BCS Armageddon

[Arles]

I was talking with a buddy and we went through a few scenarios. I know it's a stretch, but think if this happens:

Big 12:
Texas wins out (blow out people by 30 each game)
Texas Tech loses to Oklahoma
Oklahoma loses to Missouri in the Big12 title game

Pac10:
USC loses to UCLA in an improbable rival loss
Oregon State wins out

Big10:
Penn State loses to Michigan State in a close game
Ohio State beats Michigan

SEC:
Florida loses to Florida State
Alabama loses to Auburn
Florida beats Alabama in the SEC title game

Big East:
Cincy wins the title

ACC:
Maryland wins the title

Both Utah and Boise State win by 30 in remaining games.

Potential end result:
Texas vs. Utah in the title game (1v2 in BCS)

Other BCS
Oregon State vs. Ohio State
Florida vs. Missouri
Cincy vs. Maryland
Alabama vs. Boise State

Texas Tech, who beat Texas and has only 1 loss, finishes 3rd in the BCS and doesn't go to a BCS game.

[DeToxRox]

Don't forget Ball State who's right around #12.

The problem is the BCS only has to take the top non BCS conference team and not obligated to any others.

[rowech]

If they're 100% never going to any kind of playoff system, it's time to scrap this crap and just go back to the way it used to be with the automatic bowl tie-ins and just keep voting like they always used to.

[kcchief19]

At first I was going to say it wasn't possible because to automatically qualify but forgot that No. 3 in the BCS doesn't qualify automatically if their conference goes to the title game and you can't get three schools from one conference in the BCS.

There are some glitches in the scenario -- I'm not convinced Oklahoma goes to the Big 12 title game with a win over Tech. That would create a three-way in the Big 12, and believe it or not under that scenario the last tie-breaker is BCS standings. OU would have to jump past Texas in the BCS to go to the Big 12 title game.

BCS chaos is guaranteed -- happens every year. The chances of Alabama and Tech winning out seem remote to me. Alabama has to get past Florida and Tech needs to get by both OU and MU. I'm rooting for Tech to win out because MU matches up well with Tech.

If Tech loses to MU and Alabama loses to Florida, Texas still ends up in the title game against Florida.

Personally, I'm rooting for this scenario:
Alabama loses to Auburn
Alabama beats Florida
OU beats Tech
MU beats Texas (HA!)
BYU beats Utah
Ball State wins out

National title game: USC vs. Penn State

Why? Two things -- having the Pac 10 and Big 11 back their way into the national title game might finally convince the other BCS conferences to go out and buy some stones and tell the Pac 10 and Big 11 to add conference title games or we're going to go create our own playoff and you can go screw yourselves. Plus, if Ball State goes undefeated and ends up in the GMAC or Motor City Bowl, Letterman will go off on the BCS until it is destroyed.

[DeToxRox]

The problem is an 8 team playoff settles nothing, and that is the only fathomable playoff scenario.

16 teams will never be an option.

[Atocep]

The BCS isn't going anywhere. It has absolutely nothing to do with who gets into the title game and how. Its about the BCS conferences controlling postseason money.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Arles

I was talking with a buddy and we went through a few scenarios. I know it's a stretch, but think if this happens:

Big 12:
Texas wins out (blow out people by 30 each game)
Texas Tech loses to Oklahoma
Oklahoma loses to Missouri in the Big12 title game

Pac10:
USC loses to UCLA in an improbable rival loss
Oregon State wins out

Big10:
Penn State loses to Michigan State in a close game
Ohio State beats Michigan

SEC:
Florida loses to Florida State
Alabama loses to Auburn
Florida beats Alabama in the SEC title game

Big East:
Cincy wins the title

ACC:
Maryland wins the title

Both Utah and Boise State win by 30 in remaining games.

Potential end result:
Texas vs. Utah in the title game (1v2 in BCS)

Other BCS
Oregon State vs. Ohio State
Florida vs. Missouri
Cincy vs. Maryland
Alabama vs. Boise State

Texas Tech, who beat Texas and has only 1 loss, finishes 3rd in the BCS and doesn't go to a BCS game.

Honestly, I don't see Texas Tech losing that late in the season and still remaining as high as 3rd in the BCS.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Honestly, I don't see Texas Tech losing that late in the season and still remaining as high as 3rd in the BCS.

