Love 'em or Hate 'em: Volume 2 The BCS

[SnDvls]

Terrell Owens was our Volume 1 with an overwhelming 79.78% of the responses in the Hate 'em category. Even with everything he has achieved on the field it's the off the field antics that seemed to be the root of all the "hate".

This week since we're coming to the stretch run of the college football season I thought we'd tackle another topic that brings up a lot of debate...the BCS.

The BCS was started in 1998 to match up the #1 and #2 teams to play for the BCS National Championship. The system has not been without controversies through the years from excluding non-BCS teams to including a team in the title game that did not win their conference among others.

The arguments for the BCS are that each game matters in the season and unlike the NFL playoff format, ensures each team doesn't pull players to save for a playoff run. Another argument for the current system is that in the past we would rarely see a #1 vs. #2 matchup due to bowl agreements and this creates that.

for more information see the official BCS site at www.bcsfootball.org (http://www.bcsfootball.org) or the wikipedia site at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowl_Championship_Series

So let it be known....The BCS....Love 'em or Hate 'em

[Kodos]

I also dislike the bowl system.

[st.cronin]

I'm ok with it.

[hoopsguy]

I think this is a more interesting one than TO, as I don't see a contingent of people who "Love TO" even among fans of his current team.

This one seems to inspire passionate debate on both sides, however. Personally, I would like to see a playoff system and voted "hate" since the BCS is the current mechanism (or at least the face of the problem) blocking this from happening.

[Noop]

I don't hate it but i would perfer that they use it to pick the top 12 teams in college football so we can have a playoff.

[Pumpy Tudors]

I'm fine with it.

[Atocep]

The BCS serves its purpose.

I don't love it, but its much better than any playoff format I've seen.

[CU Tiger]

Everything else in thee world>>>>BCS>Being analy raped by a pissed of gorilla>>>>>TO

[rkmsuf]

so wait

you'd prefer being anally raped by a pissed off gorilla to TO?

interesting.

[tucker342]

It's nice that they did something to match up the two best teams but I think the system is flawed. To me a playoff would be ideal... have the top four teams, or even eight teams in a playoff that way they could keep the rest of the bowl games. Hell, they could even use the BCS to pick the eight teams. Yes there would still be controversy over who should make it, but the number 9 team getting left out is better than the number 3 getting left out in my opinion.

[path12]

Tradition isn't always a reason to keep something. The bowl system is an anachronism, and the BCS 'solution' to work within it is ultimately flawed because it does not involve a playoff.

Use a combination of polls/computer rankings to determine the top 16 teams, and have a four week playoff. If you must keep some bowls, use them as rotating venues for the playoff in order to keep neutral fields whereever possible.

[Atocep]

A 16 team playoff would bring mediocrity into play and would favor teams that play soft schedules. I want to see the best teams playing for the national title, not 2 or 3 loss teams.

You knock the BCS all you want, but it makes the regular season a whole lot more interesting and forces teams to schedule the tough non-conference games everyone loves.

[sabotai]

They need to split Division IA and IAA into several leagues and create a promotion/relegation system.

[Pumpy Tudors]

They need to split Division IA and IAA into several leagues and create a promotion/relegation system.
I could actually go for this. Unfortunately, people keep trying to relegate Temple, and the Owls just keep coming back. :confused:

:D

[path12]

A 16 team playoff would bring mediocrity into play and would favor teams that play soft schedules. I want to see the best teams playing for the national title, not 2 or 3 loss teams.

You knock the BCS all you want, but it makes the regular season a whole lot more interesting and forces teams to schedule the tough non-conference games everyone loves.

Good football teams go a lot deeper than 16 teams. And if you put a RPI schedule factor into the computer component like basketball you should get around the soft schedule problem.

[Lathum]

I voted love it but am in middle ground.

I would prefer a playoff but the BCS creates alot of discussion and meaningfull regular season games.

[Atocep]

Good football teams go a lot deeper than 16 teams. And if you put a RPI schedule factor into the computer component like basketball you should get around the soft schedule problem.

The problem is college football has a 12 game regular season. That means that if you play in the SEC and have a tough conference schedule it would be much, much better for you to schedule easy wins in non-conference games and ride that into a playoff. 1 loss in 12 games is much different than 1 loss in the 30+ games that college basketball teams play. No RPI will fix that. A playoff would drastically reduce the number of great non-conference games.

Good teams do go deeper than 16 teams. Good teams shouldn't be playing for the national championship when theres such a short regular season.

[Warhammer]

A 16 team playoff would bring mediocrity into play and would favor teams that play soft schedules. I want to see the best teams playing for the national title, not 2 or 3 loss teams.

You knock the BCS all you want, but it makes the regular season a whole lot more interesting and forces teams to schedule the tough non-conference games everyone loves.

Don't base it on W/L record, base it on conference titles.

[Lathum]

The problem is even with a playoff someone is always going to be snubbed.

If you have an 8 team playoff the ninth team is going to be snubbed

If you have a 16 team playoff the 17th team is gonna feel snubbed.

rinse and repeat...

[larrymcg421]

The problem is even with a playoff someone is always going to be snubbed.

If you have an 8 team playoff the ninth team is going to be snubbed

If you have a 16 team playoff the 17th team is gonna feel snubbed.

rinse and repeat...

I don't understand this argument and it's used all the time. Yeah, someone will always get screwed, but is it better to screw the 3rd place team, or the 9th or 17th place teams?

[Klinglerware]

The problem is even with a playoff someone is always going to be snubbed.

If you have an 8 team playoff the ninth team is going to be snubbed

If you have a 16 team playoff the 17th team is gonna feel snubbed.

rinse and repeat...

And if you start giving out autobids to everyone and their mother, people are still going to question whether the best possible field is represented in the tourney...

[Warhammer]

I don't understand this argument and it's used all the time. Yeah, someone will always get screwed, but is it better to screw the 3rd place team, or the 9th or 17th place teams?

Best way to solve it:

12 team playoff (4 teams get byes determined by drawing names out of a hat)

Each conference (11 of them) get one bid which goes to the conference winner. The major independent with the best record (regardless of record strength) gets the last bid. Then you play the games. Easy. Simple. Rewards teams that improve throughout the season, and does not punish teams with tough non-conference schedules that prepare them for their conference games. Conference Championships mean something, and everyone is on the same page and it is all played out on the field, no politics, no polls, etc. are needed because all bids are based upon getting into the field by winning your conference.

[Atocep]

I don't understand this argument and it's used all the time. Yeah, someone will always get screwed, but is it better to screw the 3rd place team, or the 9th or 17th place teams?

I'd still rather see them try to get the 2 best teams together for 1 game than have whichever team gets the hot or gets the best matchups playing for the national title.

[Atocep]

Best way to solve it:

12 team playoff (4 teams get byes determined by drawing names out of a hat)

Each conference (11 of them) get one bid which goes to the conference winner. The major independent with the best record (regardless of record strength) gets the last bid. Then you play the games. Easy. Simple. Rewards teams that improve throughout the season, and does not punish teams with tough non-conference schedules that prepare them for their conference games. Conference Championships mean something, and everyone is on the same page and it is all played out on the field, no politics, no polls, etc. are needed because all bids are based upon getting into the field by winning your conference.

So Troy would have a better shot at the national title than the 2nd place team in the Pac 10, SEC, or Big 12 simply because they won their crappy conference?

[Warhammer]

And if you start giving out autobids to everyone and their mother, people are still going to question whether the best possible field is represented in the tourney...

You not necessarily looking for the best field. They don't do that now, even the NCAA Basketball tourney does not try to do that.

What determines what the best field is. Most every football guy says that LSU is the best team. How close is LSU to having two losses? Sure, they look damn good when I've seen them, but if they are so good, why do they almost have two losses?

At some point, a team needs to do something. We can't rely on who beat who, rankings, our preconceived notions, etc. Look at OSU and ASU. Who has played the tougher schedule? Who is ranked higher? Who is more deserving of the title game if they go undefeated?

What about Michigan? Sure, they lost to a I-AA school. But are they the team that started 0-2, or are they the team that has run the table since? I don't know. What if they beat OSU? Are they really a good team that had a couple of bad days, or was OSU not that great? I guarantee that if they beat OSU, we're all going to say that OSU sucks, they didn't play anyone, blah, blah, blah. If Michigan runs the table, and LSU loses one more game, how do we determine which 10-2 team is better? Compare losses? Compare wins? Is there any way to figure this out?

Without teams playing each other, there is no clean system to determine this. That is why the way any playoff system needs to be done is based upon Conference Championships. No wild cards. No second bids. We need a Tournament of Champions.

[Warhammer]

So Troy would have a better shot at the national title than the 2nd place team in the Pac 10, SEC, or Big 12 simply because they won their crappy conference?

