More Talk ABout The BCS [Archive] - Front Office Football Central

View Full Version : More Talk ABout The BCS

Joe

01-05-2006, 09:23 PM

Here's a question. If USC was ranked #1 going in to the game, why did Texas win? And as follow-up, since Texas won, are they the #1 team?

Seems like the BCS works only when there are two clear-cut best teams in the country which, ironically, is exactly when you DON'T need the BCS, because everybody knows who those two are. When you need the BCS is when the situation is more muddied, such as when there are none or three (or five) undefeated teams, or when there's one clearly good team and a bunch of roughly equivalent second-bests. And under the current system, the BCS will only be of use when it's use is the most controversial, for it will exclude teams who have earned the right to play for all the marbles, but will be excluded because of their standing in the polls.

One of the assumptions behind the way the current national championship is determined is that by taking expert and computer-based polls, you can whittle the field down to the two best. Well, it seems that the number "two" is relatively arbitrary here. If the system actually works, then the determination of who are the "best" team or teams should be independent of the number of "best" teams you're trying to find. Clearly this year, USC and Texas were the best two squads, and if the BCS hadn't reflected that accurately it would be condemned as being worthless. But the BCS picked USC as the #1 team, which clearly they aren't. If the BCS can't get the #1 team right, how can anyone faithfully trust that it will get ANY NUMBER of top teams right?

If anything, yesterday's #2 victory over #1 confirms that polls are innacurate. Nobody should claim that because a team is ranked higher that they'd win against a lower-ranked team, therefore proving that they are the "better" team. Yet the BCS makes just that assertion by excluding teams based solely on their standing in the polls. Isn't that just the opposite of what you'd want to happen?

This year, as in 2002 when Ohio State and Miami played, the best two teams finished undefeated and played each other in a GREAT game to determine ON THE FIELD who the best team in the land is. The fact that the #2 team beat the #1 team in BOTH cases confirms that the BCS is woefully flawed, that championships should be determined exclusively by on-field performance, that berths in a championship game or playoffs should be earned based on performance and NOT on polls, and that the only truly foolproof way of annointing a national champion in Div IA football is via a playoff -- just like every other level of NCAA football, and just like ever other NCAA and professional team sport.

Easy Mac

01-05-2006, 09:27 PM

If we had a playoff, the Auburn Tigers, the best team in the SEC according to all the pundits at the end of the season, would have won the title :rolleyes:

Playoffs prove nothing other than who is playing the best at the end of the season. Why not have playoffs at the beginning of the season or in the middle?

General Mike

01-05-2006, 09:33 PM

They should go back to the old system. Plain and simple.

timmynausea

01-05-2006, 09:34 PM

In the old system Texas and USC wouldn't have played, right?

WVUFAN

01-05-2006, 09:35 PM

If we had a playoff, the Auburn Tigers, the best team in the SEC according to all the pundits at the end of the season, would have won the title http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Playoffs prove nothing other than who is playing the best at the end of the season. Why not have playoffs at the beginning of the season or in the middle?
See, and if Auburn truly was the best team in the country, now they can't prove it because they were in a tougher conference than either Texas or USC was. They're now stuck in a less bowl simply because they're in the SEC and not the Pac-10. In other words, they can't prove it on the field.

The bowl system rewards lackluster scheduling, since SoS is a minor aspect of the BCS, you can be a USC, play no one tough except a couple of games, and get in. You can be a Notre Dame, have a 9 win season, only 2 of which had winning records, and get into the BCS. Rather than prove who the best team in a playoff system, which is how it's done IN EVERY SINGLE OTHER COLLEGE SPORT IN THE NCAA, including the other football divisions, it's not done where it counts.

No one disputes a UConn when they win the NCAA Tourney. No one discounts a Appalachian St when they win the D-II title. Those are solid, non-contestable champions. It's a shame we can't have that in D-I.

Huckleberry

01-05-2006, 09:35 PM

They should go back to the old system. Plain and simple.
Totally disagree. The following games definitely couldn't have happened in the old system:

Ohio State/Miami
LSU/Oklahoma
USC/Oklahoma
Texas/USC

Note that in 2002 and 2005 the team that won the actual game would have finished #2 in the polls as the #1 team beat a different opponent.

Buccaneer

01-05-2006, 09:36 PM

Oh boy, another place for an anti-playoffs jab (thanks for starting, easy).

Think about it, you know how some years we have such a controversy of who the top 2 teams are? Just try extending that to seeding the top 4 or top 8.

By the way, when does the Penn State - Texas game start?

Penn State
..................Penn State
FSU

USC
..................Texas
Texas

Buccaneer

01-05-2006, 09:36 PM

Totally disagree. The following games definitely couldn't have happened in the old system:

Ohio State/Miami
LSU/Oklahoma
USC/Oklahoma
Texas/USC

Note that in 2002 and 2005 the team that won the actual game would have finished #2 in the polls as the #1 team beat a different opponent.
So?

Easy Mac

01-05-2006, 09:37 PM

Huckleberry

01-05-2006, 09:38 PM

So?
So I like seeing the two best teams play as often as possible, as do most fans.

And, more importantly for what will actually happen, as does the money.

Wolfpack

01-05-2006, 09:38 PM

Under the old system, Texas likely would have gone to the Orange Bowl (Big 8/12 had a long-standing tie there) against probably FSU or Notre Dame (I can't even remember where the ACC had a tie-in, if any). Meanwhile, it would have been Penn State and USC in the Rose Bowl. If both Texas and USC won, then USC probably wins the MNC because they would beat a team (Penn State) that would be better than any team Texas faced. IOW, the only way for Texas to win the MNC would be for USC to lose and they win. If both lost, then it's likely a split title or perhaps Penn State winning outright.

Buccaneer

01-05-2006, 09:42 PM

Surely WVU has to be there, and what about Ohio State... they may already have lost to both Texas and PSU, but they deserve to be there with their 2 losses.
Nope, they would pick the winners of those 4 conferences (SEC be damned). You see how much fight there is for the conferences to ensure themselves a BCS slot, so a playoffs will have to keep that.