Well, when Florida, Alabama, USC, Penn State and Oklahoma also lose, you're running out of teams to move up. I already put Utah and Texas ahead of them. If you don't want Tech 3rd in that scenario, you'd have to put a 2-loss Ohio State ahead of them. Everyone else would have lost late as well.

[st.cronin]

I actually like the BCS. I do think they should junk the half computer ratings/half poll clusterfudge and do it either via committee like the basketball tournament or strictly via computer ratings like the hockey tournament.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

Don't forget Ball State who's right around #12.

The problem is the BCS only has to take the top non BCS conference team and not obligated to any others.

Precisely.

Some of those bowl matchups wouldn't work. Under Arles' scenario, Missouri goes to the Fiesta, Ohio State and Oregon State go to Rose, Florida goes to Sugar, Maryland goes to Orange. The only automatic not tied to a bowl would be Cincy.

Likely eligible at-large: Alabama, USC, Penn State, Boise State, Ball State, Georgia, BYU

NCG: Texas vs. Utah
Rose: Oregon State vs. Ohio State
Fiesta: Missouri vs. USC (first pick)
Sugar: Florida vs. Penn State (second pick)
Orange: Maryland vs. Cincinnati (third pick)

No way Fiesta touches a non-BCS school with USC eligible. After the Hawaii debacle, no way Sugar does either.

I realize that the BCS is only intended to pair No. 1 vs. No. 2, but I think the market has spoken -- the Big (L)east doesn't belong as an automatic BCS bid conference. There's a reason why no BCS bowl has signed an automatic deal with the Big East -- they all hope they don't get stuck with the Big East team. That Orange Bowl will be a debacle.

The BCS would also be improved by upping the win requirement from 9 to 10. If your conference champion has three loses, enjoy the Gator or Liberty Bowl -- it's where you belong. You don't need to be cluttering up a perfectly good bowl game.

It also may be time to do away with the two-school limit on the BCS. In a year where the cream is in the Big 12 and SEC, if those conferences earn multiple bids, they should get them.

There is nothing about the BCS that makes any sense and is good for college football.

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by Atocep

The BCS isn't going anywhere. It has absolutely nothing to do with who gets into the title game and how. Its about the BCS conferences controlling postseason money.

Yup. If you really want to root for BCS destruction, root for bowl matchups which are incredibly uninteresting to watch.

Less people watching = less money = more impetus for some kind of playoff.

[QuikSand]

I think it's amazing how many people get all worked up over the entirety of the BCS. Really, if what we care about is a national championship, we now have it arranged that the top two teams (by a pre-arranged structure) meet in a one-game playoff to determine that winner. I know a lot of people don't like exactly how it works, but that is what we have.

I love how all the vegetables get thrown at the process used to determine which teams get to play in the #3 and #4 non-title-implication bowl games versus the #5 and #6 non-title-implication bowl games. I understand there's cash money at stake, but from a "purity of the game" perspective, who really gives a shit whether a late-losing Texas Tech plays in the Orange Bowl or the Cotton Bowl? They're out of the title game, that's really all that matters, isn't it?

[Vegas Vic]

Let the bookies decide.

Las Vegas Sports Consultants delivers the opening lines to the onshore and offshore sports books. They think that Florida and Oklahoma are the two best teams right now.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

I realize that the BCS is only intended to pair No. 1 vs. No. 2, but I think the market has spoken -- the Big (L)east doesn't belong as an automatic BCS bid conference. There's a reason why no BCS bowl has signed an automatic deal with the Big East -- they all hope they don't get stuck with the Big East team. That Orange Bowl will be a debacle.

West Virginia 48, Oklahoma 28.

Louisville 24, Wake Forest 13.

West Virginia 38, Georgia 35.

The last three BCS games played by the Big East, and they beat three different supposed power conferences. You don't think actually winning the fucking game that's being played should be part of the requirements for deserving to be in it?

[astrosfan64]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Precisely.

Some of those bowl matchups wouldn't work. Under Arles' scenario, Missouri goes to the Fiesta, Ohio State and Oregon State go to Rose, Florida goes to Sugar, Maryland goes to Orange. The only automatic not tied to a bowl would be Cincy.

Likely eligible at-large: Alabama, USC, Penn State, Boise State, Ball State, Georgia, BYU

NCG: Texas vs. Utah
Rose: Oregon State vs. Ohio State
Fiesta: Missouri vs. USC (first pick)
Sugar: Florida vs. Penn State (second pick)
Orange: Maryland vs. Cincinnati (third pick)

No way Fiesta touches a non-BCS school with USC eligible. After the Hawaii debacle, no way Sugar does either.