Yes. If the second place team in the Pac 10, SEC, or Big 12 deserved to be in, they should have won their conference. This format removes the conference bias out of the system. How do we know that Troy isn't better than Georgia, Texas, or USC? If they don't play each other we don't know.

If we didn't play the game earlier this year, who would have though Appalachain State would have beat Michigan? Imagine the hysteria if Troy beat USC? Take Boise State beating Oklahoma and increase it an order of magnitude.

EDIT: This also makes the regular season mean something. I mean all the talking heads and BCS lovers talk about how the entire season is meaningful in college football, using only the conference champions preserves that aspect of the current system. We never had a problem considering the best team in a conference as the team that represented one of the big conferences in the Orange, Sugar, Rose, and Cotton Bowls back before the BCS. Why can't we consider the conference champ the best team in the conference when we are talking about playoffs?

[lordscarlet]

It amazes me that people have no problem with a playoff system in professional sports, in Division IAA, in Division I basketball, etc, but Division IA Football fans gets people all upset at the mention of a playoff system.

[Atocep]

Yes. If the second place team in the Pac 10, SEC, or Big 12 deserved to be in, they should have won their conference. This format removes the conference bias out of the system. How do we know that Troy isn't better than Georgia, Texas, or USC? If they don't play each other we don't know.



Troy has a loss to Florida and Arkansas this year and actually plays Georgia next week. With a loss they'll be 0-3 against the SEC.

[Warhammer]

Troy has a loss to Florida and Arkansas this year and actually plays Georgia next week. With a loss they'll be 0-3 against the SEC.

So what? How many of those games were on the road?

The question you need to ask is, what do you want? Do you want each team to play a series of games, and then have a voting contest to see who the best team is? Do you want each team to play their games, and then have a bunch of people vote for the top two teams to play? Or do you want each conference game to mean something and then let each conference winner have a chance to prove they are the best team in the land by playing the game?

What cracks me up is how people gripe about the BCS and the bias in the system, but then come back and scoff when you come up with an unbiased system.

[Atocep]

So what? How many of those games were on the road?

The question you need to ask is, what do you want? Do you want each team to play a series of games, and then have a voting contest to see who the best team is? Do you want each team to play their games, and then have a bunch of people vote for the top two teams to play? Or do you want each conference game to mean something and then let each conference winner have a chance to prove they are the best team in the land by playing the game?

What cracks me up is how people gripe about the BCS and the bias in the system, but then come back and scoff when you come up with an unbiased system.


I said above, the BCS serves its purpose, much more than any playoff would. It gets the top 2 ranked teams to play each other for the national title. Can a playoff accomplish that?

The only change I'd make to the BCS is put margin of victory back into the equation and have the computer ranking carry more weight than the human polls.

As for Troy, they have a 20 point loss to a mediocre Arakansas team and an 18 point loss to a 3 loss Florida team. Home or road isn't going to matter there.

There is no such thing as an unbiased system. The system you just mentioned has a team that is 0-3 in against the SEC playing for a shot at the national title over the 2nd place SEC team. Hawaii played two 1AA schools and plays exactly one meaningful game all season. The team with best record in the MAC lost 70-14 to Clemson and also lost to North Dakota State.

The bias in this system would be you're simly choosing teams because they play in X conference. It doesn't look for the best teams and makes no attempt to give the best teams a shot at the national title.

[lordscarlet]

And a team can be 0-12 against, say, the NL East, have a worse record than the third place team in that division, and still get in (I have no idea if this has ever happened). What's your point?

[Atocep]

And a team can be 0-12 against, say, the NL East, have a worse record than the third place team in that division, and still get in (I have no idea if this has ever happened). What's your point?

Well, my point was there is no unbiased system and that the BCS serves its purpose.

Your counterpoint to that is to show that playoff systems are flawed in all sports?

[st.cronin]

This thread has really had some surprising posts.



NOT.

[sabotai]

I could actually go for this. Unfortunately, people keep trying to relegate Temple, and the Owls just keep coming back. :confused:

:D

I don't even know why Temple still has a team. They should just burn down the stadium....

[Warhammer]

I said above, the BCS serves its purpose, much more than any playoff would. It gets the top 2 ranked teams to play each other for the national title. Can a playoff accomplish that?

The only change I'd make to the BCS is put margin of victory back into the equation and have the computer ranking carry more weight than the human polls.

As for Troy, they have a 20 point loss to a mediocre Arakansas team and an 18 point loss to a 3 loss Florida team. Home or road isn't going to matter there.

There is no such thing as an unbiased system. The system you just mentioned has a team that is 0-3 in against the SEC playing for a shot at the national title over the 2nd place SEC team. Hawaii played two 1AA schools and plays exactly one meaningful game all season. The team with best record in the MAC lost 70-14 to Clemson and also lost to North Dakota State.

The bias in this system would be you're simly choosing teams because they play in X conference. It doesn't look for the best teams and makes no attempt to give the best teams a shot at the national title.

What are you talking about? The current system takes the two that people think are the best at the time and puts them in a single game. What other sport do we take two teams that people think are the best and just have those teams play. What happens when several teams go undefeated or all have 1 loss?

A few weeks ago we would have had a USC vs. LSU championship. Now that we've played a few more games we are complaining because OSU or ASU can get there without playing anyone? Come on... Let's just pick two teams at the start of the year let them play it off and call it a season.

Again, what do you look to accomplish? If you want to only pick two teams, there will always be a debate. Got two undefeated teams? Let's consider their schedule. Who is better the team that beats every team by 40+ points but hasn't played anyone in the top 25, or the team that plays 5 teams in the top 25 but only wins by 5 points on average? What happens if you have a third team in the mix that lost one game to one of the undefeated teams, stomped the rest of their schedule by 25+ points per game and only lost to the one undefeated by 1 point on the road.

Do you want the regular season to mean something?

Do you want teams that improve over the course of the season to be rewarded?

Do you want teams to play challenging schedules and not be rewarded for playing cream puffs?

Do you want to remove the bias inherent in the current BCS system?

If you said yes to these questions, read on!

What is the most unbiased way to select teams? Easy, have them prove their worthiness on the field. How can we do this with a minimum of fuss? Simple, we can use the current system in place. Most conferences select their BCS representative based upon a team winning their conference championship (either a single game or by conference record).

But, what about the crappy teams in the worse divisions? There are few ways to look at it. First, if the teams are not that good, they'll be knocked out after their first game. Second, how do we know that they aren't that good? Sure, maybe at the start of the season they lost a game to another foe, but we can say that about any team that is not undefeated. So that is a specious argument. Additionally, we are proving this on the field. Third, what if they win? What if they go through and get lucky and beat a team? They still have at least two more games to win to be champions.

What else is good about selecting conference champions? You don't have to worry about leaving X team. Under this system, there is no way that two teams from the same conference will play in the title game. That is true, but remember how everyone howled last year that it was possible that Michigan and OSU might have a rematch in the title game? Unless you are from the SEC, you won't want to see a two teams from the same conference play in the title game anyway.

Have someone that complains about not being in the playoff? Win your conference!

If you want a team to win a title, if you want a team that has to beat the best each conference has to offer, if you want a Tournament of Champions this is the system for you.

If you want some teams arbitrarily selected because back in Week 3, they beat Central Michigan and statistically dominated the game and that was more impressive than another team beating Ball State narrowly than stick with the current BCS.

EDIT: One more thing, this also allows a team that loses a significant player for a few games to conceivably not lose their entire season due to that injury. If they play well enough they can recover.

[Warhammer]

Well, my point was there is no unbiased system and that the BCS serves its purpose.

Your counterpoint to that is to show that playoff systems are flawed in all sports?


From Webster's Dictionary

unbiased
One entry found.

unbiased



Main Entry: un·bi·ased
Pronunciation: \ˌən-ˈbī-əst\
Function: adjective
Date: 1607
1: free from bias; especially : free from all prejudice and favoritism : eminently fair <an unbiased opinion>
2: having an expected value equal to a population parameter being estimated <an unbiased estimate of the population mean>

Under this definition, using the conference champions is free from all prejudice and favoritism based upon conference affiliation. That is an unbiased selection process.

You say it is biased towards what conference you are in. It already freaking is! If you are in a BCS Conference it is MUCH easier to get in the BCS game. From top to bottom, I think we can agree that the BCS conferences are better than the other conferences. However, it does not mean that the champion from a lesser conference cannot be better than the champion of a BCS conference. A playoff system as I described removes that bias that the current system has in place to take teams from the BCS conferences.

Let us not forget the primary reason for the BCS was to allow the major conferences to line their pockets more than they already were. The BCS was originally designed to take the two best teams from the BCS conferences and Notre Dame. Outside of that, they wanted to make sure that teams from the major conferences would go to the major bowl games.