WVUFAN

01-05-2006, 09:43 PM

Oh boy, another place for an anti-playoffs jab (thanks for starting, easy).

Think about it, you know how some years we have such a controversy of who the top 2 teams are? Just try extending that to seeding the top 4 or top 8.

D-I playoffs should be determined in exactly the same way as the D-II playoffs. It would generate substancial income for the teams, and create a "Sweet 16" - type hype for the games. This also would give a legitimate chance for a non-BCS conference team (like Utah of last year, or TCU of this year) a chance to make their program shine and legitimately compete.

Buccaneer

01-05-2006, 09:45 PM

So I like seeing the two best teams play as often as possible, as do most fans.

And, more importantly for what will actually happen, as does the money.
Then the playoffs will NOT be what you and most of the fans want to see. More times than not, it will not be the #1 and #2 seed facing off but two 11-2 teams or even a 10-3 team. After that happens, everyone will be screaming about the good ol' days of the BCS.

kcchief19

01-05-2006, 09:47 PM

kcchief19

01-05-2006, 09:50 PM

Then the playoffs will NOT be what you and most of the fans want to see. More times than not, it will not be the #1 and #2 seed facing off but two 11-2 teams or even a 10-3 team. After that happens, everyone will be screaming about the good ol' days of the BCS.Is anybody wistful for the good ol' days of the 16-team NCAA tournament? I guarantee that if you had a I-A playoff, college football fans would be so gorged with great football and excitement that the complainers longing for the good ol' days would be crusty old curmudgeons. http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/images/smilies/wink.gif

WVUFAN

01-05-2006, 09:50 PM

Then the playoffs will NOT be what you and most of the fans want to see. More times than not, it will not be the #1 and #2 seed facing off but two 11-2 teams or even a 10-3 team. After that happens, everyone will be screaming about the good ol' days of the BCS.
If the #1 and #2 seeds are deserve of those rankings, they will meet in the finals. The NCAA Basketball tourney is considered by many to be extremely exciting, because it truly generates a national champion, and alot of people like to see a Cinderella team have a chance at the title, something that would NEVER happen. Again, someone pointed out Auburn, but I'll mention Auburn or LSU. Because they happen to play in the SEC, and it was a tougher conference than either the Pac-10 or the Big 12, they have to pay by not having a legit chance at a national championship. That's simply not right.

RendeR

01-05-2006, 09:52 PM

Then the playoffs will NOT be what you and most of the fans want to see. More times than not, it will not be the #1 and #2 seed facing off but two 11-2 teams or even a 10-3 team. After that happens, everyone will be screaming about the good ol' days of the BCS.
Horseshit.

If there were a playoff no-one would be complaining when a 2 loss Ohio State Team wins the championship game because to BE the best team you have to survive to get the chance to play that game.

Fuck the BCS and its idiotic system of money grubbing conferences. For that matter fuck the conferences, the ONLY reason they don't want to see a playoff is perceived loss of revenues from the bowls. A fact that I have no doubt they could come to terms with if the playoffs were aligned properly USING the old bowl venues and sponsorships to promote the playoff games.

PLAYOFFS NOW!!

dubb93

01-05-2006, 09:55 PM

It's not hard at all. What's so hard about a playoff where each Div I-A conference winner qualifies?

B/C, regardless, it would be a joke when a 2 loss power conference team lost a spot in the playoffs to a sun belt team. Although I agree with a playoff situation, I don't think sun belt and some other conferences should get automatic spots.

Easy Mac

01-05-2006, 09:55 PM

I don't know if anyone picked up on that, but I was being facetious about the whole Auburn being good thing. They were one of the most overrated teams in the country.

bronconick

01-05-2006, 09:55 PM

I'm not going to complain about a 9-2 #4 OSU team running the table and winning a national title by beating 13 seed TCU, 5 seed Oregon, 1 seed USC, and 2 seed Texas.

Hell, that'd be more legit then most of the undefeated teams of the last 25 years.

RendeR

01-05-2006, 09:59 PM

WVUFAN

01-05-2006, 10:00 PM

They were one of the most overrated teams in the country.
This one line is the prime reason why there should be a playoff. Right now we speculate as to who is overrated or underrated, but a playoff would determine this for real. My point is that Auburn never really was given a proper chance to prove themselves, not with the tough conference they were in.

I'm a WVU fan, as my nickname entitles, and it pains me to say this, but Virginia Tech was one of the best teams in the nation this year, and because of ONE SINGLE BAD GAME against a poor Florida St team, they did not get a chance to play for a major bowl. TCU never had a chance because of their conference.

As for a money thing, I remember seeing an episode of "5 Reason Why ... " that said a company had submitted a proposal to the NCAA for a national championship that would have generated more money per team than the bowl games do now. It was rejected because it "took too much away from academics", which in reality is generated less games than the D-II tourney does now.

panerd

01-05-2006, 10:02 PM

What planet are you guys living on? There is one reason there isn't a playoff, the same reason the causes 99% of the stupid shit that occurs in this country everyday.

$$$

bronconick

01-05-2006, 10:06 PM

You know what, I take back my Fuck you to the BCS, KEEP the BCS rankings, seriously, USE those rankings to get a top 16 teams, 4 weeks later we have a true national champion.

This eliminates the random sun belt team who shouldn't be DIV-I anyway from stealing a spot from a more qualified team.

19 games to play out, hell there were 28 friggin bowl games this season, simple enough to alot the lesser bowls to the first and second rounds, then the big name bowls to the semi finals and championship game. and you could still rotate them annually so EACH venue gets a share of the big money.
2 problems with that.

1. Unless the NCAA actually comes up with a reasonable criteria to eliminate the Sun Belt etc... conferences from 1-A, you can pretty much bet that you'll have lawsuits all over the place. And well, take a look at the real hard-core stance they took on the Indian mascots to know how well the NCAA reacts to the threat of a lawsuit.

