TCU into the BCS...? [Archive] - Front Office Football Central

sooner333

11-09-2003, 12:16 AM

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

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

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

TroyF

11-09-2003, 12:24 AM

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

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

TroyF

sooner333

11-09-2003, 12:40 AM

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

TroyF

11-09-2003, 12:46 AM

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

TroyF

Wasabiak

11-09-2003, 12:50 AM

Where's a playoff system when you need one?

sooner333

11-09-2003, 01:11 AM

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

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

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

the_meanstrosity

11-09-2003, 01:16 AM

sooner333 is right.

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

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

sooner333

11-09-2003, 01:21 AM

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

lynchjm24

11-09-2003, 01:25 AM

lynchjm24

11-09-2003, 01:27 AM

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

Lucky Jim

11-09-2003, 01:42 AM

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

Wasabiak

11-09-2003, 01:55 AM

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

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

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

Abe Sargent

11-09-2003, 02:59 AM

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

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

-Anxiety

sooner333

11-09-2003, 12:20 PM

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

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

Buccaneer

11-09-2003, 01:19 PM

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

the_meanstrosity

11-09-2003, 01:48 PM

Buccaneer,

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

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

illinifan999

11-09-2003, 02:16 PM

How many teams make the playoffs?

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

sooner333

11-09-2003, 02:22 PM

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

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

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

MJ4H

11-09-2003, 02:44 PM

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

mckerney

11-09-2003, 02:47 PM

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

How would you work a 6 team playoff?

MJ4H

11-09-2003, 02:49 PM

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

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

ScottVib

11-09-2003, 04:32 PM

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

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

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

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

SunDancer

11-09-2003, 05:10 PM

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

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

Lucky Jim

11-09-2003, 05:33 PM

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

digamma

11-09-2003, 05:57 PM

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

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

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

the_meanstrosity

11-09-2003, 06:35 PM

sooner,

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

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

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

SunDancer

11-09-2003, 10:56 PM

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

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

the_meanstrosity

11-09-2003, 11:30 PM

Sundancer,

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

sooner333

11-10-2003, 12:09 AM

the_meanstrosity,

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

the_meanstrosity

11-10-2003, 12:22 AM

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

Pumpy Tudors

11-10-2003, 12:34 AM

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

the_meanstrosity

11-10-2003, 12:38 AM

Pumpy,

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

SunDancer

11-10-2003, 12:56 AM

Originally posted by the_meanstrosity
Pumpy,

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

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

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

the_meanstrosity

11-10-2003, 01:24 AM

SunDancer,

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

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

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

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

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

sterlingice

11-10-2003, 01:45 AM

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

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

SI

Buccaneer

11-10-2003, 09:45 AM

Originally posted by the_meanstrosity
Buccaneer,

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

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

Butter

11-10-2003, 09:54 AM

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

Well, that and you're 105.

sterlingice

11-10-2003, 09:59 AM

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

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

SI

Buccaneer

11-10-2003, 10:01 AM

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

Ben E Lou

11-10-2003, 10:04 AM

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

sterlingice

11-10-2003, 10:07 AM

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

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

SI

Butter

11-10-2003, 10:09 AM

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

Yes, co-champs are grand. Michigan and Nebraska in the mid-'90's also come to mind.

Buccaneer

11-10-2003, 10:11 AM

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

I would agree with that.

the_meanstrosity

11-10-2003, 10:36 AM

The BCS formula is the one that created the Nebraska - Miami championship game. Ouch!

I believe since then they have tweaked the formula, but I'm not certain if it's been implemented or just discussed.

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

HornedFrog Purple

11-10-2003, 11:42 AM

Do I really need to answer this question? :D

SunDancer

11-10-2003, 12:07 PM

I love getting up on New Years and watching the day list of games, escp. the Pac-10/Big 10 Rose Bowl.

Wolfpack

11-10-2003, 01:18 PM

All I know is I gotta thank Clemson for knocking down FSU. NC State continues to have a very, very, very small (almost infinitesimal) chance of reaching a BCS bowl. They have to beat FSU Saturday and Maryland (who has had a hex on State the last three years) next Saturday and perhaps hope that FSU loses to Florida as well. The BCS bid tiebreaker in the ACC is head-to-head with the winner having to be within five places in the polls of the loser or better (e.g. FSU is 14th, NC State must be 19th or better). So, in spite of getting thumped at Wake, getting nipped at Ohio State, and playing poorly at Tech, we still are alive mathematically. I'm not holding my breath, though.

the_meanstrosity

11-10-2003, 02:29 PM

I'd love to see a NCAA and a NIT like tournament for college football. I'd be in heaven with that much college football in December and January.