[Young Drachma]

People who oppose a playoff system in I-A college football are almost always fans of major conference schools. The system benefits them and if some g-dforsaken school from the netherwoods decides it's going to lay claim on the title by beating a bunch of schools in the playoffs, well...that's just not fair.


After all, if Boise State or Rutgers or Northwestern manages to get 'hot' after winning their crappy conferences, play a depleted SEC squad in the first round, advance to the quarters against a down-year Notre Dame team that got in despite being 6-6 and manages to win in the semis against the fluke champion of the ACC that year to setup a title game against the presumptive favourite from the Pac-10 and manages to win again....well, that's just not right.

I mean, they lost a game to a team that would've been blown out in [insert major 'big time' conference here] if they'd played a schedule like we did. Our team was tired. It's not fair that they had a harder run and those guys had it easier....



With the money schools invest in this NCAA silliness under the guise of doing it for the kids, the fact that we've gone this long without a playoff minimizes whatever shred of respect I had for the people who run that gulag in the first place.

There isn't an excuse for it and there won't ever be one. It's a sham the way it is now, just like it was a sham before the BCS and will continue to be a sham until there is a playoff system in place that's more equitable than what we have now. Basketball does it well, tweaks when it needs to and it gets it generally right. No reason football can't either.

[st.cronin]

People who oppose a playoff system in I-A college football are almost always fans of major conference schools. The system benefits them and if some g-dforsaken school from the netherwoods decides it's going to lay claim on the title by beating a bunch of schools in the playoffs, well...that's just not fair.

I don't that's a fair characterization. I'm a fan of Wisconsin, which has never played in a BCS bowl ... but I just plain don't care who we say the National Champion. I just want Wisconsin to win the Big 10.

[Young Drachma]

I don't that's a fair characterization. I'm a fan of Wisconsin, which has never played in a BCS bowl ... but I just plain don't care who we say the National Champion. I just want Wisconsin to win the Big 10.

I said almost always.

[Atocep]

People who oppose a playoff system in I-A college football are almost always fans of major conference schools. The system benefits them and if some g-dforsaken school from the netherwoods decides it's going to lay claim on the title by beating a bunch of schools in the playoffs, well...that's just not fair.

I'm a fan of Marshall and WVU, primarily Marshall. I've never felt Marshall should have a shot at the national title. There were times when Moss and Pennington where there that they could play with any team on any given Saturday, but didn't make them as good or better than those teams.



With the money schools invest in this NCAA silliness under the guise of doing it for the kids, the fact that we've gone this long without a playoff minimizes whatever shred of respect I had for the people who run that gulag in the first place.

There isn't an excuse for it and there won't ever be one. It's a sham the way it is now, just like it was a sham before the BCS and will continue to be a sham until there is a playoff system in place that's more equitable than what we have now. Basketball does it well, tweaks when it needs to and it gets it generally right. No reason football can't either.

The problem is the size on 1A. The BCS conference schools have more money and more resources yet they're on the same level as a Sun Belt conference team. Its unfair to both parties, however, the Sun Belt teams want to be 1A because it means more money for them even if they aren't included in the BCS, so its a choice for the schools.

A playoff system doesn't crown a true champion. NCAA basketball doesn't crown a true champion. Just because more schools are included doesn't mean its a better system. The NCAA tourney is just as much about money as the BCS, so don't think they're doing small schools a favor.

[Warhammer]

A playoff system doesn't crown a true champion. NCAA basketball doesn't crown a true champion. Just because more schools are included doesn't mean its a better system. The NCAA tourney is just as much about money as the BCS, so don't think they're doing small schools a favor.

So the true champion of the NFL last year was who?

So the Boston Red Sox were not the champions of MLB?

What is your solution? Arbitrarily picking two teams and having them play a game can't do it because on any given Saturday either team can win, that doesn't make them a champion, does it?

I'm puzzled by your posts. You knock everything else, but yet don't really offer anything but the most arbitrary system. The NCAA does crown the best team. They take the 31 conference winners from IA basketball, add the next 34 best teams (picked by an arbitrary method, but I think debating who is #34 or the next best teams is much better than debating who is #2 or #3) and then have the teams play each other on the court.

What method is superior to playing the games and seeing who comes out on top? The reason why you have more than one game is that over the course of several games, the better teams will rise to the top. Again, I go to my LSU example earlier. Sure, they look great, but if they lose 2 or 3 games, are they really the best team? At what point do you stop being who we think you are and become who you actually are on the court or the field?

[heybrad]

Warhammer wins this thread by a mile.

[BYU 14]

You don't need to include every conference Champion, just use some form of the current system and take the top 8 Teams regardless of conference. They will still have to beat 3 of the top Teams in the country to win it all and if a Non-BCS School is capable of that, so be it. College Football has finely developed a semblance of parity and the next logical step is to capitalize on that.....In fact, Players knowing they can play for a national title at a currrent "Mid Major" school would increase parity even further, since better players could look to current Non-BCS schools because they would have a chance to play sooner and have a more productive career, with a shot at all the marbles.

The current system is a joke and the only plausible argument against a playoff system is that it creates too many games. Even that argument is weak when all schools can now play a 12 game schedule and will play 13 games if they go to a bowl. Two extra games for the finalists will not put that much of a burden on the Players and their studies.

Another argument is what about the extra revenue Teams playing 2 or 3 postseason games would get. Easy fix, each Team gets revenue only for it's first Playoff game. The revenue from the Semifinal and Final games goes to a general fund to increase stipends for student Athletes so they can live a little easier, hell that might even curtail some of the illegal Money Kids take to make ends meet in College.

A playoff system that allows every 1A team the chance to qualify is the only way to determine the true Champion. I'm sorry but I don't but the Non-BCS team getting a lucky draw scenario as a reason not to give them a chance. Should a wild card Team be disqualified because they are not a Division Champion? No, thats what makes thing interesting and Wild Card Teams have wom the Superbowl because they are playing the best Football when it counts....at the end. So the "best" Team doesn't always win.........Well guess what, some of the greatest moments in sports history have been tied to upsets and the underdogs knocking off the invincible Champion. The 1914 Boston Braves, the 1969 Jets, James Braddock, the 1980 US Hockey team.......These are the moments that make sports great and create legends. it is also the one thing that College Football is missing right now.

I don't know, it seems that somewhere out there somebody involved must be smart enough to see a playoff system would only benefit the Game.

[Atocep]

So the true champion of the NFL last year was who?

So the Boston Red Sox were not the champions of MLB?

What is your solution? Arbitrarily picking two teams and having them play a game can't do it because on any given Saturday either team can win, that doesn't make them a champion, does it?

I'm puzzled by your posts. You knock everything else, but yet don't really offer anything but the most arbitrary system. The NCAA does crown the best team. They take the 31 conference winners from IA basketball, add the next 34 best teams (picked by an arbitrary method, but I think debating who is #34 or the next best teams is much better than debating who is #2 or #3) and then have the teams play each other on the court.

What method is superior to playing the games and seeing who comes out on top? The reason why you have more than one game is that over the course of several games, the better teams will rise to the top. Again, I go to my LSU example earlier. Sure, they look great, but if they lose 2 or 3 games, are they really the best team? At what point do you stop being who we think you are and become who you actually are on the court or the field?

1.) You're comparing pro sports, where talent levels are much closer from team to team, to college sports.

2.) I said I'd make minor tweaks to the BCS and thats it. College football is different than basketball. The talent levels on the court aren't as drastic as they are on the field.

3.) The better teams do rise to the top over the course of the season. Troy (using them as an example again) had two shots earlier in the year against ranked opponents and will get another shot. They've already lost two and if they lose a 3rd you still want to put them in over the 2nd place SEC team. I can't possibly see how you think that system is more fair. Yet they must be a team thats rising to the top.

What the NCAA tourney does is make the regular season less meagingful. Lets take Ohio State (in football) from last year. They were clearly the #1 team in the country and deserved over any other team to at least play for the national title. It was clear to everyone. So a playoff increases in the chances of them not playing for the national title just so people can have a false feeling of crowning a "true champion" and giving everyone an equal shot.

Ohio State vs Miami in '02. Clearly the two best teams in the country. Yet we'd have to hope one of them isn't upset on the way to the national championship game so we'd get to see that great game.

You can go back through the history of the BCS and say with solid certaintly that they crowned the correct champion in just about every season. Can you say the best team wins the NCAA tourney every year or is it just the team that gets hot late in the season?

[st.cronin]

Here's the problem with college basketball: Florida won the national tournament, but who won the SEC last year? I have no idea - my guess is it was Florida, but I don't remember. I couldn't even tell you who won the Big 10, because NOBODY CARES ABOUT THE REGULAR SEASON.

That's whats great about college football - all the games are huge.