2. Any playoff system is going to have to have 1, maybe 2 rounds played at home fields, because the first round games will sell 12,000 tickets because people are going to save their spending money to buy tickets/hotels/airlines packages for the later rounds. NCAA basketball works because you have 8 teams in one place for 4 days, and you only need to sell 20,000 seats. There aren't more then a couple thousand hardcore fans with the cash to follow any team to 4 different bowl games in 4 weeks.

Buccaneer

01-05-2006, 10:10 PM

ONE SINGLE BAD GAME against a poor #15 seeded team in the first round, they did not get a chance to prove how good they could have been in the playoffs.
Fixed it for you.

What about the ACC? FSU is the best team because they won their conference playoffs, right? No need to even consider VT or Miami because they had already lost.

Why is this so important to some of you??????????

RendeR

01-05-2006, 10:10 PM

2 problems with that.

1. Unless the NCAA actually comes up with a reasonable criteria to eliminate the Sun Belt etc... conferences from 1-A, you can pretty much bet that you'll have lawsuits all over the place. And well, take a look at the real hard-core stance they took on the Indian mascots to know how well the NCAA reacts to the threat of a lawsuit.

2. Any playoff system is going to have to have 1, maybe 2 rounds played at home fields, because the first round games will sell 12,000 tickets because people are going to save their spending money to buy tickets/hotels/airlines packages for the later rounds. NCAA basketball works because you have 8 teams in one place for 4 days, and you only need to sell 20,000 seats. There aren't more then a couple thousand hardcore fans with the cash to follow any team to 4 different bowl games in 4 weeks.
I think you serverely underestimate the power of human stupidity spending. If there are games, people will pay out the ass to go see them, especially if their team is involved.

I forget where I read it, I believe is was the sporting news in the mid 90's, they tried to poll sports fans across the country to see just how many people would travel to multiple games to watch their NFL team play if there was no limit on seating/ticket numbers per game. The numbers were insane, they estimated a 49ers game (they were huge back then to my dismay) would pull hearly a half million fans to multiple games.

This country is sick in the fucking head over its sports teams. The tickets would sell like hotcakes.

Klinglerware

01-05-2006, 10:12 PM

What planet are you guys living on? There is one reason there isn't a playoff, the same reason the causes 99% of the stupid shit that occurs in this country everyday.

$$$

Exactly. If the 1-A schools and conference comissioners actually thought that a playoff system would generate at least as much revenue as the current bowl system, they would have done it a long time ago.

RendeR

01-05-2006, 10:12 PM

Fixed it for you.

What about the ACC? FSU is the best team because they won their conference playoffs, right? No need to even consider VT or Miami because they had already lost.

Why is this so important to some of you??????????
The conference championships are not true playoffs, they're simple money makers for teh conferences.

its important because it is the ONLY way to truly have a national champion, until there is a playoff in place its all opinion and therefore not definitive.

bronconick

01-05-2006, 10:13 PM

I think you serverely underestimate the power of human stupidity spending. If there are games, people will pay out the ass to go see them, especially if their team is involved.

I forget where I read it, I believe is was the sporting news in the mid 90's, they tried to poll sports fans across the country to see just how many people would travel to multiple games to watch their NFL team play if there was no limit on seating/ticket numbers per game. The numbers were insane, they estimated a 49ers game (they were huge back then to my dismay) would pull hearly a half million fans to multiple games.

This country is sick in the fucking head over its sports teams. The tickets would sell like hotcakes.
I just wonder how many of those people would still show up if they're told to cut a check for a couple grand for each round.

Then again, you're probably right about the power of stupidity.

RendeR

01-05-2006, 10:14 PM

I just wonder how many of those people would still show up if they're told to cut a check for a couple grand for each round.

Then again, you're probably right about the power of stupidity.http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

RendeR

01-05-2006, 10:15 PM

Just to distract people for a moment....

i just saw a shakira video, and damn...I wanna hit that till it falls over from exhaustion....

she's not even that "pretty" but she is smokin'......I just had some..and now I want more.....

Easy Mac

01-05-2006, 10:19 PM

Well if we want to equate a 1-a playoff to the basketball playoffs, it would have to go like this. There are roughly 325 teams in NCAA division 1 basketball, with 65 making the tourney, so 1 in every 5 makes it. Same can go for the NCAA. 24 team playoff. Auto-bids for conference champs. 8 first round games, with 8 byes for the top 8 teams regardless of conference (using a mixture of the bcs and polls of course.

The teams

20 Florida State
2 Texas
11 West Virginia
3 Penn State
22 Tulsa
23 Akron
14 TCU
1 Southern Cal
7 Georgia
24 Arkansas State
21 Boise State
4 Ohio State
5 Oregon
6 Notre Dame
8 Miami
9 Auburn
10 Virginia Tech
12 Lousiana State
13 Alabama
15 Texas Tech
16 UCLA
17 Florida
18 Wisconsin
19 Louisville

The Playoffs

Round 1

9 Auburn
24 Arkansas State

10 Virginia Tech
23 Akron

11 West Virginia
22 Tulsa

12 Louisiana State
21 Boise State

13 Alabama
20 Florida State

14 TCU
19 Louisville

15 Texas Tech
18 Wisconsin

16 UCLA
17 Florida

Round 2
1 USC
16/17 winner

8 Miami
9/24 winner

4 Ohio State
13/20 winner

5 Oregon
12/21 winner

6 Notre Dame
11/22 winner

3 Penn State
14/19 winner

7 Georgia
10/23 winner

2 Texas
15/18 winner

Round 3
1/16/17 winner
8/9/24 winner

4/13/20 winner
5/12/21 winner

6/11/22 winner
3/14/19 winner

7/10/23 winner
2/15/18 winner

Round 4
1/16/17/8/9/24 winner
4/13/20/5/12/21 winner

6/11/22/3/14/19 winner
7/10/23/2/15/18 winner

Final
1/16/17/8/9/24/4/13/20/5/12/21 winner
6/11/22/3/14/19/7/10/23/2/15/18 winner

Easy Mac

01-05-2006, 10:21 PM

The conference championships are not true playoffs, they're simple money makers for teh conferences.

its important because it is the ONLY way to truly have a national champion, until there is a playoff in place its all opinion and therefore not definitive.Why not count them as playoffs then? Shouldn't two teams from the same conference have a play-off game to determine the best team in the conference? I mean, if we should have play-off game for the best team in Division 1-A, then surely that should equate on a smaller level?