ISiddiqui

11-10-2003, 03:11 PM

I'm just saying the regualr season is what makes college football great compared to other sports.

If you care so much about the regular season, why not declare the national champion BEFORE the bowl games? After all, the bowls aren't part of the regular season.

I agree, that is why I still favor the way it was done before this BCS complexity. It was a subjective choice (coaches and sportswriters polls) of who is champion or co-champion and it worked well for a long time. It wasn't definitive but neither is the BCS or a playoffs. Let OSU go out to the Rose last season and play the Pac10 champion and have Miami play in the Orange or Sugar. If they both won, so be it. It matters not at all that we must have a clear champion. The bowl games (at least before they got out of control) was a reward for a successful season and a great trip for the team and fans to a nice place.

I agree with this. It's my first choice. HOWEVER, we will never go back to this again (face it, Bucc). Therefore, I see nothing wrong with going to a playoff seeing as how the BCS has killed the tradition of the bowls (see Rose Bowl last year)

KWhit

11-10-2003, 04:04 PM

A few random arguments in favor of some change to the system:

1) Every year there are 20-30 (probably even more) teams like TCU that no matter what they do have no chance of winning the national championship. Even before the season begins they are mathmatically eliminated. Gee, that's fair.

2) People say that "every week is a playoff." Well, sort of... The problem with this is that if your team loses the first week of the year, you are basically out of luck for the whole season. You cannot win it all (unless you happen to be one of the very few 10-15 "elite" programs who can make it to the title game with one loss). Why get excited about the rest of the season once you lose? To see if you can get to the Capital One Bowl? Woo-hoo!

3) Bowl games are silly. They're like the consolation games played in the World Cup (do they still do that?) between the semifinal losers. Once a team has been ousted from championship contention, what are they playing for? Pride? Sure, but if I see another player holding up their finger saying "we're number one" after they just won the Silicon Valley Bowl I think I will throw up.

4) Every other level of college football has a playoff system, so explain to me why one won't work again.

5) One day (and I hope it is soon) we will have 3 (or more) major college teams who all have the same record and same claim to play in the title game. What do you do then? Oh yeah, let computers decide who gets left out. Yippie!

6) Nebraska - Miami.

7) If things play out the way they've been going, USC will play in the title game. There has been nothing that tells me definitively that they are more deserving of this than LSU or Ohio State (or even TCU).

TroyF

11-10-2003, 04:23 PM

2) People say that "every week is a playoff." Well, sort of... The problem with this is that if your team loses the first week of the year, you are basically out of luck for the whole season. You cannot win it all (unless you happen to be one of the very few 10-15 "elite" programs who can make it to the title game with one loss). Why get excited about the rest of the season once you lose? To see if you can get to the Capital One Bowl? Woo-hoo!

Exactly right. I keep hearing how important the regular season is. . . yet in most years you are allowed one slip up. How important was the regular season to Nebraska a few years ago? Every important game at home, save one. They were thrashed in the game and still went bowling. (thanks in part to how overrated the Big12 was as a whole by the pollsters, Oregan deserved to be in that game)

Then you take into account that the first half of most bowl games are nearly as sloppy as the first game of the season because these teams haven't played in a month.

The reasoning is old and outdated. It's like taking the eight winners of the World Cup, throwing their names in a hat, playing the Q-Finals and stopping.

The one arguement that drives me up the wall more than any other is the "someone will always be mad" arguement. Yeah, someone will be. If you have an eight team tournament, the winner from every major conference would go to a playoff. As it stands now, winning your conference gives you a trip to the BCS.

I'm for a 16 team playoff. The month of December for the playoffs and the championship game on New Year's day. Even an 8 team playoff would be better than the sham we currently have.

TroyF

Buccaneer

11-10-2003, 04:31 PM

3) Bowl games are silly. They're like the consolation games played in the World Cup (do they still do that?) between the semifinal losers. Once a team has been ousted from championship contention, what are they playing for? Pride? Sure, but if I see another player holding up their finger saying "we're number one" after they just won the Silicon Valley Bowl I think I will throw up.