I realize that the BCS is only intended to pair No. 1 vs. No. 2, but I think the market has spoken -- the Big (L)east doesn't belong as an automatic BCS bid conference. There's a reason why no BCS bowl has signed an automatic deal with the Big East -- they all hope they don't get stuck with the Big East team. That Orange Bowl will be a debacle.

The BCS would also be improved by upping the win requirement from 9 to 10. If your conference champion has three loses, enjoy the Gator or Liberty Bowl -- it's where you belong. You don't need to be cluttering up a perfectly good bowl game.

It also may be time to do away with the two-school limit on the BCS. In a year where the cream is in the Big 12 and SEC, if those conferences earn multiple bids, they should get them.

There is nothing about the BCS that makes any sense and is good for college football.

Please learn about college football before you talk. The Big East has smacked down the ACC, Big12 and the SEC. What else can they do?

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

I realize that the BCS is only intended to pair No. 1 vs. No. 2, but I think the market has spoken -- the Big (L)east doesn't belong as an automatic BCS bid conference. There's a reason why no BCS bowl has signed an automatic deal with the Big East -- they all hope they don't get stuck with the Big East team. That Orange Bowl will be a debacle.

Are you kidding me?

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

The problem is an 8 team playoff settles nothing, and that is the only fathomable playoff scenario.

16 teams will never be an option.

It settles things a lot more than the current system.

[GrantDawg]

Actually, there is a much better argument that the ACC doesn't deserve a BCS automatic bid more than the Big East doesn't.

[DeToxRox]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

It settles things a lot more than the current system.

How though? An 8 team playoff fucks non BCS teams. You'll have six division champs from the BCS conferences, and two at larges. A non mid major would NEVER get in because there are always two teams in the top 8 that won't win the conference.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

It settles things a lot more than the current system.

This gets argued here every season, but this is nothing more than perception.

[GrantDawg]

BTW, they are expanding the the Division 1 playoffs again. Because, you know, there is no way college football teams could play in a playoff system unless they are schools with smaller squads and less money.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Atocep

This gets argued here every season, but this is nothing more than perception.

That is true and like politics, people are stubborn. I would say that it is more than perception, more like a fantasy.

[rowech]

The only true playoff that would be worth anything is to take all conference champions and put them in a playoff...that's it. Everyone else can go to a bowl if they want. No at-large berths because a team that can't win its conference doesn't deserve to be champion.

[Buccaneer]

Traditional Bowl System > BCS > Playoffs

[miami_fan]

The quickest way to a playoffs would be for the BCS conferences to turn on each other by taking away automatic bids or forcing conferences to either all have conference championship games or to get rid of them all.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Traditional Bowl System > BCS > Playoffs

Playoffs> BCS > Traditional Bowl System

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Arles

Texas Tech, who beat Texas and has only 1 loss, finishes 3rd in the BCS and doesn't go to a BCS game.

Alternatively, Texas Tech stays in front of Utah. You have a Texas Tech vs. Texas rematch for the national title and Missouri, as a conference champion, is left out of the BCS by rule.

[Crim]

Originally Posted by Logan

West Virginia 48, Oklahoma 28.

Louisville 24, Wake Forest 13.

West Virginia 38, Georgia 35.

The last three BCS games played by the Big East, and they beat three different supposed power conferences. You don't think actually winning the fucking game that's being played should be part of the requirements for deserving to be in it?

LOL I was thinking this as I was reading his post, I see you got to it first.

[Crim]

Originally Posted by rowech

The only true playoff that would be worth anything is to take all conference champions and put them in a playoff...that's it. Everyone else can go to a bowl if they want. No at-large berths because a team that can't win its conference doesn't deserve to be champion.

a team that can't win its conference doesn't deserve to be champion
a team that can't win its conference doesn't deserve to be champion
a team that can't win its conference doesn't deserve to be champion
a team that can't win its conference doesn't deserve to be champion
a team that can't win its conference doesn't deserve to be champion


...et cetera. How this is not obvious to the schmoes running the BCS escapes me entirely.

[Crim]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Traditional Bowl System > BCS > Playoffs

Damn you're old, aren't you?