Mr. Wednesday

01-05-2006, 10:24 PM

If there's ever an NCAA-sponsored playoff, half the teams will be automatic bid and half will be at-large. The I-AA field is undersized for the sponsorship (IIRC) at 16, so I'd assume the I-A field would follow suit and the NCAA would kludge something to handle the distribution of 8 autobids to rather more conferences than that.

RendeR

01-05-2006, 10:24 PM

Why not count them as playoffs then? Shouldn't two teams from the same conference have a play-off game to determine the best team in the conference? I mean, if we should have play-off game for the best team in Division 1-A, then surely that should equate on a smaller level?
No, because the conference championship becomes irrelevent to the national one, who cares who wins the ACC if that team isn't in the top 24? They don't get to go anywhere anyway?

just an example, doubt it would ever happen that way.

You either make it about the conferences and have a shit natioanl title situation or you ignore the conferences, let the teams play for their place in the national rankings and get a true national champion.

Easy Mac

01-05-2006, 10:27 PM

No, because the conference championship becomes irrelevent to the national one, who cares who wins the ACC if that team isn't in the top 24? They don't get to go anywhere anyway?

just an example, doubt it would ever happen that way.

You either make it about the conferences and have a shit natioanl title situation or you ignore the conferences, let the teams play for their place in the national rankings and get a true national champion.If you ignore the conferences, then why not have a scheduling free for all? Conference season would be pointless. Why would any SEC team risk having to play other SEC teams and miss the playoffs when they could try and schedule games against the Sun Belt and WAC? Why should a team be awarded a national championship if it can't even win its conference... wasn't that the cry from a few years ago as to why the BCS was a failure?

Buccaneer

01-05-2006, 10:28 PM

The conference championships are not true playoffs, they're simple money makers for teh conferences.

its important because it is the ONLY way to truly have a national champion, until there is a playoff in place its all opinion and therefore not definitive.
Hypocrite. That is exactly what the conference championships are - a playoff game in determing the best team in the conference - by playing on the field. Just think of them are the first round game or the play-in game. Oh, you don't like the results that FSU won the ACC playoffs? Ok, that's really not a true playoff game because we all know that VT and Miami are better teams, right? After all, the ONLY way to determine who's the best team is not to have any upsets.

RendeR

01-05-2006, 10:33 PM

Hypocrite. That is exactly what the conference championships are - a playoff game in determing the best team in the conference - by playing on the field. Just think of them are the first round game or the play-in game. Oh, you don't like the results that FSU won the ACC playoffs? Ok, that's really not a true playoff game because we all know that VT and Miami are better teams, right? After all, the ONLY way to determine who's the best team is not to have any upsets.
I have one thing to say here:

Colorado VS Texas

Conference championships are a joke, nothing more.

ISiddiqui

01-05-2006, 10:35 PM

I have one thing to say here:

Colorado VS Texas

Conference championships are a joke, nothing more.I'm sorry, but Bucc has you here. How can one NOT say that Conference Championships aren't a playoff?! They are based on how baseball did a World Series before expansion in the 1960s to 4 divisions. The best team in one division plays the best in the other division in a one game playoff for the champion of the conference.

I don't care if you think they are a joke, they ARE a playoff.

Buccaneer

01-05-2006, 10:39 PM

I have one thing to say here:

Colorado VS Texas

Conference championships are a joke, nothing more.
Again, you are a hypocrite. Was Texas not the best team in the Big 12? If they didn't prove it on the field (by winning their division and then beating the winner of the other division - which is what they do in the NFL, remember?), what other criteria are you using to determine that Texas is the best team?

If Texas is the best team in the Big 12, by that same criteria, FSU is the best team in the ACC.

Buccaneer

01-05-2006, 10:41 PM

Thanks, Imran, been a while since you agreed with me on anything, huh? ;)

Young Drachma

01-05-2006, 10:41 PM

RendeR

01-05-2006, 10:46 PM

Again, you are a hypocrite. Was Texas not the best team in the Big 12? If they didn't prove it on the field (by winning their division and then beating the winner of the other division - which is what they do in the NFL, remember?), what other criteria are you using to determine that Texas is the best team?

If Texas is the best team in the Big 12, by that same criteria, FSU is the best team in the ACC.
The games are a joke because the 2 best teams in the conferences aren't playing for that title. You want to tell me Colorado belonged in that game? please. Florida STATE?

Its all irrelevent anyway because none of htat truly holds any weight when considering a national playoff, automatic bids can't happen because then you get the sun belt fiasco scenario, even with at large bids someone in the top 16-24 teams will get passed over because some soft scheduled shit team "wins their conference"

Not to mention which if they ARE considered a true playoff and hold any validity, then ALL conferences have to have them. What sense does it make to force a #2 team to play fucking Colorado just because they have to prove the program is 20 years ahead of theirs?

So conference titles simply can't have any bearing on the real playoff scenario for DIV-IA football. hence my opinion that they are a joke and meaningless.

ISiddiqui

01-05-2006, 10:46 PM

Thanks, Imran, been a while since you agreed with me on anything, huh? ;)CivIV? :D

Easy Mac

01-05-2006, 10:47 PM

I have one thing to say here:

Colorado VS Texas

Conference championships are a joke, nothing more.Illinois vs. Farleigh-Dickinson
North Carolina vs. Oakland
Washington vs. Montana
Duke vs. Delaware State

At least those weren't jokes.

ISiddiqui

01-05-2006, 10:50 PM

The games are a joke because the 2 best teams in the conferences aren't playing for that title. You want to tell me Colorado belonged in that game? please. Florida STATE?

