Home

Presenting... the BCS Tournament

This is a discussion on Presenting... the BCS Tournament within the NCAA Football forums.

Go Back   Operation Sports Forums > Football > NCAA Football
FIFA 21 Review
Tennis World Tour 2 Review
Doug Flutie's Maximum Football 2020 Review
Poll: Which next-gen console are you going to purchase? (Click to vote)
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-08-2008, 04:30 PM   #17
Pro
 
jacory12's Arena
 
OVR: 12
Join Date: Nov 2008
Re: Presenting... the BCS Tournament

Yeah I agree J-Unit. You CANNOT have a 32 team playoff or a 16 team playoff for that matter. It would just take too long. You need the top 8 teams and who cares what the non BCS conferences says because they CAN'T compete with the top 8. It would be much easier and it wouldn't be as confusing as a 16 or 32 team playoff.

Last edited by jacory12; 12-08-2008 at 09:33 PM.
jacory12 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2008, 05:19 PM   #18
Rookie
 
firktaf's Arena
 
OVR: 7
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Re: Presenting... the BCS Tournament

That's not the point of what he's doing. He's building his own bracket and is going to simulate or something what would happen if there was a 32 team bracket. Then we get to see who would come out on top.

I already went over this on the first page, but for college basketball, 19% of teams make the championship tournament. For college football, 16 teams would be 13%. So, it's not like you're letting in an excessive amount of teams but its still fair to all teams and isn't that the point of having a tournament(I agree that 32 is excessive though)? That's what's great about college basketball. Everyone has a fair shot. It's not just about having a tournament so that we can be certain that one of the best teams is actually the best team.

Hypothetically speaking though, if Ball State had won the MAC Championship last week, then they still wouldn't have made the 8 team tournament despite being 13-0. Oklahoma and Florida are both going to play 14 total games this year. With the conference championship having more of an emphasis, out of conference games wouldn't really be needed. So, if you took away 2 out of conference games(nearly everyone plays an FBS school which is pretty much an automatic win so that would be easy to get rid of and then it's just getting rid of one other game on the schedule) and add the 16 team tournment, then the most possible games played by any teams is 15. That's only one more than the current setup and that would only be for the two teams playing for the National Championship. Everyone that doesn't make the tournament would most likely play 10-11 games and then there would still be some bowl games for the good teams that didn't make the tournmanent.

jacory, I'd like you to go tell Boise State 2 years ago that they can't compete with the major conferences after they beat Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl. You can't predict how good a team is or how well they're coached just because they're from a small conference. Look at Davidson in basketball. Last time I checked, they were ranked in the top 25. Actually, I must be wrong about that, there's no way a team that's not in a power conference could possibly be good... Anyway, just by actually giving the smaller schools a shot at the title, there would allow more parity in college football and the smaller conferences would actually improve.

Also, a 16 team bracket(11 conference champs and 5 at-large) made from 120 teams would be confusing but a 65 team bracket made from 340 or so teams isn't? Right....
__________________
Laugh and the world laughs with you. Weep and you weep alone.

NFL:
Jacksonville Jaguars
MLB:
St. Louis Cardinals
NBA:
Orlando Magic
NCAA: UCF Knights
firktaf is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2008, 03:05 AM   #19
Pro
 
OVR: 11
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Southern California
Blog Entries: 8
Re: Presenting... the BCS Tournament

Quote:
Originally Posted by firktaf
Well, for the 32 team bracket, the conference winners should get in. So, ECU and Buffalo should both get in. Ball State is still in the top 25 of the BCS Rankings so I would put them in but Tulsa has 3 loses now and really hasn't been strong at the end here so I don't think I would put them in. Here's who I would probably put in for each conference:

*-denotes who would make my 16 team bracket.

ACC
Virginia Tech(9-4)*
Georgia Tech(9-3)
Boston College(9-4)
Florida State(8-4)

Big East
Cincinnati(11-2)*
Pittsburgh(9-3)
West Virginia(8-4)

Big 10
Penn State(11-1)*
Ohio State(10-2)*
Michigan State(9-3)
Northwestern(9-3)

Big 12
Oklahoma(12-1)*
Texas(11-1)*
Texas Tech(11-1)*
Oklahoma State(9-3)
Missouri(9-4)

Pac 10
USC(11-1)*
Oregon(9-3)
Oregon State(8-4)
California(8-4)

SEC
Florida(12-1)*
Alabama(12-1)*
Georgia(9-3)
Mississippi(8-4)

C-USA
ECU(9-4)*

MAC
Buffalo(8-5)*
Ball State(12-1)

MWC
Utah(12-0)*
TCU(10-2)*
BYU(10-2)

Sun Belt
Troy(8-4)*

WAC
Boise State(12-0)*

Independents
None.