The way the bowls can become meaningful again is to get rid of half of them. There is absolutely no way a team 6-6 or 7-5, placing 6th or 7th in a conference deserves to get rewarded.

5) One day (and I hope it is soon) we will have 3 (or more) major college teams who all have the same record and same claim to play in the title game. What do you do then? Oh yeah, let computers decide who gets left out. Yippie!

How about letting the coaches and sportswriters polls determine instead of the computers? If you give me three team finishing the season undefeated (after the bowls), I (or at least Troy) can tell you which of the three is the best. Again, there always have been arguments and always will be. Might as well not make it a big deal.

Imran, I know it's wishful thinking but someone has to speak up. It goes along with my dream to see all D-1 football relegated to intramural status or outsourced to a minor league.

Tigercat

11-10-2003, 04:39 PM

You guys are missing the important factor that never gets mentioned:

The majority of players and coaches don't want a playoff system.
Why? Because the majority of teams, even major conference teams, will never sniff being close enough to even have a complaint about not being in the BCS title game. Furthermore, if a team makes it to a bowl game they have a chance at a positive end to their season that would only be possible for one team if Bowls were scraped for a playoff system.

I know ESPN did a survey a while back which shows that the majority of players and coaches do not want a playoff system. I think I'll go look and see if I can find that or another similiar survey.

Hell the way things are looking now at the end of the year I could be pissed that LSU is the third team in the nation looking in at USC and Oklahoma playing for the NC.(Assuming we keep winning of course) That being said, that will be one pissed off year against a bunch of happy years when my team was able to win bowl games. Maybe I am a strange fan, but I would take a bowl win over chances to be in a playoff 9 times out of 10. The majority of players and coaches agree.

TroyF

11-10-2003, 04:47 PM

Originally posted by Tigercat
You guys are missing the important factor that never gets mentioned:

The majority of players and coaches don't want a playoff system.
Why? Because the majority of teams, even major conference teams, will never sniff being close enough to even have a complaint about not being in the BCS title game. Furthermore, if a team makes it to a bowl game they have a chance at a positive end to their season that would only be possible for one team if Bowls were scraped for a playoff system.

I know ESPN did a survey a while back which shows that the majority of players and coaches do not want a playoff system. I think I'll go look and see if I can find that or another similiar survey.

Hell the way things are looking now at the end of the year I could be pissed that LSU is the third team in the nation looking in at USC and Oklahoma playing for the NC.(Assuming we keep winning of course) That being said, that will be one pissed off year against a bunch of happy years when my team was able to win bowl games. Maybe I am a strange fan, but I would take a bowl win over chances to be in a playoff 9 times out of 10. The majority of players and coaches agree.

Woo hoo, we won the WEEDWACKER Bowl, our season was a major success. I'm sure glad we didn't make it to the championship game and lose. That would have sucked. We kicked the 6th team from the Big12 baby, I'd rather have that anyday.

Ummm. . . no thanks. The minor bowl games wouldn't have to go away because 16 teams are in a playoff. They could be made more regional to draw in fans and could compliment a playoff system. This year could have Arkansas vs. Oklahoma State in the Cotton Bowl for example. Great regional game that should have no problems drawing some crowds.

I don't care what the coaches want or don't want. Most of their reasoning is BS. How many coaches have used the "study time" complaint as an example? Yawn.

TroyF

HornedFrog Purple

11-10-2003, 04:52 PM

Maybe the coaches don't want a playoff, but why would the coaches poll of which a majority of voters are BCS coaches keep moving TCU up? That would indicate maybe they do want some kind of change. I mean you could make a case that TCU stands pat even after last week's win.

Tigercat

11-10-2003, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by TroyF

I don't care what the coaches want or don't want. Most of their reasoning is BS. How many coaches have used the "study time" complaint as an example? Yawn.

TroyF

What about what the players want? (Isn't that more important than what the fans want, university athletics were made for the students and should obviously put them first?) Again, I am pretty damn sure I remember a survey done where the majority of players from a variety of Div 1a schools favored the bowl system.

Still looking for the surveys, actually the only one I found so far was a coaches and school administrators one, it was almost down the middle, with coaches being split 50/50 between playoffs and bowls, and different school administrators being more like 55-60/45-40 in favor of a playoff.