Its all irrelevent anyway because none of htat truly holds any weight when considering a national playoff, automatic bids can't happen because then you get the sun belt fiasco scenario, even with at large bids someone in the top 16-24 teams will get passed over because some soft scheduled shit team "wins their conference"

Not to mention which if they ARE considered a true playoff and hold any validity, then ALL conferences have to have them. What sense does it make to force a #2 team to play fucking Colorado just because they have to prove the program is 20 years ahead of theirs?

So conference titles simply can't have any bearing on the real playoff scenario for DIV-IA football. hence my opinion that they are a joke and meaningless.I'm sorry, but the best team in one division played the best team in the other division. It doesn't matter if the 2nd best team in the conference is in the same division as the best team. In the NFL, a 10-6 team can be left out of the playoffs in one conferences, but a 9-7 team can make it in another.

Please... and if Florida State was not worthy, what does that say about the Virginia Tech team they destroyed? ;) They won in the playoff game, fair and square. What's the 'joke' about it?

RendeR

01-05-2006, 10:56 PM

The "joke being that none of the conference championship games are actually needed to select the winners of their conferences, they CHOOSE to split the conference into divisions just to HAVE an extra game to collect the revenues off it. They can decide a conference champion easily without that game, hence its a joke. meaningless. Its just a money sucking machine.

Easy Mac

01-05-2006, 10:58 PM

I thought it was also because of unbalanced schedules, but maybe I'm thinking too much into it. Of course, why have a playoff in any major league sport aside from maybe football? Baseball could just have 5 games against everyone, best team wins. Hockey and Basketball could do 2 or 3 each, same as above. Playoffs serve no real purpose in any sport.

WVUFAN

01-05-2006, 10:58 PM

RendeR

01-05-2006, 11:03 PM

Actually I'm glad you mention Hockey, because THAT is a damn fine system for generating the best 16 teams overall. baseballe should look at that model and learn from it. basketball is pretty much there already.

That model won't work for Football though, not enough games to play everyone and get a nice clean ranking based on those results. Football needs a ranking system, I mean come on, there are what 120+ teams in bigtime college ball now? Those rankings need to be the basis of the playoff tree. Yes tehre will still be SOME controversey over say 20-24 getting their spots, but thats a damnsight better than wondering is LSU really deserved a shot at the title a couple years back when the best two teams by concensus were in seperate games.

Nothing will ever be perfect, but once a true playoff system is set in place no one will be able to whine about the champion Not being the best team, because to win that tournament you'd have to be the best when the chips are counted.

ISiddiqui

01-05-2006, 11:06 PM

That may be the first time (and I hope last) that I've heard someone say baseball should learn from hockey's playoff system. Urgh.

RendeR

01-05-2006, 11:12 PM

That may be the first time (and I hope last) that I've heard someone say baseball should learn from hockey's playoff system. Urgh.
What you don't want to enjoy 6 weeks of baseball playoffs leading up to a December World Series???

What kind of fan are you?http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

Easy Mac

01-05-2006, 11:14 PM

RendeR

01-05-2006, 11:14 PM

What you don't want to enjoy 6 weeks of baseball playoffs leading up to a December World Series???

What kind of fan are you?http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

DOLA: but to be honest, if you're going to have half of your league in the playoffs (more in hockey's case) then that system works beautifully, you know what the best teams are.

Could a system be designed to assign points on a game by game basis for each college game so that at the end of the year we could add up each teams points, take the top 16 say and have a true playoff?

That would work, but I can't imagine the system being acceptable to everyone.

biological warrior

01-06-2006, 12:06 AM

I say they settle it like real students ....in the class rooms

Mr. Wednesday

01-06-2006, 12:46 AM

DOLA: but to be honest, if you're going to have half of your league in the playoffs (more in hockey's case) then that system works beautifully, you know what the best teams are.

Could a system be designed to assign points on a game by game basis for each college game so that at the end of the year we could add up each teams points, take the top 16 say and have a true playoff?

That would work, but I can't imagine the system being acceptable to everyone.In professional sports, there's a significant amount of cross-play because the number of games in the season is large relative to the number of teams in the league. In college sports, there's very limited cross-play outside of conferences because the number of games in the season is small relative to the number of teams in the NCAA. Anything based on points is going to be problematic because it will not account for the vast differences in level of competition between the top and the bottom of each division.

Swaggs

01-06-2006, 01:18 AM

larrymcg421

01-06-2006, 01:25 AM

Then the playoffs will NOT be what you and most of the fans want to see. More times than not, it will not be the #1 and #2 seed facing off but two 11-2 teams or even a 10-3 team. After that happens, everyone will be screaming about the good ol' days of the BCS.

That makes absolutely zero sense. Yeah, I'm sure the fans of Auburn or LSU or Ohio State or whoever else you're imagining would have beat USC and Texas this year would be longing for the old days when their teams would have had zero chance at the title.

March Madness is one of the most exciting sports events, even among people who normally don't give a shit about college basketball. When Villanova beat Georgetown, I don't think anyone was screaming to change the system. Why are you assuming that it would be any different with football?

Daimyo

01-06-2006, 04:19 AM

Original poster seems to be making the flawed assumption that the best team in the country should beat the second best team 100% of the time. In reality its probably closer to 55-60% of the time (outside of years like 2001 Miami). Just because Texas beat USC doesn't mean they are 100%, without a doubt, the better team... just means in a single game they came out on top and are probably better based on that limited information. You can never really totally tell which team is better by a single game -- to really determine who is better you'd have to play several games.

A playoff system just exaggerates the single game problem. You may get a champion settled on the field, but you'll also get more cases where the champion isn't the best team. From previous discussions about this it seems a lot of people are comfortable with that, but to me the ideal system is the one which most often tabs the best team as champion and I think the BCS does a pretty good job of that.

Huckleberry

01-06-2006, 08:54 AM

Then the playoffs will NOT be what you and most of the fans want to see. More times than not, it will not be the #1 and #2 seed facing off but two 11-2 teams or even a 10-3 team. After that happens, everyone will be screaming about the good ol' days of the BCS.
The only point I made was that I disagreed vehemently with the opinion that we should go back to the old way. I didn't post that there should definitely be a playoff.