[miami_fan]

If it is so important for the regular season to mean something and a playoff at the end would cause that not to be true, how about we eliminate all the bowls, get rid of the BCS championship game, and just crown a champion at the end of the regular season. Then the regular season will truly mean everything.

[JeeberD]

Not a fan...

[Warhammer]

1.) You're comparing pro sports, where talent levels are much closer from team to team, to college sports.

So what? We're not talking about the last place teams in each conference playing. We're talking about conference champions who had to at least win something.

2.) I said I'd make minor tweaks to the BCS and thats it. College football is different than basketball. The talent levels on the court aren't as drastic as they are on the field.

So since we think talent levels on the court are not as drastic as they are on the field the perceived lesser teams shouldn't play.

Let me get this straight, should Boise State have been allowed to play Oklahoma last year in the Fiesta Bowl? Who won that game? Is that any different than George Mason going to the Final Four a few years back?

Who did Michigan lose to again? Appalachain State? They actually played that game? I mean come on, Michigan is so much better. They actually play 1A football in the Big 10! What? Appalachain State won? That can't happen! I didn't think it could happen!

Let's look at Oregon, one of the best teams in the country, and a team that drilled Michigan. Oregon was beat by Cal who was looking good, until they dropped games against UCLA, Oregon State, and Arizona State. Well those are all top teams from a tough Pac-10, right? UCLA lost to Notre Dame. Oregon State lost to Cincinnati, who coincidentally lost to Pitt, who lost in turn to Navy, Delaware, and Ball State!

Am I going to far?

I don't think so. Again, over time, your record speaks to who you are, not what we think you are. LSU is thought to be the best team in the nation right now. Sure, they've looked good. But, they are very close to being 5-3 right now. A few breaks the other way in the Auburn and Florida game and they are 5-3. Would that 5-3 team still be considered one of the top teams in the nation?

Let's take Florida, another team that everyone was calling one of the top teams in the nation even though they were 5-2. Not a lot of people are talking about them now since they lost to Georgia.

3.) The better teams do rise to the top over the course of the season. Troy (using them as an example again) had two shots earlier in the year against ranked opponents and will get another shot. They've already lost two and if they lose a 3rd you still want to put them in over the 2nd place SEC team. I can't possibly see how you think that system is more fair. Yet they must be a team thats rising to the top.

So what happens if Troy manages to beat Georgia?

You're judging everything based upon what you think or feel is going to happen. Unfortunately, the SEC doesn't play a lot of top non-conference opponents. Its hard to get a true handle on how good the conference is. I'm not here to say that Troy is going to win a playoff, they probably wouldn't. However, as champion of their conference, they do deserve a chance to prove that they are the best team in the nation. If they go out and beat LSU, OSU, and Oklahoma in a playoff, they would have a pretty dang good team.

If the 2nd place SEC/Big 10/Big 12/etc. team has a gripe, win your conference. Easy as that. You prove it on the field. Does anyone complain when someone wins the SEC title game when it is a essentially a one game playoff? Does anyone ask, "Why can't the #2 SEC East team have a shot?" No, they didn't win their division, they don't get a spot in the SEC Conference Championship Game.

Did anyone complain when Colorado beat Oklahoma (?) in the Big 12 title game a few years back? Did anyone ask why Nebraska didn't get a shot? No, people did complain about Colorado not getting a chance to play in the BCS game since Colorado had just destroyed Nebraska and had won the Big 12 title.

How can any team claim to be a National Champion when they are not even the best team in their own conference? (For the record, this is my single issue with the NCAA Basketball Tournament) Currently, you have no shot at being the NCAA 1A National Champion in Football unless you are in a BCS Conference or you are Notre Dame.

What the NCAA tourney does is make the regular season less meagingful. Lets take Ohio State (in football) from last year. They were clearly the #1 team in the country and deserved over any other team to at least play for the national title. It was clear to everyone. So a playoff increases in the chances of them not playing for the national title just so people can have a false feeling of crowning a "true champion" and giving everyone an equal shot.

So if they were clearly the #1 team in the country, why weren't they crowned the national champions? Everyone thought they were going to crush Florida. Not many people gave Florida a chance. What was the score of that game? By your logic, we shouldn't even play the game. It was clear to everyone that they were the #1 team in the country. Well, they were, until they played Florida.

My point is that in a playoff system there is a chance that they might get knocked off, but in that case, they do not deserve to be the national champion. You're playing in a tournament of champions, each team that is there has won something tangible, they are not the #2 team in the Big 10, they are not the #3 team in the SEC East Division, they are a champion of a conference.

Ohio State vs Miami in '02. Clearly the two best teams in the country. Yet we'd have to hope one of them isn't upset on the way to the national championship game so we'd get to see that great game.

If they got upset, would they be one of the best teams in the nation? Again, after how many losses do we reevaluate our thoughts on a team? OSU and Miami were only clearly the best two teams in the country because they had not lost. Were they significantly better than the one loss teams that year? I'm not so sure.

Again, looking at this year, we thought that LSU was the top team in the country? Are they? Everyone thinks the SEC is the top conference right now. I'm not sure that they are, most teams are pretty good, but there is only one elite team, and I am even questioning them. Why do I think they are an elite team, because I have been told they are.

You can go back through the history of the BCS and say with solid certaintly that they crowned the correct champion in just about every season. Can you say the best team wins the NCAA tourney every year or is it just the team that gets hot late in the season?

There may not be debate about one of the teams in the BCS game, but there is typically a ton about who the #2 team is.

2006 - Last year Michigan or Florida. Did they get it right? Michigan lost a close game to OSU in the Horseshoe and then lost to a fired up USC team in the Rose Bowl, not a big surprise as that often happens when a team is playing in a bowl they do not want to be in.

2005 - Texas and USC were undefeated so there was no controversy

2004 - There are 5 undefeated teams, Utah, Boise State, USC, Auburn, and Oklahoma - Auburn, USC, and Utah finish undefeated as Oklahoma loses to USC and Boise State loses a close game to a 1 loss Louisville team.

2003 - Oklahoma, LSU, and USC all finish with one loss. Oklahoma and LSU play for the title, LSU wins. USC is crowned national champions by the AP. LSU by ESPN and the BCS.

2002 - Ohio State and Miami - They got it right.

2001 - Nebraska is pasted by Colorado, who goes on to win the Big 12 with 2 losses. Oregon also has one loss. But, Nebraska is selected ahead of Oregon and Colorado (who they had just lost to) to play in the title game against Miami. Now, Colorado might not have won against Miami, but that was an awesome football team that was playing the best ball at the end of the season.

2000 - Oklahoma went undefeated, but what about the #2 slot? Well, FSU was 10-1 but had lost to Miami during the regular season and was ranked behind Miami in the polls. Miami had lost to #4 Washington during the regular season, who also happened to be 10-1.

So, in 7 games beginning in 2000, there have only been two consensus games for the National Championship. Every other game had some question about who should be involved in that game. Every single other season had some debate.

In 2004, would Auburn have been able to beat USC? Would either have been able to beat Utah? We will never know. In 2001, would Colorado have been able to beat Miami? Maybe not, but they were certainly a better team than Nebraska at that time, and had proven it on the field. Would LSU have beaten USC in 2003?

We'll never know because all those games were determined in large part, not by the players, but by voters and computer polls. Do voters or computer polls determine who wins a conference? No. Do voters or computer polls determine who wins a game? Yet, these two items determine who will play for the National Championship? That is laughable.

A playoff is the one way to really determine who the best team is, and that is to do it on the field. What is the best way to determine the teams? If we select teams, we are ultimately back where we started and everyone is bitching about who the #8 and #9 teams are, or who the #16 and #17 teams are, and why does the Big East champion get a free bid, but not the undefeated WAC champion, etc. The only way to do it fairly without bias is to take the conference champions and put them in a playoff.

[Suburban Rhythm]

Hate it. Because it's all based on perception. How does a Michigan team that starts 0-2, with a loss to a D 1-AA school, now become 12th in the most recent BCS rankings? Because some beat writers think they've got more talent than a bunch of other schools, no matter that they don't do much with it.

[BYU 14]

Here's the problem with college basketball: Florida won the national tournament, but who won the SEC last year? I have no idea - my guess is it was Florida, but I don't remember. I couldn't even tell you who won the Big 10, because NOBODY CARES ABOUT THE REGULAR SEASON.

That's whats great about college football - all the games are huge.

If you have 117 Teams vying for 8 spots in a playoff, all the regular Season games would still be huge, no?

[lordscarlet]

What the NCAA tourney does is make the regular season less meagingful. Lets take Ohio State (in football) from last year. They were clearly the #1 team in the country and deserved over any other team to at least play for the national title. It was clear to everyone. So a playoff increases in the chances of them not playing for the national title just so people can have a false feeling of crowning a "true champion" and giving everyone an equal shot.