After going through it, North Carolina, Iowa, Nebraska, and Tulsa just missed the mark. I ended up trying to even up the major conferences some and put in Cal, Florida State, West Virginia, and Ole Miss.
I have Iowa and N. Carolina in, but Cal and Ball State out. Ball State had a really weak schedule, and I think we all knew it all along, their biggest win outside of the MAC was Navy. Deciding between some of these teams is tough, and seeding them is even tougher. Believe it or not I looked over the 3 and 4 loss teams' schedules quite a bit to look at their "best win" and "worst loss." I really don't think the regular season would be watered down as much, when you look at teams like Mississippi and Oregon State and even Iowa putting a "signature win" onto their resume to land themselves into the tourney. It's all about giving the teams who are playing the best at the end of the year a chance to prove it on the field, in my humblest opinion.

The 16-team version is certainly more realistic. I would have no complaints about the 16 you've selected, and no matter where you cut off the number of teams there could be healthy debate about the last few teams in and out.

I updated my bracket in the first post. I am finally happy with it and will try to begin simulating this week. It may be hard not to jump in and play a couple of these myself (I have my eye on the 4/5 MSU/Pitt matchup), but I would like to go through and sim the entire thing first. If I decide to start a blog containing the results, I will update one more time here to link to that.
ZekeRoberts is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2008, 03:58 PM   #20
MVP
 
TheGamingChef's Arena
 
OVR: 18
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: In between Big 10 and Big XII country
Re: Presenting... the BCS Tournament

Quote:
Originally Posted by jacory12
Yeah I agree J-Unit. You CANNOT have a 32 team playoff or a 16 team playoff for that matter. It would just take too long. You need the top 8 teams and who cares what the non BCS conferences says because they CAN'T compete with the top 8. It would be much easier and it wouldn't be as confusing as a 16 or 32 team playoff.
16 team playoff would not take too long. The non BCS conferences can't compete? Tell that to Boise State who beat the class of the Big 12 in the Fiesta Bowl a couple of years ago. Every conference champion deserves a shot. That means that at the beginning of the season, every single one of the 120 teams have a legitimate shot at winning the national championship. Just win your conference and then win four more in a row - you're the champ.

Take this year for example, a 16 team playoff could be played on the following dates:

First Round (round of 16): December 13
Quarterfinals: December 20 or sometime during the week before Christmas...
Semifinals: January 1
Championship: January 8

You're ending the season on the exact same date as it's ending in the current system. If you wanted to throw caution to the wind and eliminate tradition you could move the semifinals to 12/27 and have the championship game on 1/3. Now the season would end SOONER in this playoff!

I have no idea how a 16 team playoff is confusing. 11 conference champions plus 5 at-large bids. Seed them all March Madness-style according to the BCS rankings. Then let them play. What's confusing?

Last edited by TheGamingChef; 12-09-2008 at 04:00 PM.
TheGamingChef is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2008, 04:49 PM   #21
Pro
 
OVR: 9
Join Date: Jun 2008
Re: Presenting... the BCS Tournament

I didn't feel like posting but ... I felt compelled ... this article basically supports what I'm about to post.

I hate the BCS because it's easily the single worst system to determine a national champion in collegiate sports. EVERY SPORT, even lower level collegiate football like Div. I-AA (hello Appalachian State), etc. .. have a damn playoff. What's scary is that before the BCS was created in 1998, the system to determine a national champion was WORSE. Before the BCS existed, rarely would the #1/#2 teams in the nation play each other, yet somehow (via the polls), a national champion was declared. How ridiculous is that?

I'll tell you ... it's very ridiculous.

Even though the BCS does us the "favor" of pairing the #1/#2 teams in the nation against each other, it's still an unfair system to determine a national champion. Having a playoff is such an obvious solution that I'm not sure if we'll ever see it happen (I'll explain why later) ...

The question is, how do we structure the playoff?