I'm well aware that a playoff actually makes the likelihood that the best two teams will meet in the last game much lower.

cartman

01-06-2006, 09:04 AM

What do you guys think about the +1 BCS title game that starts up next year?

I think it will kind of be a letdown to be one of the undercard Fiesta Bowl teams. Like in 10 years, if a player says he played in the '07 Fiesta Bowl, he'll have to admit it wasn't the title game, but just the "other" Fiesta Bowl.

Except they aren't calling the 2nd game the "Fiesta Bowl" or "Rose Bowl". Fox hasn't decided on a name yet (they won the naming rights. If it's called the O'Reilly No-Spin Zone Bowl, I'm going postal :D ), but they have said it will not be tied to the location where the game is played.

MJ4H

01-06-2006, 09:24 AM

The only point I made was that I disagreed vehemently with the opinion that we should go back to the old way. I didn't post that there should definitely be a playoff.

I'm well aware that a playoff actually makes the likelihood that the best two teams will meet in the last game much lower.I really don't care if the two "best teams" play in the championship game. The only thing I care about is that everyone has a chance as close to an equal chance as possible to win the championship and that they have to earn it on the field. The championship isn't about finding the best team in the country and giving them a trophy that says they are the best team in the country. If it was, we could just do it without ever playing a game. Championships are about doing what it takes to EARN the damn trophy. This is what really irks me about this whole argument. Everyone is so damn intent on getting the best teams to play one game for it all. NO.

Make a format where everyone has a chance to EARN the damn thing on the field. Did LSU have a chance to earn the national championship a couple of years ago? Auburn? If you win every game on your schedule and in the post-season and you still do not have a chance to win a championship then the system is freaking BROKEN.

This is why the playoffs are a solution. With playoffs EVERY team will have a shot to win the national championship by winning every game on their schedule and the post-season. Without playoffs, we (so far) do not have this possibility. This is the A #1 reason I support playoffs. Teams can go through an entire season with absolutely no chance to win the national championship no matter what they do. It is a complete disgrace.

MJ4H

01-06-2006, 09:25 AM

DOLA: are there other problems to work on, even with a playoff system? YES. But, in my opinion, this is the absolute first thing that needs to be fixed. Work on making it a level playing field for everyone after you've at least made it POSSIBLE for everyone to win.

edited to add:

To me this seems like one of the most obvious things in the world, and seeing people vehemently arguing to keep things completely unfair just shocks me. I just simply don't understand it.

Klinglerware

01-06-2006, 09:28 AM

With playoffs EVERY team will have a shot to win the national championship by winning every game on their schedule and the post-season.

Only if every 1-A conference has an auto-bid, plus Notre Dame will want some sort of agreement by which the tournament selection comittee will have to take the "best" independent...

MJ4H

01-06-2006, 09:29 AM

Yes, I perhaps should have said "a correctly structured playoff system" instead of "playoffs."

wade moore

01-06-2006, 09:53 AM

Wolfpack

01-06-2006, 10:34 AM

I'm not sure whether I want a playoff or not (although I enjoy the I-AA playoffs immensely)..

But I thought I would point out that in I-AA and in the NCAA BBall tourney, not ALL conferences get an auto-bid. So, this whole "sun belt fiasco" doesn't have to exist.

Actually, all conferences DO get an autobid in the basketball tournament. It's the reason why we now have 65 teams instead of 64. When the MWC split from the WAC, there was concern that one of the at-large bids would be taken away to give to the MWC, so they decided to keep the at-large berths at 34 and added the play-in game. They also made a wonderfully "inclusive" argument that having two bottom-feeding conference champions offered a chance for one of them to win an NCAA tournament game. That's nice and fuzzy, except for the fact that every other 16-seed in the field gets put into the fire without that chance and they're all supposed to be the better teams than the 64/65 teams. May as well expand it to 68 teams. Come to think of it, 13-15 seeds also are challenged to win a tournament game. Make it 80 teams.

sterlingice

01-06-2006, 11:08 AM

What planet are you guys living on? There is one reason there isn't a playoff, the same reason the causes 99% of the stupid shit that occurs in this country everyday.

$$$That's not entirely true. A playoff would generate more cash than the current bowl system. It's just that the big conferences and power schools would have to split it more, thus giving them a smaller piece of the pie, proportionally, even tho the pie is bigger.

SI

sterlingice

01-06-2006, 11:09 AM

Shameless plug for my SGS article on the topic from a couple of weeks ago:
http://www.smart-guys-sports.com/?p=250

Myth of the Week: “See? The BCS Works!” (http://www.smart-guys-sports.com/?p=250)

by sterlingice @ 12:31 pm.Edit This (http://www.smart-guys-sports.com/wp-admin/post.php?action=edit&post=250) Filed under Football (http://www.smart-guys-sports.com/?cat=7), NCAAF (http://www.smart-guys-sports.com/?cat=9)
 College football resumes tonight with the New Orleans Bowl, to the delight of Southern Miss fans, Arkansas State fans, football nuts, and gambling degenerates the world ’round. So with football back in the national sports consciousness, it’s time to address a giant fallacy people seem willing to accept: “The BCS worked this year”. The two best teams in the country are poised to collide in The Granddaddy of Them All to determine who is the best in the land. But, as is the case every season, this hopeful clash for the ages is in spite of and not because of the BCS. And not only are there no real good reasons why the BCS works but a plethora of reasons why a playoff would and a couple of possible suggestions as to what kind of playoff would work best.

The biggest argument to defend the BCS is that a playoff nullifies the regular season. But what about 2001 or 2000? In those cases, a 0 loss team was left to face a bunch of 1 loss suiters? Didn’t the BCS nullify Oklahoma’s and Miami’s regular seasons? How about last year? Wasn’t Auburn’s regular season nullified? They went undefeated just like 2 other teams but were left on the outside looking in. And this isn’t even taking into account the undefeated regular seasons of Utah and Boise State. Anyone leaning on this crutch for the crux of their argument is selectively choosing a definition of “nullifies the regular season” to fit their point of view. Unfortunately, for those hoping for a playoff, it’s clear that no matter how many undefeated teams are left on the outside looking in, things are unlikely to change. If 5 undefeated teams, including 3 BCS schools, didn’t bring the BCS down, then this argument never will.

