Imwhatzup's BCS Playoff system

[UniversityofArizona]

Sure the regular season is more important, but the garbage games that are set up to pad the records because of it are ridiculous. For instance, next year Alabama feels the need to play Western Kentucky, Western Carolina, and Florida Atlantic. With a 16 team playoff. Alabama would be more inclined to play tough teams to get them ready for their conference schedule instead of playing patsies for a quarter of the season.

Also, is it really fair to be so critical of small schools not playing tough schools when they have so little power over their schedule. That desire just to compete is the reason we have such ridiculous conference expansion. BSU to the Big East. Greatest system ever! Virginia Tech making a BCS bowl after losing to an FCS team was also classic and a great double standard.

As far as worrying about weak teams making the playoffs the BCS conference auto-bids currently happen just like that anyways. You watch that UConn-Oklahoma game a couple years ago? If anything you should be calling for the system to be based entirely on the rankings with no auto-bids.

By the way: Currently the regular season of every single non-BCS school is currently meaningless.

[DorianDonP]

Quote: Originally Posted by UniversityofArizona

Sure the regular season is more important, but the garbage games that are set up to pad the records because of it are ridiculous. For instance, next year Alabama feels the need to play Western Kentucky, Western Carolina, and Florida Atlantic. With a 16 team playoff. Alabama would be more inclined to play tough teams to get them ready for their conference schedule instead of playing patsies for a quarter of the season. Also, is it really fair to be so critical of small schools not playing tough schools when they have so little power over their schedule. That desire just to compete is the reason we have such ridiculous conference expansion. BSU to the Big East. Greatest system ever! Virginia Tech making a BCS bowl after losing to an FCS team was also classic and a great double standard. As far as worrying about weak teams making the playoffs the BCS conference auto-bids currently happen just like that anyways. You watch that UConn-Oklahoma game a couple years ago? If anything you should be calling for the system to be based entirely on the rankings with no auto-bids. By the way: Currently the regular season of every single non-BCS school is currently meaningless.

Sure the regular season is more important, but the garbage games that are set up to pad the records because of it are ridiculous. For instance, next year Alabama feels the need to play Western Kentucky, Western Carolina, and Florida Atlantic.

Huh? Isn't that the entire schedule for the non-BCS teams you are vouching to see get a 'fair shot' at the championship?

Look at the schedule of the Sun Belt Champion this past year.

With a 16 team playoff. Alabama would be more inclined to play tough teams to get them ready for their conference schedule instead of playing patsies for a quarter of the season.

This makes absolutely zero sense. It would be the complete opposite. Teams would want to play the absolute easiest schedule possible because all that matters is 'getting to the playoffs.' SOS would not matter at all anymore because an auto bid gets you in.

You could expect most teams to start scheduling their cream puffs toward the end of the season, so they can rest starters.

Also, is it really fair to be so critical of small schools not playing tough schools when they have so little power over their schedule.

I think it's fair to be critical of the small schools when they lose to garbage competition. For all of the success of the non-BCS poster child Boise State, they still have only managed to go undefeated playing their WAC schedule twice. I think it's perfectly fair to be critical of the smaller schools, because history has shown they pad their records and still struggle to make a big case for being a national champion.

If a small school demands a home and home, that is their fault. If they want to compete, then travel anywhere without expecting a home game in return like Florida State did in the 70s and 80s. They went from a girls school to a power by playing big boys without expecting a home game in return.

USF did the same thing, going to Alabama, and Auburn, and Oklahoma, before they were a BCS team. Small schools do have some control over who they play, it's just many of them are reluctant to go play anyone, unless they are getting a home game.

That desire just to compete is the reason we have such ridiculous conference expansion.

Conference expansion has nothing to do with 'the desire to compete' for little guys. It's been all about TV contracts, money, and the survival of the raided conferences.

Virginia Tech making a BCS bowl after losing to an FCS team was also classic and a great double standard.

How is it a double standard? They won their conference. Isn't your position for the 16 team playoff that conference champions will make the playoffs, regardless of who they have lost to during the season? You support the 5 and 6 loss teams playing for national championships. So why criticize VaTech's 8-0 ACC season?

As far as worrying about weak teams making the playoffs the BCS conference auto-bids currently happen just like that anyways.

