #1 and #2 both fail to be labeled their conference champions. (Say for instance The Big Ten has a tie for the conference title one team is ranked #1 and the other team hasn't been to the Rose Bowl/Championship Bowl assignment in a longer time, that team would be declared the champion, meaning suddenly the Big 10 has 2 auto bids. Repeat this for another conference). Because the year was full of upsets a non-BCS bowl team finishes #6 in the BCS standings guarenteeing them a spot. Suddenly you have 9 guarenteed bids and only 8 spots, and from what I can tell there is nothing in the BCS rules to handle this possible (albeit highly unlikely) occurance. The lawsuit that would come out of this situation would change the BCS faster then any movement by Tulane's President. Of course when they set up the BCS they didn't even put in a conference membership clause, which means next year a 6 team Big East keeps it's autobid (what nice payouts for those teams).

11-09-2003, 05:10 PM	#32
SunDancer College Benchwarmer Join Date: Sep 2002	I love to see the Bowl System go back to its old system, the Pac-10/Big 10 Rose Bowl, ACC/SEC Sugar Bowl, Big East/At-large (and if a conference champion from the non-BCS conference earns a top eight ranking standing after the regular season, they get the berth here) Orange Bowl, Big 12/At-large (highest at-large BCS ranked team, expect Big 12 team. The Orange Bowl will get second at-large team (either second highes at-large BCS ranking team, non-BCS conference champ that is in the top eight of final BCS regular season rankings, or will switch with Fiesta Bowl if the Big 12 has the highest at-large BCS ranked team). The champions of those bowl, plus the two highest remining BCS ranked teams, will be put into a 6-team playoff. The top two BCS ranked teams earn the first round byes, with No. 3 playing No. 6, the winner of that game playing No. 2 and No. 4/5 winner playing No. 1. A conference may not send no more than two teams, and may not face each other until the championship game. A rematch may not occur until the semi-finals. I think this is a great system. It makes the bowl games a "playoff", but maintains the bowl system and prestige. It also plays a big role in fielding a playoff system that would be the best of teams.

11-09-2003, 05:33 PM	#33
Lucky Jim Mascot Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Washington, DC	Part of me thinks that the recent trend toward expanding conferences and conference championship games will help balance the lack of a playoff. But I also think that the shakeup with the ACC is going to lead to an 8 team playoff. They're going to have to change things, and hopefully the pressure will be intense enough to force a playoff onto the table. I just can't buy the argument that a playoff would lessen the intensity of the regular season, if anything it might increase it, teams with a loss or two still have a lot to play for. And as far as the other argument that a playoff would marginalize the importance of the other bowls that some people throw around, that's just ridiculous. Every bowl but the championship is marginalized in the current setup.

11-09-2003, 06:35 PM	#35
the_meanstrosity College Benchwarmer Join Date: Oct 2002	sooner, I realize the co-championship wasn't awarded during the BCS. The co-championship was Penn State and Nebraska in what...1997? I can't recall the exact year. And how about Nebraska in the title game a few years ago when they weren't even the best team in their own conference. Just because of some stupid formula. And just because people whine about playoffs doesn't make them a good idea. People whine all the time about the NCAA basketball tourney, but you have a true champion when it's all said and done.

11-09-2003, 11:30 PM	#37
the_meanstrosity College Benchwarmer Join Date: Oct 2002	Sundancer, To be the best team in the nation, you've got to bring your A game for the entire tournament. Any team that can beat 6 of the top 64 teams in the nation deserves to be called the national champion.

11-10-2003, 12:09 AM	#38
sooner333 College Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Norman, OK	the_meanstrosity, They can be called whatever you want to call them, but they're still not the best team.

11-10-2003, 12:22 AM	#39
the_meanstrosity College Benchwarmer Join Date: Oct 2002	You don't think the team that survives out of 64 of the best teams in the nation isn't the best? Just look at last season's NCAA tourney. Was Syracuse the best in the regular season? Probably not. But they were certainly the best team in the post season. And that's when it counts.

11-10-2003, 12:38 AM	#41
the_meanstrosity College Benchwarmer Join Date: Oct 2002	Pumpy, Regular season is to find out who the top 64 teams are. Then you put them on the court against each other to find out the best of the best. Why do you think they play a Superbowl, World Series, Stanley Cup, etc? Other than money of course.

11-10-2003, 01:24 AM	#43
the_meanstrosity College Benchwarmer Join Date: Oct 2002	SunDancer, It's very rare that the "worst" team gets in the tourney from a conference. I am not a big fan of conference tournaments. I think they are worthless and essentially exhaust teams before the NCAA tourney. You are correct that there aren't 64 deserving teams in the nation. But those few extra teams don't hurt anyone and with parity in basketball, they are just the icing on the cake. I love watching the first round 5 and 12 seed games. The 12 seed teams normally aren't good enough to win the NCAA, but they are good enough to challenge "ranked" teams and provide a true test to see if a team is championship material. Whomever wins the national title will have been tested thoroughly. That's a championship team. The NHL, NBA, and MLB play a best of 5 or 7 series. But those teams are also playing on their home field. The NCAA tourney is on a neutral court. Either way, the format is the same. Win you're in...lose you go home. The NFL sends 12 teams out of 32 while the NCAA tourney sends 64 out of 120+ (possibly even more than that) D1A college basketball teams. I don't see a big difference in the ratio. I'd rather see the best teams in the nation play it on the field rather than let a popularity contest choose who the championship contestants are. Most of the people who vote in the polls do so half-heartedly...especially the coaches' poll. And sadly, those polls are included in the formula. Ugh.