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Crim

a team that can't win its conference doesn't deserve to be champion
a team that can't win its conference doesn't deserve to be champion
a team that can't win its conference doesn't deserve to be champion
a team that can't win its conference doesn't deserve to be champion
a team that can't win its conference doesn't deserve to be champion


...et cetera. How this is not obvious to the schmoes running the BCS escapes me entirely.

Maybe because it is not true of any other sport?

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Traditional Bowl System > BCS > Playoffs

I (almost) agree. Every team's goal at the beginning of the season should be to win your conference and win your bowl game. Let the writers and fans debate over who the champ should be.

I don't however, like the BCS better than a playoff because it gives an air of legitimacy to what is still a very flawed process.

A playoff will lessen the import of regular season game and not be worth it. People disagree with me here.

In the end, the problem is that unless you drastically limit the number of teams in D1-A or increase the number of games, you don't have a large enough sample size to cleanly determine a champion each season.

A playoff would not solve this problem. It would simply paper over it at the expense of the regular season.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

In the end, the problem is that unless you drastically limit the number of teams in D1-A or increase the number of games, you don't have a large enough sample size to cleanly determine a champion each season.

A playoff would not solve this problem. It would simply paper over it at the expense of the regular season.

Congrats on being one of the few people that actually get it.

[Buccaneer]

Sheesh, we go through this every year, and I always appreciate albion's input. The reason I put BCS ahead of the playoffs is simply BCS's goal of matching the top 2 (or thereabouts) teams - ignoring the rest of the "BCS" bowls which are nonsense. There are simply too many teams and too many apples and oranges comparison that it comes down to subjectiveness (whether choosing the BCS teams, the playoffs seeding or the final polls). Might as well just give the schools a post-season reward (assuming you can cut the number of bowls in half) for a job well done and let the pollsters (whomever you think would be the best judge) sort it out - if you really think that's important enough.

[Chubby]

Do the NFL playoffs diminish the importance of the regular season?

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Do the NFL playoffs diminish the importance of the regular season?

There is a very systemmatic way of determining seeding in the NFL. You can't even come close to duplicating that in college football.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

There is a very systemmatic way of determining seeding in the NFL. You can't even come close to duplicating that in college football.

Does the 1-AA playoffs dimisnh the regular season?

Clearly 1-A football has it right while every other sport known to man has it wrong

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Do the NFL playoffs diminish the importance of the regular season?

I think the complete answer is yes they do, but more than any other sport they provide material incentives to perform well in the regular season to be rewarded in the postseason. It still kinda sucks when a 9-7 division winner gets to host a 12-4 wild card team (and when that 9-7 team wins in overtime and advances while the other team goes home) but the NFL gets as close to anyone out there (with the home field advantage and bye system) in making the regular season really count.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Crim

a team that can't win its conference doesn't deserve to be champion
a team that can't win its conference doesn't deserve to be champion
a team that can't win its conference doesn't deserve to be champion
a team that can't win its conference doesn't deserve to be champion
a team that can't win its conference doesn't deserve to be champion


...et cetera. How this is not obvious to the schmoes running the BCS escapes me entirely.

Just checking, but you must absolutely hate the college basketball tournament, right?

[digamma]

what albion said.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I love how all the vegetables get thrown at the process used to determine which teams get to play in the #3 and #4 non-title-implication bowl games versus the #5 and #6 non-title-implication bowl games. I understand there's cash money at stake, but from a "purity of the game" perspective, who really gives a shit whether a late-losing Texas Tech plays in the Orange Bowl or the Cotton Bowl?

Because I would like to watch the BCS games. Getting a Ohio State-Maryland matchup with teams like Texas Tech, USC and/or Penn State left out would be a bore to me. I don't expect fantastic matchups for ever bowls, but I would like compelling games. Since we don't care about actually determining a winner in the manner nearly every other major sport does, atleast the games can be somewhat compelling.

I'm an Illinois fan, but the fact I had to watch the shell of a team they had last season get lambasted in a BCS game was a joke. If Ohio State is allowed in instead of a team like Texas Tech or Texas, it will be another similar travesty. Fortunately, I think we will luck out and all will be OK this season. Still, it's interesting to speculate on situations that could have both a questionable championship game and uninteresting BCS bowl matchups. Which, until there is some kind of playoff situation, is all we really have to look forward to.

[QuikSand]

Is it your view that the BCS process systematically creates less interesting games than we would have under the traditional bowl process? Just curious -- I don't think I have ever heard someone really stand by that claim.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Does the 1-AA playoffs dimisnh the regular season?