To me the BCS is the one creating a "true champion." I don't understand this notion that you just pick the best two teams. They don't do it in basketball, baseball, lacrosse, soccer or any other NCAA sport. I don't care what contrived reasons you have for why it works in those sports but not baseball, they just aren't true. Regardless of the number of games, revenue streams, etc, the argument that a playoff system creates a "true champion" (therefore implying a fake champion) is just ludicrous. People don't "deserve" to be in the championship game because people think they did well in the regular season.

[Warhammer]

I think he was quoting me there.

But you do sum up a point that I have believed but not stated in this thread. The whole purpose of the BCS was to provide us with a undisputed National Champion. I don't see how you do that without a playoff.

EDIT: And per my previous post, I don't see how you can have an undisputed National Champion without having a consensus challenger as well.

[KWhit]

Th BCS sucks (as does the old bowl system). There is no way after a 12 game season to accurately determine the 2 best teams - especially when the strength from conference to conference is so wide and unmeasurable.

Is a 1 loss SEC team better than an undefeated Big 10 team? Sometimes yes (see last year), sometimes no. But it's impossible to know that until they play. The #3 team each year usually has as much claim to play in the title game as the #2 team. I would much rather have that argument about the #8-#9 teams than #2 and #3.

An 8 team playoff would be un-fucking believable. And it would NOT lessen the impact of the regular season. It might make a few games less important, but it would make a ton of other games important that are meaningless today.

Think of it this way. Most teams cannot make a title game with 1 loss, no matter how well they play the rest of the year. Some can, due to reputation, schedule, strangth of conference, etc. But if you aren't one of the prestigous schools, you can be eliminated from the national championship picture after WEEK ONE. So for (estimating) 30-40% of the teams in the NCAA, they are eliminated after their first game. How does that make their regular season games important?

[Atocep]

Let me get this straight, should Boise State have been allowed to play Oklahoma last year in the Fiesta Bowl? Who won that game? Is that any different than George Mason going to the Final Four a few years back?

Was George Mason one of the 4 best teams in the country or were they a team that played well at the end of the season? If you want to reward teams for playing well at the end of the season thats fine, but don't pretend that actually means they're one of the best teams.


Who did Michigan lose to again? Appalachain State? They actually played that game? I mean come on, Michigan is so much better. They actually play 1A football in the Big 10! What? Appalachain State won? That can't happen! I didn't think it could happen!

And Michigan can win the Big 10 and be in your playoff scenario too because you want to reward teams soley for play in conference games, that Appalachain State loss would have been meaningless.


I don't think so. Again, over time, your record speaks to who you are, not what we think you are. LSU is thought to be the best team in the nation right now. Sure, they've looked good. But, they are very close to being 5-3 right now. A few breaks the other way in the Auburn and Florida game and they are 5-3. Would that 5-3 team still be considered one of the top teams in the nation?

So you want to knock me for what I think is going to happen with Troy and you want to go back and play "what if" games on stuff thats already happened....


Let's take Florida, another team that everyone was calling one of the top teams in the nation even though they were 5-2. Not a lot of people are talking about them now since they lost to Georgia.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but its the regular season now and thats what is showing us who the best teams are right now, as you point out here.





How can any team claim to be a National Champion when they are not even the best team in their own conference? (For the record, this is my single issue with the NCAA Basketball Tournament) Currently, you have no shot at being the NCAA 1A National Champion in Football unless you are in a BCS Conference or you are Notre Dame.

Please name the number of national champions that didn't win their conference title under the BCS.



So if they were clearly the #1 team in the country, why weren't they crowned the national champions? Everyone thought they were going to crush Florida. Not many people gave Florida a chance. What was the score of that game? By your logic, we shouldn't even play the game. It was clear to everyone that they were the #1 team in the country. Well, they were, until they played Florida.

My point is that in a playoff system there is a chance that they might get knocked off, but in that case, they do not deserve to be the national champion. You're playing in a tournament of champions, each team that is there has won something tangible, they are not the #2 team in the Big 10, they are not the #3 team in the SEC East Division, they are a champion of a conference.

This is my main problem with playoff supporters. You seem to think the best team wins every game. You brought up basketball and baseball earlier in the thread, the Red Sox lost 66 games during the regular season and would have been eliminated by Cleveland under the playoff format from a couple years ago.

Teams do not play their best week in and week out. No team does. What a playoff does is put more value on games at the end of the season. What your system does is say the Sun Belt, MAC, and Mountain West teams are just as good as the SEC, PAC-10, and Big 12 teams.



If they got upset, would they be one of the best teams in the nation? Again, after how many losses do we reevaluate our thoughts on a team? OSU and Miami were only clearly the best two teams in the country because they had not lost. Were they significantly better than the one loss teams that year? I'm not so sure.

And if they played a playoff and lost a game their loss is somehow much worse than the loss or losses that the team that beat them had. I'll say it again, the best team doesn't win every week. You have to look at their body of work over the course of the season and those two teams were clearly the best in the country.






There may not be debate about one of the teams in the BCS game, but there is typically a ton about who the #2 team is.

So you admit it gets the national champion right?


2006 - Last year Michigan or Florida. Did they get it right? Michigan lost a close game to OSU in the Horseshoe and then lost to a fired up USC team in the Rose Bowl, not a big surprise as that often happens when a team is playing in a bowl they do not want to be in.

And here you contradict yourself. Michigan had their chance in what was essentially a playoff scenario. Win and they move on. They didn't win and therefore weren't even the best team in their conference, yet since you don't like the BCS you want to point to them as being a team that possibly should have played Ohio State again.

Under your system Michigan wouldn't have been part of a 12 team playoff, but you think they should have possibly had another shot at Ohio State last season?


2004 - There are 5 undefeated teams, Utah, Boise State, USC, Auburn, and Oklahoma - Auburn, USC, and Utah finish undefeated as Oklahoma loses to USC and Boise State loses a close game to a 1 loss Louisville team.

Oklahoma and Boise both lost and as you said earlier, if they were the better team then they would have simly went out and won. How do I know Boise or Oklahoma were any good? The media was just telling me that.


2003 - Oklahoma, LSU, and USC all finish with one loss. Oklahoma and LSU play for the title, LSU wins. USC is crowned national champions by the AP. LSU by ESPN and the BCS.

A playoff wouldn't necessarily eliminate this in college fooball unless polls were obligated to vote for the winner (which creates an artificial champion). Lets take last year for instance (I'm going to play a game of what if also), lets say Ohio State loses in the semifinal game to a 2 loss team than in turn went on to lose to Michigan in the national championship game. What is to stop people from voting Ohio State over Michigan under that scnenario?

Your playoff wouldn't guarantee any of these three teams playing against each other. College Basketball would have controversies as well if the voters weren't forced to vote for the winner of the NCAA Tourney.


2001 - Nebraska is pasted by Colorado, who goes on to win the Big 12 with 2 losses. Oregon also has one loss. But, Nebraska is selected ahead of Oregon and Colorado (who they had just lost to) to play in the title game against Miami. Now, Colorado might not have won against Miami, but that was an awesome football team that was playing the best ball at the end of the season.

And Colorado went on to lose to Oregon by 22. They sure were playing their best ball at the end of the season....



So, in 7 games beginning in 2000, there have only been two consensus games for the National Championship. Every other game had some question about who should be involved in that game. Every single other season had some debate.

How does a playoff change this? The only way to truely choose a champion is if every team plays every other team. A playoff doesn't make that happen. All you do is put more hurdles in front of the better teams.


In 2004, would Auburn have been able to beat USC? Would either have been able to beat Utah? We will never know. In 2001, would Colorado have been able to beat Miami? Maybe not, but they were certainly a better team than Nebraska at that time, and had proven it on the field. Would LSU have beaten USC in 2003?

Once again, you can do what if scenarios under any playoff. Team X didn't play Team Y so we don't know who was better between those teams. Nothing you do is going to remove that.



A playoff is the one way to really determine who the best team is, and that is to do it on the field. What is the best way to determine the teams? If we select teams, we are ultimately back where we started and everyone is bitching about who the #8 and #9 teams are, or who the #16 and #17 teams are, and why does the Big East champion get a free bid, but not the undefeated WAC champion, etc. The only way to do it fairly without bias is to take the conference champions and put them in a playoff.

Yep, the best team in the country is chosen by admitedly putting them up against inferior teams and the team that loses the SEC title game and Michigan of last year is not as good as Troy.

[Atocep]

and would have been eliminated by Cleveland under the playoff format from a couple years ago.

Pointing out my own error here. Boston rolled past the Angels so fast I forgot they were the Divisional Round opponent. :)

Doesn't change the overall point, though.

[Kodos]

A playoff is the only way to get a true champion. Prove it on the field with elimination on the line.