Yet another common thread being woven is that “this system works because the old system would not have had these teams playing”. However, the world is not a binary system in all matters. Yes, the old system wouldn’t have matched up the two best teams. But that’s not to say we couldn’t have another and better system that still would have given us this matchup. We have a near infinite number of possibilities to deal with how to decide a national champion and a half dozen or so decent ones.

Similarly, just because this system worked this year with this confluence of events doesn’t make it anywhere near the best system. Could you imagine an NCAA playoff lottery, replete with a selection show and wall-to-wall ESPN coverage? Myles Brand approaches a hopper with ping pong balls for all 117 Division 1-A teams and, by some fluke chances, USC and Texas win the chance to play in the Rose Bowl. By the logic used above, we can declare the system works. Something about a broken clock still being right twice a day comes to mind.

What if those consensus top teams didn’t win? What if there were a playoff this year and USC and Texas both lost their first round matchups? Aren’t they being penalized by this playoff? In a way, yes. However, if they cannot prove it on the field when it counts, are they truly the best team? What if, this year, 2-loss Notre Dame makes the playoffs as the last team in a 6 team field but wins 3 in a row against Penn State, Texas, and USC to take home the crystal football? While an argument could be made that Texas and USC only had 1 loss to Notre Dame’s 2 and are less deserving, did the Longhorns and Trojans not prove on the field that they were inferior to the Irish?

Another argument I hear is that it would destroy the bowl system. Unless your school is playing in it, who cares all that much about the Champs Sports, formerly Tangerine, formerly 2000 Flushes Toilet, Bowl? It matters for the teams playing and their fans and that’s it. But that’s all they have ever been, at least in recent history.

That said, why do they have to go away? Did the NCAA Tourney signal the end of the NIT? Sure, the NIT is insignificant when compared to the NCAA Tourney but it does afford valuable postseason experience and extra practice to those teams on the cusp. Keep the bowls that are not a part of the tournament for those lesser teams to give them something to shoot for. Having a playoff and having the other bowls is not a mutually exclusive proposition.

Lastly, and likely most importantly, there’s money. The most recent numbers I can find are for the 2003-4 postseason. The total paid for the BCS bowls was $100 million while the other 24 bowls generated only $19.6 million (source (http://www.knightfdn.org/default.asp?story=athletics/reports/2004_sandbrook/execsummary.html)). CBS’s March Madness coverage, which started in 2003, runs 11 years for $6 billion, or roughly $545 million per year. That’s more than four times as much for 32, or 33 with the play-in, games versus 28. There’s no way a college football playoff featuring 12 or 16 teams, which would be 11 or 15 games, wouldn’t be worth much more than the “paltry” $100 million they are collecting now. The problem, of course, would be that the NCAA would have to find an equitable way to distribute the money and that would take away power and money from the teams and, more importantly, conferences at the top.

Following are some possible playoff solutions which are, by no means, the absolute best in all aspects. However, they offer some of the best compromises and complete solutions to the college football playoff problem. Not only that but they all have, at their core, the concept of the championship being decided on the field and not by the voters.

The first possible playoff runs similar to the NFL playoffs. Twelve teams get bowl births including the six BCS conference champions as well as six at-large bids. The top four BCS conference winners get byes and the opening weekend features matchups of the other eight teams. One of the big upsides of this system is that it really does reward the top conference winners and their regular seasons. They get to sit out a week while the lesser conference winners and at-large teams beat up on each other.

The major downside to this is that the system is a little more cumbersome. However, people have few problems understanding the NFL playoff format of byes and seedings so this should be no different. Another downside is that the disparity between the BCS conferences and other conferences is not addressed. However, there is a possible adjustment for that below.

The six BCS conference champions get automatic bids. Maybe it’s time to address that, too. The six BCS conferences become five unless the Big East can get some more quality teams in it. Only eight teams, some of which haven’t seen a good football program in ages, if ever, does not a major conference make. They need to go pilfer up-and-comer UCF from Conference USA and then do something crazy like peel off a Big 10 school or Notre Dame. Or perhaps merge with Conference USA’s better programs- something to improve the quality of the conference and keep the automatic bid. Then again, Florida State and Miami got away with murder, being the only powers in the ACC and Big East for many of their years there so why not let Louisville, West Virginia, or whatever other school rises up, have their fun.

Provided the Big East does something, that gives 6 automatic bids. The top 4 get re-ranked as 1-4 seeds and get byes. The other bids are at-large bids using the Harris Poll, BCS formula, or whatever metric. Perhaps to accommodate the smaller conferences, if any of their teams make the top 20 rankings and win their conference, they get an automatic bid in lieu of one of the at-large teams. However, I can already hear the whining from down south when Boise State or Marshall gets in at #19 but a team’s #12 ranking and 3rd in the SEC gets them bus fare back to Knoxville or Jacksonville. But if you’re 3rd in your conference, you likely have 2 losses and don’t have a iron clad claim on the hunt for the national title anyway.

Using the BCS formula to plot out the potential match ups, the top four conference winners, and thus top 4 seeds, would be #1 USC, #2 Texas, #3 Penn St, and #7 Georgia. If Notre Dame wanted to throw their weight around to get a bye for having a top rank, they would actually get it this year at #6 but we’ll say they don’t for the sake of argument.

West Virginia at #11 gets a bid as the Big East’s conference champ. TCU would get that “smaller conference exception” which would leave #12 LSU at home, similar to what was suggested would happen. Still, the Tigers could have easily been in this thing if not for losing to Georgia in the SEC championship game the week before. Also, the ACC loses a team as #10 Virginia Tech is kicked out because their conference champion is only ranked #22 in Florida State.