Making the BCS isn't the same as making the playoffs. Making the BCS means going to a prestigious bowl game, while making the playoffs means competing for a national championship. Bowl games are conference affiliated matchups and tradition.

The playoffs is for the best of the best, going for it all. 5 and 6 loss teams aren't the best of the best.

You watch that UConn-Oklahoma game a couple years ago? If anything you should be calling for the system to be based entirely on the rankings with no auto-bids.

Why? You are the one comparing a BCS game to a playoff game. The concepts are apples and oranges.

I want to see bowl games that are based on the conference standings. I DONT want to see playoff games based on conference standings.

By the way: Currently the regular season of every single non-BCS school is currently meaningless.

Factually incorrect.

[UniversityofArizona]

1) How is the Sun Belt champion supposed to play a stacked schedule when they when they can't control who is in their conference. Is it also not more difficult playing all your non-conf games away as well.

2) Most fans would retaliate at paying for season tickets to watch their starters rest. Most teams don't sell out regardless of the competition and if the object is to make money then scheduling tough teams to start the year, and ending the season with rivals will sell more tickets. If anything it would more likely result in teams playing tougher teams at the beginning of the schedule like in college basketball.

3) For all the undefeated seasons that these small schools have thrown together they have had the chance to compete for ZERO BCS championships. It isn't that they are losing to garbage teams. It's that nobody will let them in even when they clean house with everything on their schedule.

4) Ironically enough. That money is used to build the stadiums and facilities that attract fans. A strong fan base and good facilities attracts better players. It's no coincidence that the teams that make the most money are also generally the teams that field the best teams. So yes, it is to compete.

5) Yes VT would make it in a 16 team bracket. However, when arguing for the BCS it is a double standard since BSU lost to a really damn good TCU team and was left out when VT lost to a horrible FCS team and got in. In a 16 team playoff they could both conceivable get a chance to win it all.

6) You can set up regional conference matchups in a playoff format. You would have seen that argument in one of my earlier posts. So what exactly would the difference be besides having the winner of that game move on to the next round. Heck, you could have the bowl games host the playoff games as well while still awarding their trophies in the process.

7) So non-BCS schools are supposed to be content and stay in their place with the occasional upset? Give them a shot, and I stand by my statement that the season was still meaningless with both teams there just trying to find some meaning with the biggest opportunities given them against other non-BCS schools. UA beat ASU this year and that gave some comfort, but I don't start off the year thinking I hope UA beats ASU this year and that makes my season. I want them to try and win championships. It's the whole point!


I'm not arguing for an equality of outcomes as entertaining as it would be to watch powerhouses cry about a NCAA shared revenue system and prospect draft. I'm arguing for an equality of opportunity which ought to be in the best interest of collegiate amateurism that every team have an equal chance to compete for a championship however remote that chance might be.

[DorianDonP]