Clearly 1-A football has it right while every other sport known to man has it wrong

Considering the number of teams and the limited schedule, Division 1-A does as good a job as is realistically possible in crowning a champion. A playoff in Div 1-A would be a step back in crowning the best team champion.

The BCS isn't a perfect system, but it does a solid job of eliminating mediocrity. People generally want to see a playoff so they can see that 1 game in 10 that a Ball St could knock off a Texas or Oklahoma because it gives them a nice warm, fuzzy feeling that makes them feel better about themselves.

I know I'm in the minority, but I want to see the best teams playing. The George Masons, ect can stay at home.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Do the NFL playoffs diminish the importance of the regular season?

Imagine the difference in level of excitement with the craziness going on between Texas, Oklahoma and Texas Tech this year if you knew all three of them were going to the playoffs anyway and they were just playing for bragging rights/seeding. A playoff system is either going to only allow conference champions and screw over the crying mid-majors even more(and teams like Texas/Texas Tech/Alabama while Maryland and Cincinnati get their shot), or its going to let lots of teams in and *completely* diminish the regular season.

I wouldn't mind a playoff system at all personally, but this is a ridiculous point IMO.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Radii

Imagine the difference in level of excitement with the craziness going on between Texas, Oklahoma and Texas Tech this year if you knew all three of them were going to the playoffs anyway and they were just playing for bragging rights/seeding. A playoff system is either going to only allow conference champions and screw over the crying mid-majors even more(and teams like Texas/Texas Tech/Alabama while Maryland and Cincinnati get their shot), or its going to let lots of teams in and *completely* diminish the regular season.

I wouldn't mind a playoff system at all personally, but this is a ridiculous point IMO.

That's exactly what they ARE doing. Instead of being in the top 8 with a shot at the title they have to be top 2.

There's a good amount of volatility in the BCS rankings that they could use the top 8 in BCS rankings to seed the playoffs if they ever had them. Regular season not important? Try telling that to a top team that loses down the stretch and seems them drop out of the top 8...

[DeToxRox]

You cannot compare the NFL playoffs to having a college playoff.

32 teams playing 16 games generally gives you your 12 best teams for the playoffs.

119 teams playing 12 games settles nothing that should go in determining the top 8 teams who compete in a playoff.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by Chubby

That's exactly what they ARE doing. Instead of being in the top 8 with a shot at the title they have to be top 2.

Are you seriously trying to argue that playing for the top 8 vs playing for the top 2 are the same thing and does not diminish the games played between those teams at all?

[Crim]

Originally Posted by Crim

a team that can't win its conference doesn't deserve to be champion
a team that can't win its conference doesn't deserve to be champion
a team that can't win its conference doesn't deserve to be champion
a team that can't win its conference doesn't deserve to be champion
a team that can't win its conference doesn't deserve to be champion


...et cetera. How this is not obvious to the schmoes running the BCS escapes me entirely.

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Maybe because it is not true of any other sport?

Your assertion does not hold water, GD. Take the NFL for example. By winning your division, you assure yourself an advantage in the postseason, i.e. home field, lesser competition in the early round(s), etc.

When a college team loses its conference championship game, and is still rewarded with a trip to the BCSNCG, that trumps all advantages that should accompany the winning of its conference.

The Giants did not win their division last year, and won the Super Bowl. But they had one hell of an uphill climb to get there in the post season.

When Oklahoma lost to Colorado in the B12 Championship and was still awarded a place in the National Championship Game, it was a travesty, in my opinion. Thank goodness they got rolled up in that game, because it is my contention that they did not deserve to be there.

My opinion changes entirely when there is a playoff involved, though GrantDawg. At that point the teams settle on the field the right to advance, so a couple of at-large teams being included does not bother me. Currently though, the only thing settled on the field in the above Oklahoma scenario (assume they won the NC) is that they were unable to win their conference and were immediately given a free pass to the championship game.

[Crim]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Just checking, but you must absolutely hate the college basketball tournament, right?

No. Losing the conference championship game, and immediately punching a ticket to the NCG is not analogous to March Madness.

Win Or Go Home >>>>> Lose And Still Advance.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Is it your view that the BCS process systematically creates less interesting games than we would have under the traditional bowl process? Just curious -- I don't think I have ever heard someone really stand by that claim.

No, my point is that the BCS has done nothing to improve the quality of the major bowl games. Which, if you aren't sold on the national championship matchup, makes the BCS fairly useless.