Ok, still keeping up? We’ve got the four major conference winners, the two major conference champs, and a small conference exception that could show up a couple of times in a year or none at all. That leaves 5 at large bids. Those go, in order of rank, to #4 Ohio State, #5 Oregon, #6 Notre Dame, #8 Miami, and #9 Auburn. In the first two weeks, we have Ohio State/Florida State vs Georgia, Oregon/TCU vs Penn State, Notre Dame/West Virginia vs Texas, and Miami/Auburn vs USC. The entire bracket is as follows.

http://www.smart-guys-sports.com/bcs/12team.gif

A smaller, hybrid version of this would have the big 5 conference winners and an at large team with the top 2 teams getting a bye. An easy argument could be made that roughly six teams have a legit shot at the title every year. This year, for instance, USC and Texas would get byes while Penn State/Florida State and Notre Dame/Georgia play the opening weekend.

An argument could be made that it’s not that much different than the current BCS or the possible BCS “plus one”. However, in the aforementioned systems, conference titles mean more as not winning the conference regular season leaves a team trying to fight with all the others for that last spot. Also, the current BCS lacks a built-in reward for the teams that finish in the top 2 in the regular season.

Then there’s the “Big Dance” style football tournament. No, it wouldn’t have 64 teams as that’s just not feasible. However, it does have a 16 team tourney and pretty easily includes any team that has a reasonable shot at the title. It would be hard to argue that a the 17th best team is all that much more deserving. However, we’re going to be more fair to the small schools in this model as all 11 Div I football conferences get their champions in. Then there are 5 at-large teams. Maybe, to keep it from being too watered down, you could put a 7 or 8 win restriction on the conference champions so that more at-large teams would be included. However, maybe it’s better to keep some cream puffs in there to give those top ranked teams their reward as there are no byes in this system.

This year, along with the 7 aforementioned conference champions, Akron and their 31-30 comeback win in the MAC title game, Arkansas State of the Sun Belt, Boise State of the WAC, and Tulsa of Conference USA make it in. If we had that 8 win restriction, it would only be 9-3 Boise State and 8-4 Tulsa. The at-large teams would be the same as before: Ohio State, Oregon, Notre Dame, Miami, and Auburn. Virginia Tech and LSU would replace Arkansas State and Akron, using the 8-win the variation.

This would set up opening week matches of USC/Arkansas State, Texas/Akron, Penn State/Tulsa, Ohio State/Boise State, Oregon/Florida State, Notre Dame/TCU, Georgia/West Virginia, and Miami/Auburn. The next week would likely be USC/Miami, Texas/Georgia, Penn State/Notre Dame, and Ohio State/Oregon. Those are all tremendous matchups, especially with the added weight that they are part of a national title hunt. Even better, maybe a TCU upsets Notre Dame and gets to play the football tournament’s version of Cinderella.

http://www.smart-guys-sports.com/bcs/16team.gif

There are many details to work out for any playoff system. How would it be scheduled around academics? This has been an excuse used by the NCAA in the past but seems hypocritical in light of the added 12th game. What venues would be used for the playoff? Would it be like the lower division playoffs where early round games are played at the home campus of the higher seed? How would the lesser bowls be scheduled around the playoff?

Of course, there is no absolute correct answer to the playoff question as many different factors have to be weighed. However, just going with a system because “that’s how it’s been done before” would have led us to Texas and USC playing in separate bowls this season and a likely split national title. Ultimately, there are many better ways that what we are doing now and the one thing they almost all have in common is that the title hunt is settled on the field, not by computers or writers.

Some day we will have a playoff. It won’t come about because of a need for fairness or fans’ want to settle things on the field. Rather, it will happen because of money. There’s just too much to be made from a playoff that this won’t happen in not-too-distant future. Someday, further down the line, you can be telling your grandkids all about the good old days with antiquated acronyms like CD, DVD, and BCS, when media came on easy-to-scratch discs and the college football national title was decided not on the field but by polls of sports writers and computers. And they’ll look at you just as you looked at your grandpa talking about the “backward” times he grew up in.

SI

sterlingice

01-06-2006, 11:18 AM

I say they settle it like real students ....in the class roomsMathletes! Start your pencils! :D

SI

Toddzilla

01-06-2006, 11:39 AM

There will never be a playoff because a playoff would diminish the importance of the lesser bowls. Well, thats what Miles Brand said anyway. :rolleyes:

Ryan S

01-06-2006, 11:58 AM

There will never be a playoff because a playoff would diminish the importance of the lesser bowls. Well, thats what Miles Brand said anyway. :rolleyes:
I would think that a playoff would kill every bowl game.

ice4277

01-06-2006, 11:59 AM

Kind of a sidebar to the argument, as I truthfully don't really remember myself...

Before the BCS was implemented, under the traditional bowl system, was there ever as much argument for a true playoff as there is now?

WSUCougar

01-06-2006, 12:01 PM

Hey SI! I'm not sure a USC/Arkansas State matchup is the best argument for a playoff. :D

sterlingice

01-06-2006, 12:05 PM

I was trying to be fair to the smaller conferences (legal protection, too) while also giving the higher seeds what amounts to a bye in the first round.

SI

KWhit

01-06-2006, 12:31 PM

The main problem we have today is the fact that teams play too few games and have very different qualities of schedules to be able to truly say who the best teams are. This year, it looked pretty obvious that USC and Texas were the two best, but we still don't really know that. I mean, USC almost got beat by Notre Dame - a team that I think was vastly overrated this year. Would USC have gone undefeated in the regular season if they had to play a Big Ten, ACC, or SEC schedule? Who knows? Conferences just don't play enough quality OOC games (especially the top teams) to be able to say for sure.

It's quite possible that due to their schedule an undefeated team from a major conference is actually worse than a 1-loss team from a tougher conference. The only way to make things more equal is to group the top 8, 12, or 16 teams and to have a playoff. There's no way to make it perfect, but at least the best teams will get a shot to play it out on the field. And we'll get to watch some great football.