Quote: Originally Posted by UniversityofArizona

1) How is the Sun Belt champion supposed to play a stacked schedule when they when they can't control who is in their conference. Is it also not more difficult playing all your non-conf games away as well. They don't need to play a stacked schedule. But they need to play a good enough OOC schedule, and if that means traveling then so be it. 2) Most fans would retaliate at paying for season tickets to watch their starters rest. Not true. SEC teams have already began scheduling cream puffs late in the year. Check the schedules of Florida and Alabama the past few years. Most teams don't sell out regardless of the competition and if the object is to make money then scheduling tough teams to start the year, and ending the season with rivals will sell more tickets. As already stated, two of the programs that make the most money already practice this. If anything it would more likely result in teams playing tougher teams at the beginning of the schedule like in college basketball. Um. It's already common place in CFB for OOC games to be played at the beginning of the season. Case in point, the SEC/ACC games that happen in Atlanta the first week of the season. If you make it where the only thing that matters is making the playoffs, you can bet that most big boy teams will start scheduling cream puffs at the end of the year. 3) For all the undefeated seasons that these small schools have thrown together they have had the chance to compete for ZERO BCS championships. All of these undefeated seasons? Why don't you count how many undefeated small schools there have been in the past 25 years. I'll wait... In either event, I'm not arguing for the current system. I'm arguing for a plus one system. The few small schools that go undefeated would have more than a chance with this 4 team playoff. It isn't that they are losing to garbage teams. It's that nobody will let them in even when they clean house with everything on their schedule. Boise State was going to be in the national title game before they lost to Nevada. 4) Ironically enough. That money is used to build the stadiums and facilities that attract fans. A strong fan base and good facilities attracts better players. It's no coincidence that the teams that make the most money are also generally the teams that field the best teams. So yes, it is to compete. I don't get what this is in reference to. 5) Yes VT would make it in a 16 team bracket. However, when arguing for the BCS it is a double standard since BSU lost to a really damn good TCU team and was left out when VT lost to a horrible FCS team and got in. I'm not arguing for the BCS. I'm arguing for a Plus One playoff, and arguing against a plus 15 playoff. It would help if you were actually paying attention to my stance. In either event, you are being counter productive to your own argument, because Virginia Tech only got in because they won their conference. And once again, making the BCS =/ making the playoffs. You are trying to make the concepts mean the same thing. A BCS game is simply a destination for a conference winner or at large team to play in a prestigious neutral site game against a team in a similar position. It's tradition. A playoff is a tournament for the championship. They don't mean the same thing. In a 16 team playoff they could both conceivable get a chance to win it all. Neither one of them should have a conceivable chance to win it all. They had their chance in the regular season. I don't want the regular season to become what it is for the NFL. A 7-9 team in the NFL can compete for it all if they win their conference and get to the playoffs. How meaningful were those 9 losses? 6) You can set up regional conference matchups in a playoff format. You would have seen that argument in one of my earlier posts. And that playoff format would, again, ruin the regular season. You keep comparing playing in a BCS bowl game to being in the playoffs. They are not the same concepts. One is for one thing, and the other is for something entirely different. So what exactly would the difference be besides having the winner of that game move on to the next round. The difference is a bowl game is for neutral site exhibition match-ups that crown a champion of said bowl invitees. The other is a tournament. Heck, you could have the bowl games host the playoff games as well while still awarding their trophies in the process. I won't even get into the logistics of that, which are pretty much nonviable for fans. I'll just continue to say that concept would destroy the regular season's importance. 7) So non-BCS schools are supposed to be content and stay in their place with the occasional upset? Give them a shot, and I stand by my statement that the season was still meaningless with both teams there just trying to find some meaning with the biggest opportunities given them against other non-BCS schools. UA beat ASU this year and that gave some comfort, but I don't start off the year thinking I hope UA beats ASU this year and that makes my season. I want them to try and win championships. It's the whole point! The thing is, if those teams won every game, they would be competing for championships in a plus one system. You're trying to reward 5 loss conference winners. I'm not arguing for an equality of outcomes as entertaining as it would be to watch powerhouses cry about a NCAA shared revenue system and prospect draft. I'm arguing for an equality of opportunity which ought to be in the best interest of collegiate amateurism that every team have an equal chance to compete for a championship however remote that chance might be. It's an unobtainable goal to want 'equal opportunity' when one conference boasts NFL prospects galore, and another conference boasts players who were barely offered. SEC and Big 10 teams play tougher competition than WAC and Sun Belt teams. There are 120 teams. Unless you completely wiped out conferences, and just had the NCAA schedule every teams schedule randomly, that is the only way the playing field would be even from a record standpoint. That would be preposterous. You and I both know that. So the best thing to do to maintain the 100+ year tradition of the sport, and make things a bit more fair, would be to have a four team playoff. If that small school you are vouching for wants in. Then schedule some good teams and win every game.

.................

[UniversityofArizona]

1) A 16 playoff system is better because it allows more top teams the chance to compete. Even you acknowledge the current system stiffs teams especially since BCS bowls can choose whoever they think will bring the most money within the top 16 teams once the selection of the top 4 and the auto bids is done.

2) That doesn't disprove my point at all. First because they get rewarded to schedule weak teams by the BCS system, and second because you went out of your way to point out teams that don't fall in my qualifying statement. Most teams is not equal to rapid Florida and Alabama fans that are willing to watch their respective teams play against high school students. Most teams around the country DO NOT have these sorts of fan bases, and would not be able to get away with scheduling in such a manner.