[Young Drachma]

What's funny is...the BCS IS a playoff. It's just one that only gives two teams a shot at a title.

[SnDvls]

To me the BCS is the one creating a "true champion." I don't understand this notion that you just pick the best two teams. They don't do it in basketball, baseball, lacrosse, soccer or any other NCAA sport. I don't care what contrived reasons you have for why it works in those sports but not baseball, they just aren't true. Regardless of the number of games, revenue streams, etc, the argument that a playoff system creates a "true champion" (therefore implying a fake champion) is just ludicrous. People don't "deserve" to be in the championship game because people think they did well in the regular season.

To play devil's advocate here (I don't vote in my own polls just to not show a bias one way or the other I hope) but by seeding teams on a committee of humans there is some "picking" involved. Same in NCAA baseball where teams are not only seeded, but also sent to regionals and super regionals where their is a home field advantage for only 1 team. And the selection process is partially based on what revenue you can bring back for NCAA baseball not basesed solely by on field performance....just an FYI here.

[Atocep]

To play devil's advocate here (I don't vote in my own polls just to not show a bias one way or the other I hope) but by seeding teams on a committee of humans there is some "picking" involved. Same in NCAA baseball where teams are not only seeded, but also sent to regionals and super regionals where their is a home field advantage for only 1 team. And the selection process is partially based on what revenue you can bring back for NCAA baseball not basesed solely by on field performance....just an FYI here.

This is part of my overall point. I don't think the BCS is perfect. I've never stated that. I said it serves its purpose more than a playoff would in college football.

A playoff actually brings in more randomness. Where you play, who you're matched up against in your bracket, who you get to avoid, which team has the easiest path to the title game.

[Klinglerware]

And the selection process is partially based on what revenue you can bring back for NCAA baseball not basesed solely by on field performance....just an FYI here.

The same principle is involved with the 1-AA football playoff seeding...

[Atocep]

The same principle is involved with the 1-AA football playoff seeding...

Its actually even worse for 1AA (than most playoff systems) because what type of crowd and TV ratings you'll get is considered just as strongly as how good you are.

I remember Steve McNair's senior year at Alcorn St they were a top 5ish team in 1AA and Marshall was ranked #1. The commitee had considered putting those two teams against each other in the 1st round simply because it would have attracted a large crowd and good TV ratings.

[Warhammer]

Was George Mason one of the 4 best teams in the country or were they a team that played well at the end of the season? If you want to reward teams for playing well at the end of the season thats fine, but don't pretend that actually means they're one of the best teams.

They beat UConn, UNC, and Wichita State during their run. All of those were considered very good teams with Wichita State being considered a possible Cinderella. They proved on the court that they deserved to be in the Final Four.

George Mason received an at large bid that year. They did not win their conference tournament. They were one of the 34 best teams that did not win their conference. They were given the opportunity to play for the national title and almost pulled it off.

And Michigan can win the Big 10 and be in your playoff scenario too because you want to reward teams soley for play in conference games, that Appalachain State loss would have been meaningless.

Yeah, but even under the current system it would be meaningless if Michigan wins the Big 10. In that case, they still go to a BCS bowl game, just not the National Championship game. Even their Oregon game is pretty meaningless because they can still go to a BCS game.

My point is, let's say that Michigan improves throughout the course of the season, and by season's end are clearly the best team in the country (define that how you will). They would not have a shot to prove it because of their previous losses.

So you want to knock me for what I think is going to happen with Troy and you want to go back and play "what if" games on stuff thats already happened....

I'm not playing "what-if" games with stuff that has already happened. My point is, you are saying that Troy is automatically worse than Georgia because they lost two games on the road to tough SEC teams. Most other teams in the country would lose those games, regardless of the conference they are from.

Please name the number of national champions that didn't win their conference title under the BCS.

None that I can think of, but there have been teams that didn't win the conference title that had the opportunity to do so by playing in the game. The one off the top of my head is the Nebraska team that played FSU.

This is my main problem with playoff supporters. You seem to think the best team wins every game. You brought up basketball and baseball earlier in the thread, the Red Sox lost 66 games during the regular season and would have been eliminated by Cleveland under the playoff format from a couple years ago.

Now you're trying to have it both ways. You just said, "You seem to think the best team wins every game." So what you are insinuating is that the best team does not win every game. Therefore a single game is not a good indicator for which team is better. Then you go on to show that Cleveland would have won under the old system, but they lost under the new system. So how many games in head to head competition do we need? If 7 is good, wouldn't 9 be better? Is that too many games? My whole thing is, we don't think one game is a good indicator, 5 is too few, 9 is too much, etc. THEN WHY DO YOU THINK THE BCS WORKS? It takes two teams and says whoever wins this game is the National Champion.

My belief is that one game can be a fluke. A team should neither be punished or rewarded based upon any one game. However, a series of games can be used to determine who is the best team from a group of teams. For example, you play a conference schedule and then most conferences have a championship game. Over the course of the season, you can determine the best couple of teams from each conference. They play and determine the conference champion.

Then, you take those conference champions and put them through a playoff. Because a team that can win three or four games in a row against the best teams each conference can offer has proven over a series of games that they are better than the other teams. Its not a single game, but over a series of games.

Teams do not play their best week in and week out. No team does. What a playoff does is put more value on games at the end of the season. What your system does is say the Sun Belt, MAC, and Mountain West teams are just as good as the SEC, PAC-10, and Big 12 teams.

No, it does not say that they are all equal. What it does say is that they should all have an equal opportunity to prove that they are just as good. The current system says that unless you are a BCS conference, you do not have a chance to be in the BCS Title Game. The only way that can happen currently is if no team from the big conferences go undefeated, and you go undefeated, and happen to play some tough out of conference games, then you MAY get a chance to prove that you belong on the field. Your chance to win the whole thing is determined by computers, polls, etc. It is not determined on the field.

Regarding games at the end of the season, isn't that what we see now? How is that any different than having teams that lose their conference championship being eliminated now? How is it different than losing the second to last game of the regular season and dropping positions in the polls and not having a chance to work your way back up. Currently, if you are going to lose, it is far better to lose early than late.

And if they played a playoff and lost a game their loss is somehow much worse than the loss or losses that the team that beat them had. I'll say it again, the best team doesn't win every week. You have to look at their body of work over the course of the season and those two teams were clearly the best in the country.

So you admit it gets the national champion right?


But under the current system, you pretty much have to go undefeated to guarantee yourself a shot, but even that doesn't guarantee a shot at the title (look at the 2005 season, 5 undefeated teams!). Barring that, you can't have more than one loss.

Again, you are saying that we have to look at a body of work and pick two teams that were clearly the best in the country. We can typically pick one, but as I posted before, there has almost always been debate about #2, except where there was one other undefeated team from a major conference. So 5 out of 7 years since 2000 we have had debate. That is not a good success rate.

Your argument will probably be that the BCS has gotten it right most of the time. If we put the #1 team against Podunk U, we could also argue that it got it right most of the time, but it wouldn't make us feel right, would it? Again, how do we know that we got it right? I still think USC was better than Texas. They play that game again, USC wins. But guess what, Texas was still crowned national champions because they won the big game. No one was talking about body of work after that. They just said, see Texas won! They're the champs!

And here you contradict yourself. Michigan had their chance in what was essentially a playoff scenario. Win and they move on. They didn't win and therefore weren't even the best team in their conference, yet since you don't like the BCS you want to point to them as being a team that possibly should have played Ohio State again.

Under your system Michigan wouldn't have been part of a 12 team playoff, but you think they should have possibly had another shot at Ohio State last season?

No, that's not what I was saying. I was explaining that under the current system there was a big debate about who else should play in the title game. My point is that there were many who felt that they should play in the title game. Was I one of them, I happened to be one. But, under the BCS system it was up for debate.

Under my system, they would not have been part of the playoff. Additionally, under my system they should not get another shot at them, unless it was in a conference title game.

Oklahoma and Boise both lost and as you said earlier, if they were the better team then they would have simly went out and won. How do I know Boise or Oklahoma were any good? The media was just telling me that.

EXACTLY MY POINT! However, they did show throughout the season that they were better than the other teams in their conference. Therefore, they should be their conference's representatives in a post-season playoff.

A playoff wouldn't necessarily eliminate this in college fooball unless polls were obligated to vote for the winner (which creates an artificial champion). Lets take last year for instance (I'm going to play a game of what if also), lets say Ohio State loses in the semifinal game to a 2 loss team than in turn went on to lose to Michigan in the national championship game. What is to stop people from voting Ohio State over Michigan under that scnenario?

Again, that is my point. There is nothing to keep the voters from saying that Ole Miss was just having hard luck in all their games, and that they really were the best team in the country. We'd all know it was a sham, but that can happen, never will, but it is possible. We've seen some people vote for other teams that were deemed inferior to another team ahead of that team for position in the polls which is part of the BCS formula.