Vegas Vic

11-10-2003, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by TroyF
How many coaches have used the "study time" complaint as an example?

This is the lamest excuse of all. How is it that study time is a factor for Division 1A teams, but not for Division 1AA, Division II or Division III teams? Or for that matter, why isn't it a factor for basketball or baseball teams, who miss MUCH more class during tournament time than would be missed during a football playoff.

TroyF

11-10-2003, 05:03 PM

Originally posted by Vegas Vic
This is the lamest excuse of all. How is it that study time is a factor for Division 1A teams, but not for Division 1AA, Division II or Division III teams? Or for that matter, why isn't it a factor for basketball or baseball teams, who miss MUCH more class during tournament time than would be missed during a football playoff.

Bingo.

TroyF

ISiddiqui

11-10-2003, 05:10 PM

Imran, I know it's wishful thinking but someone has to speak up.

Perhaps, but if it ain't gonna happen, it's like barking up a tree. The fact is that the BCS ruined college football tradition (which is really funny when I see BCS backers talking about the tradition of the regular season).

HornedFrog Purple

11-10-2003, 05:43 PM

Meanwhile, little ol TCU just made history. #6 in the BCS, highest ever for a non-BCS school.

Unbelieeeevvveeeeeeable!

SunDancer

11-10-2003, 05:44 PM

But the "intent" of college football is not to make it a pro football league. We are offering players a scholarship, a home for three-four years and a chance to end the season in a bowl game. What about before the BCS, everyone was excited about going to the Rose Bowl, Orange Bowl, ect. It was special. Bowls are created not just as games, but festivials.

College football is not established, or its intended purpose, is to field the best team. That's the pros.

Also, the lower divisions have only had a playoff for a decade or two. The Bowls have been around since the early mid-1900's.

Vegas Vic

11-10-2003, 06:50 PM

Originally posted by SunDancer
College football is not established, or its intended purpose, is to field the best team. That's the pros.

So, are you also in favor of eliminating the NCAA basketball tournament and the College World Series? After all, college basketball and college baseball aren't established to field the best team. That's the pros.

sterlingice

11-10-2003, 09:39 PM

Originally posted by Buccaneer
The way the bowls can become meaningful again is to get rid of half of them. There is absolutely no way a team 6-6 or 7-5, placing 6th or 7th in a conference deserves to get rewarded.

See, I don't even have a problem doing away with the Toilet Bowls of the world just so the lesser teams have something like the NIT to shoot for- not everyone has a shot at a national title. If KU were to get a bowl game in football this year, it would be a really nice boost to the program so that when Jowls goes into people's homes, he can say we went to a bowl game and that would help in recruting to get to that next level.

But this is not the issue: no one is confusing the winner of the dotWhoCares bowl with a national title contender but it would be nice to see those teams that might have a valid claim (i.e. Rose Bowl winner, Orange Bowl winner, etc) get a shot to prove who is the best on the field. Plus, if you make the field 8 or 12 (or even 16), you're not going to be leaving out any undefeated teams from other conferences.

As a side, I really think they should go with 12 just like the NFL. That way, those top 4 program *do* get rewarded for the regular season with a bye and there is still a playoff to slug it out in. Plus, there's a lot less controversy: as the 13th team left out has very little claim to the national title whereas leaving out the 3rd or 5th best team, you are likely leaving out someone who has a close-to-equal claim.

SI

the_meanstrosity

11-10-2003, 11:23 PM

SI,

That's a good point with the 12 team format, but in practice it would fail in a year like this year with 2-4 teams with 1 loss. Would TCU even have a shot at one of the top two spots?

I'd like to see a "championship" tournament as well as a NIT like football tournament. That way getting "bowl" eligible would essentially be turned into being eligible for the 2nd tier tourney. Thus schools would still make a healthy profit and in fact, you may even make more money this way.

sterlingice

11-11-2003, 12:28 AM

Originally posted by the_meanstrosity
That's a good point with the 12 team format, but in practice it would fail in a year like this year with 2-4 teams with 1 loss. Would TCU even have a shot at one of the top two spots?