Simple. Copy how the other divisions of college football do it, 16 teams. 11 automatic berths and 5 at-large bids. The first three rounds would be hosted by the higher seed and then the 2 teams that survive would play at one of the four major bowls (Fiesta, Orange, Rose, Sugar) on a yearly rotation, just how it is now. Neutral field, winner takes all.

The stupid argument we hear all the time is ... that's too many games!!! No, it's not. Tell me, how is it a team like Appalachian State can play 15 games in a season yet teams like Florida, Oklahoma, USC, and Texas somehow "can't handle it"? Give me a break. I find it hard to believe a small school like Appalachian State can miraculously handle the extra games yet powerhouses like Florida, Oklahoma, USC, and Texas can't.

To "ease the idea" of a 16 team playoff, college football should cut back its games back to 11. It's been like this forever, just recently did college football add a 12th game. This way, the maximum amount of games a team could theoretically play is 15 (or 16, since there are conference championships for the ACC, Big 12, SEC, etc.).

Again ... if little ol' Appalachian State can handle 15 games a year, I'm pretty sure mighty Florida can handle just as many games.

Another argument we hear is that the regular season would become less important if a playoff was instituted. Well, no, it wouldn't. In fact, more teams would have something to play for BECAUSE of a playoff. If you reward the higher seeds in a 16 team playoff with home-field advantage until its down to 2 teams, then the regular season remains relevant. Every team will be scratching and clawing to get a high seed to potentially host at most, three playoff games.

The conference championships, which aren't really relevant now, would mean something too because a higher seed and/or an automatic bid would be up for grabs. Imagine if Mizzou had upset Oklahoma, they'd be given an automatic berth as the Big 12 Champ and Oklahoma would still make the playoffs with an at-large berth but their seed would lower a bit. See how that game had actual implications? If Mizzou upset Oklahoma in the current system, both teams would be screwed. Neither team wouldn't get a chance at the national title.

The final argument ... money. That's essentially why the BCS exists, because it's a huge cash-cow for the universities. Well, consider this. How lucrative could a 16 team playoff be, especially if higher seeds can host games until its down to 2 teams? The answer is, VERY LUCRATIVE. That's more money that goes to the universities with each hosted playoff game. Right now in the current system, universities only make 'major bank' if they make it to a BCS game (payout is roughly $17 million). In a playoff system, universities could make ... A LOT more money (as much as TWO times the current payout).

Also, the interest in a 16 team playoff would be crazy. We all know how popular March Madness is. Imagine a playoff for college football? The interest would be insane because every playoff game would mean something. Right now in the current system, the only game that truly matters is UF/Oklahoma.

In short, a 16 team playoff would benefit everyone. 'BCS Busters' like Utah, Boise State, and TCU would actually have a chance to win a national title while those that got screwed by the current system like Texas, Alabama, Texas Tech, and USC would still have a shot at the title regardless of their one-losses.

The prospect of being able to host playoff games would add tons of revenue to universities, more than what the current system has to offer. The heightened interest in a playoff would surely increase television ratings. I mean ... seriously, there would be NO COMPLAINTS.


Now ...

.. here's why I'm not sure we'll ever see a college playoff.

Just recently, good ol' ESPN (in its classic monopolized manner) acquired the rights to host and televise the BCS until 2014. What does that mean? Well, the single most powerful sports network would have control over how college football determines its national champion. Do you really think ESPN would present the argument over a playoff when it controls the BCS? Of course not ... they're looking out for their best interest. So any hopes of having a playoff would have to wait for a while, and maybe longer.

Until then, cherish the stupidity of the BCS. Cherish the fact that teams are penalized for losing later in the season. Cherish the fact that, because of BCS rules, no more than 2 teams from the same conference can play in a BCS bowl. Cherish the fact that no matter what non-BCS teams do, they'll never get a shot to play for a national title. Cherish the fact that the BCS is a monopolized system that enforces an 'elitist mentality' when determining its bowl matchups.

Last edited by erivera7; 12-10-2008 at 04:30 AM.
erivera7 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Advertisements - Register to remove
Old 12-09-2008, 09:34 PM   #22
Pro
 
OVR: 11
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Southern California
Blog Entries: 8
Re: Presenting... the BCS Tournament

ZekeRoberts is offline  
Reply With Quote
Reply


« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

« Operation Sports Forums > Football > NCAA Football »


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:54 PM.

Top -