3) If they are already scheduling in such a manner then how is that a negative for a potential playoff system? If a few teams want to play that way then they can, but their conference games are not entirely set up by themselves, and I find it hard to a believe an entire conference would swap just to set up an easy end of the year.

4) In the last 14 years that the BCS has matched the "#1" and "#2" teams in the country there has been a number of undefeated teams including Tulane in 1998, Marshall in 1999, Utah in 2004, BSU in 2006, Utah in 2008, Boise State in 2009, and TCU in 2010. In fact 7 out of the last 16 undefeated teams have been from non-BCS conferences. As far as the big boys go. The non-BCS teams have gone 5-2 in BCS bowl games and 4-1 against BCS opponents in these games.

5) You say BSU would have gotten in, but the talk from everybody at the time was that BSU didn't deserve a spot above a 1 loss BCS team. So that is no guarantee. Going of more than speculation a number of teams HAVE gone undefeated, and have received no such recognition.

6) A plus one system does little but perpetuate the bowl system. Being a conference winner and getting yourself auto-BCS invite is the exact same thing as winning your conference to get into a playoff except the other conferences could be included.

7) Those extra losses were only so meaningful as far as how far it gets them in their conference. Currently you do watch the odd pathetic team in a BCS bowl. You won't however see consistent terrible conference champions for 2 reasons. One because the college football season is 4 games shorter giving less time for teams to pull away. Second, because college football conferences are often 3 times larger than NFL divisions.

8) The only difference is that the winners would move on to compete for a title. Everything else is the same. The difference is you get a true national champion since there is no way for the top teams to play all the other top teams throughout the course of your all-powerful regular season.

9) I'm trying to reward conference winners of which as you pointed out yourself there are rarely 5 loss winners. Please stop twisting my words, and I think it is obvious I am not trying to reward them, but if that is the best the conference can put up then what shame is there in having them in a playoff. Do you really think a 5 loss team would come out on top after which even if it did happen could you really consider the other teams in the field as being worthy champions.

10) BCS revenue is slanted massively away from the non-BCS widening the gulf in competition that you use as a reason to put thousands of athletes on the outside looking in when it comes to having a chance because after all money is king.

11) You continue to make the point that the non-BCS should "just" schedule better teams which is often easier said than done especially when athletic directors are trying to put together exciting home game schedules for their fans. Not only that, but even when they do win out they get blocked out regardless.

12) As has been shown in basketball. When you get every conference a shot the talent starts to spread out. Right now it is clustered in BCS conferences because those are the teams that get a chance. If the Big East lost its auto-bid how fast do you think it would be before the talent level of the teams within it would equal that of the MAC?

Also, if you really wanted you could make a rule stating teams must win at least 10 games to be eligible for the playoff, or you could enact a rule mandating that a team not lose more than 2 conference games.

[DorianDonP]