Isn't it much better that these teams have one game more against a weaker opponent then get shut out of the process entirely? Plus, then you take the computer element out so much- because if you're the 13th team, you probably shouldn't have lost that 2nd or even 3rd game- unless you're that school that's the 13th team, you don't have much of a leg to stand on. Whereas, with the only 1-loss teams or god forbid 3 0-loss teams, there's quite a bit of room for debate and the stakes are much higher: they don't even get a shot to try and prove it on the field.

Using this year, for instance, if you're TCU, you get a chip on your shoulder because you don't get a bye but then you go say "we'll prove it on the field". If you're Florida State at 13, you shouldn't have lost to Clemson and maybe you'd even have a bye this week. This rewards teams who schedule tough (no one is going to penalize them much for a loss to Miami or Florida)- which makes for a better regular season. I've been sick of Nebraska-McNeese State and Florida-Directional State School games since I started watching college football a long time ago. You should schedule to ability: let Vandy or KU play Florida Directional School and have Florida play Nebraska in the non-conference season.

Last, year, the BCS got lucky with 2 undefeated teams. If one or both had a loss, Georgia and Iowa have good claims to that game. Even USC was in the mix with 2 losses- sure one of those teams has to play an extra game- but, again, you want a chance to win it all or would you rather "settle" for a BCS bowl? Colorado gets left out with their 4 losses.

Even better, go back 2 years ago when it looks just like this year only messier. Oklahoma has 0 losses and there were 5 teams with one loss and seemingly everyone deserved to go. Fla State and Va Tech got their only losses to Miami. But Miami had lost to Washington and Washington had given Oregon State its only loss but they lost to #10 Oregon. It was the perfect justification for a playoff with that spaghetti mix of who-beat-who but, of course, it didn't happen. Georgia Tech with their two losses and TCU with their one loss both get skipped over but I don't think that's so bad. I don't think it's an awful thing to expect teams in a small conference to run the table, but I do expect them to be rewarded if they do.

SI

KWhit

11-11-2003, 08:18 AM

Originally posted by Tigercat
Maybe I am a strange fan, but I would take a bowl win over chances to be in a playoff 9 times out of 10. The majority of players and coaches agree.

That is one of the craziest things I've ever heard a fan say. Give up a chance at a national title to win a random bowl game????

KWhit

11-11-2003, 08:28 AM

Originally posted by Buccaneer
How about letting the coaches and sportswriters polls determine instead of the computers? If you give me three team finishing the season undefeated (after the bowls), I (or at least Troy) can tell you which of the three is the best. Again, there always have been arguments and always will be. Might as well not make it a big deal.

In a way I agree that the polls might be able to do a better job than the BCS formula, but the problem is that 2 is a bad number to have to narrow it down to. Usually teams ranked 2-4 or 2-5 are very closely matched and picking one of them for the title game is almost impossible.

You say you (and or Troy) can tell us who is best. I say you can't. No one will be able to justify to me that USC is definitely better than LSU or Ohio State. They lost to Cal! That's not saying that I think LSU or Ohio State is more deserving. They're all 3 equally deserving (assuming they all win out). That's the problem. We have 4 teams to pare down to 2 spots.

If there were an 8, 12, or 16 team playoff (I can dream, right?) there would still be controversy. But the teams being left out would be teams that had 2-3 losses and don't really have a claim at saying "We're the best team in the nation and deserve to play for it." Once you lose your 2nd game, all bets are off.

sterlingice

11-12-2003, 12:00 AM

So I was flipping through the stations tonight and saw Miles Brand getting his ass handed to him in a congressional hearing on College Football and Anti-Trust- hm... I don't know where I was going with this, but it sure was damn fun. That guy is as slimy as they come. Orrin Hatch (I think that was who was presiding) kept trying to nail his ass to the wall on a question and he refused to answer it.

The Tulane President was interesting- he basically came out and said "I hate the current system but don't take away our Anti-Trust powers and we'll figure it out on our own. *sigh* I wonder what his 30 pieces of silver were because I'm sure he can't like the current system. He made a compelling argument for changing it and then cashed in that credibility to say "but I think we can work it out without intervention" as if begging to keep their Anti-Trust status.

SI

Craptacular

11-12-2003, 12:14 AM

If USC manages to lose again, we'll have a two-loss team in the title game.

SunDancer

11-12-2003, 11:23 AM

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

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

Is this too radical of an idea?