Your playoff wouldn't guarantee any of these three teams playing against each other. College Basketball would have controversies as well if the voters weren't forced to vote for the winner of the NCAA Tourney.

I'm not saying that they would either. What I am saying is that the winner of my playoff would be forced to play at least 3 other conference champions to win it all. There would be no debate that they had to play a tough schedule and they had to face the best that the other conferences had to offer. What more do you want?

And Colorado went on to lose to Oregon by 22. They sure were playing their best ball at the end of the season....

And Oregon just happened to be the other team that got shafted that year. Again, teams that feel they should be in a different bowl game typically get blown out in their bowl games. Sometimes they lose to a better team, sometimes they have a good team, but they don't show up. Michigan - USC was a good example of that last year.

How does a playoff change this? The only way to truely choose a champion is if every team plays every other team. A playoff doesn't make that happen. All you do is put more hurdles in front of the better teams.

Yep, and those hurdles are each other. If OSU is better than Florida, prove it. If you think you have the best team in the nation, you should be able to beat the other teams.

Once again, you can do what if scenarios under any playoff. Team X didn't play Team Y so we don't know who was better between those teams. Nothing you do is going to remove that.

OK, the NFL Champions last year were the Seattle Seahawks because they would have beaten the Colts. I think so, so therefore it is true.

Again, if a team has a gripe, beat the team in front of you. What we have seen is that the BCS can setup some matchups that guarantee a lot of viewers. That is all. Aside from 2 years, each #2 team that faced #1 was debated. How does that clear things up?

[Klinglerware]

Its actually even worse for 1AA (than most playoff systems) because what type of crowd and TV ratings you'll get is considered just as strongly as how good you are.

I remember Steve McNair's senior year at Alcorn St they were a top 5ish team in 1AA and Marshall was ranked #1. The commitee had considered putting those two teams against each other in the 1st round simply because it would have attracted a large crowd and good TV ratings.

Yeah, that was an interesting choice, as Alcorn was 8-3 (if I recall correctly) and not even the SWAC champion (I believe that the SWAC champ is committed elsewhere, though the selection committee can select other SWAC teams provided that it meets their criteria for selection). Maybe that year, the criteria for selection was TV ratings--ESPN carried the 1st round game against Youngstown State. Televising an opening round 1-AA playoff game involving the 1 vs 16 seed was unheard of at the time. #1 YSU promptly crushed Alcorn, though I remember McNair chucking it something like 80 times that game...

[Atocep]

Yeah, that was an interesting choice, as Alcorn was 8-3 (if I recall correctly) and not even the SWAC champion (I believe that the SWAC champ is committed elsewhere, though the selection committee can select other SWAC teams provided that it meets their criteria for selection). Maybe that year, the criteria for selection was TV ratings--ESPN carried the 1st round game against Youngstown State. Televising an opening round 1-AA playoff game involving the 1 vs 16 seed was unheard of at the time. #1 YSU promptly crushed Alcorn, though I remember McNair chucking it something like 80 times that game...

Great times for Marshall then. Them and Youngstown were easily the top 2 teams in 1AA for about a 5 year stretch and anytime they didn't meet in the title game was a huge disappointment.

EDIT: My original post should have said top 25ish, not top 5ish for Alcorn. I got up early and I'm tired dammit.

[lordscarlet]

I still don't understand the logic that somehow a playoff does not name the "true champion." If it works in every other sport (I'm sure there's some obscure sport that I don't know about, but you get the point) professional and collegiate, I find it hard to accept the argument that IA College football is so vastly different that a playoff system would dilute the value of the title "champion." Are you claiming that the winners of the playoff systems in all of those other college sports are not the "true champion?" Are you saying that Boston and Indianapolis are not the true champions? Oh, right, professional sports are different because there's more parity. IA football is not so different that voting should choose the championship game.

[Atocep]

I still don't understand the logic that somehow a playoff does not name the "true champion." If it works in every other sport (I'm sure there's some obscure sport that I don't know about, but you get the point) professional and collegiate, I find it hard to accept the argument that IA College football is so vastly different that a playoff system would dilute the value of the title "champion." Are you claiming that the winners of the playoff systems in all of those other college sports are not the "true champion?" Are you saying that Boston and Indianapolis are not the true champions? Oh, right, professional sports are different because there's more parity. IA football is not so different that voting should choose the championship game.

The only way to crown a true champion is if EVERY team plays the other one at least once. The NCAA tourney is about matchups and how well you're playing at that particular time of the year.

I stated above:

A playoff actually brings in more randomness. Where you play, who you're matched up against in your bracket, who you get to avoid, which team has the easiest path to the title game.

[rkmsuf]

we should strive for a society without rankings and just play for fun

[Atocep]

we should strive for a society without rankings and just play for fun

I give this post a 6 out of a possible 10.

[KWhit]

One more thing. Any system that allows a team to go undefeated and not have a chance to be crowned the National Champion is absurd.

[Warhammer]

The only way to crown a true champion is if EVERY team plays the other one at least once.

So MLB and the NFL do not crown a true champion?

[Abe Sargent]

I know I'm late to the picnic, but this is for Warhammer:

Your proposed system has a significant bias with the independants. You are virtually giving Notre Dame a pass to every tournament ever.

Why not give a pass to all conference winners, then take the 5 remainign schools with the best whatever use BCS, record, don;t care) and throw them in to,

Under Warhammer's proposal, 12 teams in four with byes:

Week 1 - Cut to 8
2 - Cut to 4
3 - Cut to 2
4 - Final Game

16 team playoff

Week 1 - Cut to 8
2 - Cut to 4
3 - Cut to 2
4 - Final

Same amount of time in the game, so I don;t understand Warhammer's playoff system.

Note that a four week playoff system brings up a lot o fissues with administration, location, classes, academics, and such. But f you are going to propose a 4 week playoff system, might as well make it the best proposal possible.

No school should get a virtual auto-include every year.

[Atocep]

So MLB and the NFL do not crown a true champion?

Do you think St. Louis was the best team in baseball last year?

[heybrad]

I shiver at the thought of an entire sports world where champions are crowned based on who a few people think are the best.

[lordscarlet]

Do you think St. Louis was the best team in baseball last year?

I think they were the champions.

You think they should have just played a game between the Yankees and the Red Sox?

[Warhammer]

I know I'm late to the picnic, but this is for Warhammer:

Your proposed system has a significant bias with the independants. You are virtually giving Notre Dame a pass to every tournament ever.

Why not give a pass to all conference winners, then take the 5 remainign schools with the best whatever use BCS, record, don;t care) and throw them in to,

Under Warhammer's proposal, 12 teams in four with byes:

Week 1 - Cut to 8
2 - Cut to 4
3 - Cut to 2
4 - Final Game

16 team playoff

Week 1 - Cut to 8
2 - Cut to 4
3 - Cut to 2
4 - Final

Same amount of time in the game, so I don;t understand Warhammer's playoff system.

Note that a four week playoff system brings up a lot o fissues with administration, location, classes, academics, and such. But f you are going to propose a 4 week playoff system, might as well make it the best proposal possible.

No school should get a virtual auto-include every year.

Would Notre Dame be getting in this year? ;)

The point of my system is to remove the bias. There are 11 conferences and then the major independents, of which there are 4 or 5. Is there a bias towards those schools? Probably. But, I would rather let in one of those schools than have to debate who is the #12 school that gets in, however you would do that.

If we go with a BCS conferences get auto-bids and the rest get at large bids, we're basically limiting the pool to BCS conferences again, which is what I am trying to avoid. All money from the major independents would be split among those schools. So yes, Notre Dame does get in a fair bit, but they would not advance unless they were deserving (i.e. a 6-5 Notre Dame is probably not going to win it). Essentially, I am treating the major independants as another conference.

Now, if this was a major sticking point, I also wouldn't be adverse to having the Las Vegas bookies putting a poll up and taking the top team in their poll not currently in the tourney. They are normally pretty good about these things for setting lines on betting.

The current BCS is all weighted towards the big schools. BYU could be the best team in the nation, but we would never find out. They could go undefeated, and still not have a chance to play for the title because the SOS component is so heavily weighted against them.

Rather than debate, or throw it to the computers, or heaven forbid the pollsters, I opted to go with a system based upon conference titles. The primary reasons for this is that most conference schedules, you play all but one or maybe two teams in the conference. Additionally, most teams have a conference title game, the top teams in a conference are virtually assured of playing each other at least once during the season.

This has the side benefit of allowing teams to determine how they want to schedule their season. Do they schedule tough games that prepare them for the conference season, or do they play cream puffs to warm up against? Both methods have merit, but I think this would promote better games during the season. No longer do Texas and OSU get punished by playing each other early in the season. They get a tough game against a good opponent that toughens the team for the important part of the season, the conference slate.