Quote: Originally Posted by UniversityofArizona

1) A 16 playoff system is better because it allows more top teams the chance to compete. The regular season already allows the teams to compete. Is December the only chance a team has at competing? 2) That doesn't disprove my point at all. First because they get rewarded to schedule weak teams by the BCS system How do they get rewarded by the BCS when the computers use schedules in the ranking? A 16 team tournament would use the same BCS system, but would include more teams and give more leeway for a soft schedule, so THAT would undoubtedly lead to more teams playing a soft schedule. Most teams is not equal to rapid Florida and Alabama fans that are willing to watch their respective teams play against high school students. Most teams around the country DO NOT have these sorts of fan bases, and would not be able to get away with scheduling in such a manner. Fans already watch their teams play 'HS students.' Fans have become accustomed to 2-3 cream-puffs a year anyway where the starters rest after the first half, so the fans already have to go to those games. The new dynamic would be those games being spread toward the end of the year (games that would already be scheduled) to allow rest for the playoffs. 3) If they are already scheduling in such a manner then how is that a negative for a potential playoff system? Instead of it being a few teams doing it (the SEC teams have started to for obvious reasons, the looming SEC championship game), it would become a common practice for all conference teams to gear up for the playoffs by scheduling their cream puffs late in the year. It takes a 'meh' moment and inflates it. If a few teams want to play that way then they can, but their conference games are not entirely set up by themselves, and I find it hard to a believe an entire conference would swap just to set up an easy end of the year. It wouldn't be a few teams. There would be an incentive, a very real one, for it to be most teams. What's the point of playing the OOC cream puffs all at once in September when you can have them at the end of the year? 4) In the last 14 years that the BCS has matched the "#1" and "#2" teams in the country there has been a number of undefeated teams including Tulane in 1998, Marshall in 1999, Utah in 2004, BSU in 2006, Utah in 2008, Boise State in 2009, and TCU in 2010. So in 14 years, there have only been 7 teams that went through those weak schedules without a loss? A team every other year? That speaks volumes, esp since you said 'all of these teams' as if it was a ton of them. The fact is, there have only been 7 undefeated non-BCS schools in the last 25 years, and a handful of them (Marshall 1999, Tulane 98) have played incredibly soft schedules. You're advocating making a change to the entire dynamic of college football, for 7 teams in the past 25 years. The plus one system would def give 'all of those teams' a better shot at a championship. 5) You say BSU would have gotten in, but the talk from everybody at the time was that BSU didn't deserve a spot above a 1 loss BCS team. So that is no guarantee. Going of more than speculation a number of teams HAVE gone undefeated, and have received no such recognition. It hasn't been a number of teams. It's been a handful in a number of years. And that is with them playing soft as cushion schedules. Boise State, if they had won against Nevada, would have been in the plus one playoff that year. No speculation. 6) A plus one system does little but perpetuate the bowl system. Being a conference winner and getting yourself auto-BCS invite is the exact same thing as winning your conference to get into a playoff except the other conferences could be included. There you go again, making BCS game =/playoffs. No the other conferences shouldn't get invited, because the goal of the two things aren't synonymous. A playoff is for a NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP. A BCS game is a neutral site exhibition game for a sponsored championship. You keep trying to turn them into the same thing. "Since 10-3 Clemson went to the Orange Bowl Then Clemson should be competing for the national championship in a playoff" That makes no sense. 10-3 Clemson should go to the Orange Bowl because that is a matchup for ACC champions, just like another bowl is a matchup for Sun Belt Champions. Playing there is not the same thing as those 3 losses not meaning a darn thing because they can still go on to win the national championship. Apples. Oranges. 7) Those extra losses were only so meaningful as far as how far it gets them in their conference. Same would be said in a 16 team playoff. Currently you do watch the odd pathetic team in a BCS bowl. You won't however see consistent terrible conference champions for 2 reasons. I like how you added 'consistent terrible' in there. Fact is, it's very foreseeable to see terrible conference champions in the 16 team playoff. One because the college football season is 4 games shorter giving less time for teams to pull away. Second, because college football conferences are often 3 times larger than NFL divisions. It doesn't matter. UCLA was 6-6 and went to the conference championship last year. I don't want to see ANY system that rewards a .500 team if they happen to pull an upset, and allows them to compete for a national championship. Why? THOSE 6 losses would have meant NOTHING. 8) The only difference is that the winners would move on to compete for a title. Everything else is the same. No it's not the same. Instead of their champiopnship dreams being gone because they LOST, they still could win the whole thing by being good in one month of the season. The regular season is ruined. The difference is you get a true national champion since there is no way for the top teams to play all the other top teams throughout the course of your all-powerful regular season. 'True champion' by what definition? It's still only a way of trying to decide a champion. Full Blown playoff proponents seem to believe that winning a tournament is the only way to decide a champion, ignoring that a tournament only takes into account a small spectrum of a season. They use phrases like 'won it on the field' as if December is more important when it comes to being a true champion than september, october, and november. CFB is unique because it takes the season as a whole, instead of a stretch of games. A plus one system and a 16 team playoff would both decide a champion. It's faulty to suggest that one of them would somehow be the 'true' champion, while the other isn't. 9) I'm trying to reward conference winners of which as you pointed out yourself there are rarely 5 loss winners. Actually there are more 5 loss conference winners than there are undefeated non-BCS teams. There have been 15 five loss conference champions since 1998. Over 20 five-loss teams have played in conference championship games. Please stop twisting my words, and I think it is obvious I am not trying to reward them, but if that is the best the conference can put up then what shame is there in having them in a playoff. Thing is, winning your conference does not mean you are the 'best' team in the conference. It means you won a game. If 12-0 LSU beats 8-4 Florida in the regular season, but then Florida beats them in the conference championship, does that mean UF is the best the conference has to offer? What if there was a 10-2 Alabama and 10-2 Arkansas, and 9-3 Auburn team that beat UF in the regular season, but didn't go to the conference championship because they played in the stacked West? It becomes too imprecise to try and use words like 'best' and 'true' when campaigning for this playoff. Playoff proponents like to pretend that their system is crowning an undeniable champion. When really they are just crowning a champion that made it through that particular system. Do you really think a 5 loss team would come out on top after which even if it did happen could you really consider the other teams in the field as being worthy champions. Anything is possible in a tournament. The fact is, why should those 5 losses that they got during the season be swept under the rug? Why should those losses suddenly become meaningless because they won a conference championship game? 10) BCS revenue is slanted massively away from the non-BCS As it should be. widening the gulf in competition that you use as a reason to put thousands of athletes on the outside looking in when it comes to having a chance because after all money is king. They are already on the outside looking in. They wouldn't have went to that school if they were wanted by the other schools. 11) You continue to make the point that the non-BCS should "just" schedule better teams which is often easier said than done especially when athletic directors are trying to put together exciting home game schedules for their fans. Other programs did it. Look at USF and how they become a viable contender. If a small school turns down a big time matchup because they won't get a return game, then that is their fault. You want to compete for a championship, then you do what it takes. Not only that, but even when they do win out they get blocked out regardless. I don't see that happening with a plus one. But do you even see that the non-BCS teams would have ZERO incentive to play anyone with a pulse in your 16 team playoff? Boise State had reasons to schedule Georgia, and Virginia Tech, etc. If Boise wasn't going to the Big East, and an auto-bid or top 11 BCS ranking gets them in the playoffs, do you really think they go out of their way to try and schedule top teams? And don't say for exciting home games, because those teams aren't going to Boise. Teams would be doing all they can to make it as easy as possible to get into the playoffs. 12) As has been shown in basketball. When you get every conference a shot the talent starts to spread out. The talent really isn't more spread out in basketball than it is for college football. Check recruiting and the Draft for the NBA. It's similar to the way it is for college football and the NFL draft. Non-BCS teams beat BCS teams all of the time, just like mid majors beat major teams in basketball. There is no difference. Right now it is clustered in BCS conferences because those are the teams that get a chance. If the Big East lost its auto-bid how fast do you think it would be before the talent level of the teams within it would equal that of the MAC? The talent level of the Big East was more than the equivalent to the MAC before the BCS and auto bids, because those schools are more desirable. So yes. If The MAC became an auto-bid to 16 team tourny conference, are you saying Western Michigan will start recruiting just as well as Michigan State?