Additionally, there is no need to run up the score. Stats, margin of victory, and SOS are all taken out of the equation. Now, if a team is up by 14 late in the game, there is a lot of incentive to throw that sophomore QB in there to get some reps and prepare him for the next season. Teams can actively build for the future and not get killed if they wind up losing a game.

Teams can also develop during a season. You don't have to worry about any one single game killing your season, unless it is a crucial conference game. Want more importance on those games against your rivals? Imagine, Michigan against Ohio State late in the year, loser stays home, winner goes to the playoffs. The games have a ton of meaning, more so than even now. Sure, some may not have any meaning, but who watches Northwestern vs. Minnesota late in the season anyway?

Is there a perfect system? No. The way college football is set up, there will not be a perfect system. However, we can set up a playoff and eliminate most of the major conference bias.

[Warhammer]

Do you think St. Louis was the best team in baseball last year?

Yes, they were. They knew what the rules were, and by the rules they were the best team in MLB.

Sure, they were 83-79, but they suffered a ton of injuries. They got into the playoffs and beat the best teams the National League had to offer. In baseball, very rarely are there flukes. This isn't NCAA Basketball where a superior team loses to an inferior team (note: The cream still does rise to the top in that tournament as most teams that win upsets get beat in the second round or the Sweet 16. Name an NCAA Tournament team that was not deserving of the title.). In baseball you play 7 games, the team that wins 4 games first advances. As a result, you might have a fluke result in 1 or 2 games, but after 4 games, any flukes become trends.

When you have rules in advance, and you know what they are and they are all based upon standings and games played on the field, I am fine with the result. I have problems when we have to introduce margin of victory, strength of schedule, home/away splits, etc., and feed all this information into a computer. Wait for it to spit out its output. Then take the cube root of that result, add it to the square of the sum of the position of a team in the polls, add the number of losses, divided by the total number of games played on Friday nights in November in Alaska and take the two lowest scoring teams from that and say "You two will play for the National Championship!" Oh, and if people don't agree with the system, you just won't be a part of it.

[Atocep]

I think they were the champions.

You think they should have just played a game between the Yankees and the Red Sox?

They were the champions as defined by MLB's playoff. That doesn't mean they were the best team in baseball or anywhere close to it actually.

Over 162 games they were 83-78 and outscored their opponents by 19 runs over that span. Versus the NL East they were 15-16, versus the west they were 23-11, and against their own division they were 39-42.

So for 162 games they were by every definition an average team or slightly above average team. Then they go 11-5 for a stretch of games in October and are remembered as the best team in baseball that year.

Is that your definition of a true champion?

I'm interested in hearing what everyone's description of a true champion is since thats the catch phrase that the anti-BCS crowd likes to toss around.

[Atocep]

In baseball, very rarely are there flukes.

This is complete BS. The very best teams in baseball win less than 60% of their games. Baseball's postseason is about as random as it gets because of the small sample size compared to the regular season.

[Pumpy Tudors]

THERE AIN'T NO TRUE CHAMPION UNTIL THEY DO THIS SHIT LIKE THE PREMIERSHIP. PLAYOFFS MY ASS

[lordscarlet]

They were the champions as defined by MLB's playoff. That doesn't mean they were the best team in baseball or anywhere close to it actually.

Over 162 games they were 83-78 and outscored their opponents by 19 runs over that span. Versus the NL East they were 15-16, versus the west they were 23-11, and against their own division they were 39-42.

So for 162 games they were by every definition an average team or slightly above average team. Then they go 11-5 for a stretch of games in October and are remembered as the best team in baseball that year.

Is that your definition of a true champion?

I'm interested in hearing what everyone's description of a true champion is since thats the catch phrase that the anti-BCS crowd likes to toss around.

I'm using "true champion" because I saw you use it. I think that a playoff system develops a more clear-cut champion to the season than does a voting system picking two teams. I think some years the Indianapolis Colts lose to a Patriots team that did not perform as well in the regular season. I think some years the Cardinals turn it on in the playoffs and make up for a less-than-stellar regular season. Do I think that the "best" team always wins the championship? At the time, yes. An undefeated team can be at the top of the polls and play one crappy game and still lose. There are ups and downs in all sports, and I think you get a more representative result with a playoff system.

[KWhit]

I for one am all for a playoff, but I hate Warhammer's proposal. Conferences aren't equal, so they shouldn't be treated equally.

[Warhammer]

This is complete BS. The very best teams in baseball win less than 60% of their games. Baseball's postseason is about as random as it gets because of the small sample size compared to the regular season.

OK, let's make each series a single game.

Seriously, baseball's playoffs are probably the best out there because you have best of 7 series. You're telling me that the baseball playoffs are more random than football playoffs?

[Atocep]

I'm using "true champion" because I saw you use it. I think that a playoff system develops a more clear-cut champion to the season than does a voting system picking two teams. I think some years the Indianapolis Colts lose to a Patriots team that did not perform as well in the regular season. I think some years the Cardinals turn it on in the playoffs and make up for a less-than-stellar regular season. Do I think that the "best" team always wins the championship? At the time, yes. An undefeated team can be at the top of the polls and play one crappy game and still lose. There are ups and downs in all sports, and I think you get a more representative result with a playoff system.

I used True Champion, because like I stated, its a common catchphrase used by the Anti-BCS crowd.

Playoffs in each sport work differently. College basketball is complete randomness. Humans pick the matchups, where the teams will play, and it all varies from year to year.

Pro Basketball's biggest problem is the rules change during the playoffs (despite what David Stern says). Pro Baseball's biggest problem (and to a lesser extent football) is teams are picked from conference or league as the representative and the two best teams don't always decide the championship.

Does a playoff lead to more drama and excitment? In most cases yes. Does it crown the best team champion? Not always, and probably less often than the BCS does. It comes down to what you want from your sports.

I think the BCS does a solid job of getting the right champion and the controversy surrounding who plays is actually a good thing for the sport. People can complain about it, but if you look at it from the NCAA's POV people still show up to the games, still watch the games, and college football has the most loyal and rabid fans you'll see in any sport in the US. There's zero incentive for them to change the system.

There's an infatuation in the US with underdogs, upsets, and cinderella story teams. We all love them and what a playoff does is give us the opportunity to see them while the BCS doesn't. The more teams involved in a playoff, the more upsets you're going to see, its the nature of a playoff (especially one where 1 game decides a team's fate). People have to decide whether they want to see the best teams playing or a mix of the best teams and throw in some underdogs to make things interesting. Most people are going to choose option 2 there, however, that reduces the chances of the best teams advancing.

I'm a fan of seeing the very best rewarded for their play over the course of a full season. I don't want to see the Troys, the Western Michigan's, the George Masons, or whoever else in the discussion in college football and I want to minimize the emphasis on late season play. I'm in the minority, I know it, I accept it. What it comes down to is a matter of taste. Just remember that what college football lacks in cinderella stories it makes up for in controversy (which gives us things to talk about on message boards).

[lordscarlet]

I'm clearly not going to change your mind, and you're not going to change mind. Having two teams play for the championship based on human selection is incredibly flawed, and that's all there is to it. No other sport worldwide, to my knowledge, has such a championship system that is based so indirectly on on the field performance.

[st.cronin]

Having two teams play for the championship based on human selection is incredibly flawed.

I don't think anybody denies that. The objection is that what we currently have in place is a great product, and any playoff system is a radical departure. The law of unintended consequences and all that.

[Young Drachma]

This is complete BS. The very best teams in baseball win less than 60% of their games. Baseball's postseason is about as random as it gets because of the small sample size compared to the regular season.

What?

When you play 162 games in a regular season, winning .500 of your games is a real accomplishment.

The baseball playoffs might not always be the most elegent...but I believe if a team makes it to the postseason, they earned it. It's a grind...

[Atocep]

What?

When you play 162 games in a regular season, winning .500 of your games is a real accomplishment.

The baseball playoffs might not always be the most elegent...but I believe if a team makes it to the postseason, they earned it. It's a grind...

I think you misunderstood my post.

Getting to the postseason is a grind. It is an amazing accomplishment considering the length of the season. What happens from there is fairly random.

[lordscarlet]

I don't think anybody denies that. The objection is that what we currently have in place is a great product, and any playoff system is a radical departure. The law of unintended consequences and all that.

That is not Atocep's argument.

[thetrilogy]

Let's see:

We'll have a mediocre big ten team face some other team in the final game this year. Same sorry ass result as last year; A mediocre big ten team gets thumped.

BCS SUCKS. Everyone is afraid of a playoff system and I can't figure out why?

[Klinglerware]

BCS SUCKS. Everyone is afraid of a playoff system and I can't figure out why?

$$$$$$