..................

[woodjer]

^^^

So wait, if "the non-BCS teams would have ZERO incentive to play anyone with a pulse in your 16 team playoff," doesn't that mean that it would be more difficult for BCS teams to schedule them? If it's more difficult to schedule non-BCS FBS teams, BCS teams are left with scheduling other BCS teams or FCS (or lower) teams. If I'm understanding the general thought that most BCS teams are inherently better than most non-BCS teams, doesn't that mean better matchups in general?

Also, thanks to both of you guys for sharing your views here. I am still on the playoff side of the fence but it's nice to hear discussion from both.

[DorianDonP]

Quote: Originally Posted by woodjer

^^^ So wait, if "the non-BCS teams would have ZERO incentive to play anyone with a pulse in your 16 team playoff," doesn't that mean that it would be more difficult for BCS teams to schedule them? If it's more difficult to schedule non-BCS FBS teams, BCS teams are left with scheduling other BCS teams or FCS (or lower) teams. If I'm understanding the general thought that most BCS teams are inherently better than most non-BCS teams, doesn't that mean better matchups in general? Also, thanks to both of you guys for sharing your views here. I am still on the playoff side of the fence but it's nice to hear discussion from both.

No. The BCS teams would still go out and schedule non-BCS teams, just not the ones that are any good.

It's the Boise State and TCUs of the world that would no longer have the incentive to play tough OOC schedule, not the bottom dwelling non-BCS teams.

Maybe I should have phrased that differently, because money will still be an incentive for bottom dwellers just like it is now.