Offical How I Would Fix The BCS Thread

Donate To GopherHole
NCAA football national championship.

I never said I was for allowing the National champ to be arbitrarily selected.
I said I do not care about the National Championship Playoff system. No matter what you come up with folks will complain that the selection process is unfair. I enjoyed the OU V FL and think the national chatter and tv ratings prove that the nation enjoyed the match up.

My key point is that the each Big Ten squad should play each other every year. 10 games a B10 fan can count on viewing. No more discussions of----- this might be their year because they don't have OSU or PSU on the schedule.
 

I'm all for getting the playoffs started so I'd be happy with a 4 team format initially.

In the longview tho, I think if you ever want to include more than 8, which you might given 11 conferences and indies, you might want to look at play in formats. If you're going to go the inclusive route play ins increase the number of teams participating without increasing the number of games any one team is likely to play.

Any number of possiblities accomodating any number of teams open up once you go this route. For instance the top 4 teams could get byes with four play in games for a total of 12 teams. That's all conferences plus 1. Very unlikely any one team would play more than two games with that one or two magical exceptions.
 

GoBigGold said:
My key point is that the each Big Ten squad should play each other every year. 10 games a B10 fan can count on viewing. No more discussions of----- this might be their year because they don't have OSU or PSU on the schedule.
Click to expand...

YESSSS!!!! FINALLY someone agrees with me. 10 conference games and 2 non-conference games every year.

As far as post season I still stick by my very unpopular opinion that a playoff system would ruin college football. A playoff would dillute the regular season and the focus of everything would be "the playoffs". Making the playoffs, not making the playoffs, ranking for the playoffs, gearing up for the playoffs, resting guys before the playoffs, etc. Screw playoffs, that's not what college football is about.
 

stevedave23 said:
YESSSS!!!! FINALLY someone agrees with me. 10 conference games and 2 non-conference games every year.

As far as post season I still stick by my very unpopular opinion that a playoff system would ruin college football. A playoff would dillute the regular season and the focus of everything would be "the playoffs". Making the playoffs, not making the playoffs, ranking for the playoffs, gearing up for the playoffs, resting guys before the playoffs, etc. Screw playoffs, that's not what college football is about.
Click to expand...

I understand what your thinking but I respectfully disagree. Before the bowls, the #16 BCS team had a record of 10-2. If your in the top 16 teams your treading on thin ice. There isn't a lot of room for mistakes. I don't think you would see teams resting guys before the playoffs. In football any team can truly beat any team. It is such a weird game. You need to be mentally and physically ready every snap or your toast.
 

stevedave23 said:
A playoff would dillute the regular season
Click to expand...

No, No, NO!!!! Did you even read the rest of the thread? College football is nothing like the NFL, where you have the potential of skating into the playoffs at .500 or slightly better. You must, must, must lose 2 games or less to be considered in a potential college playoff. Teams would still have to bring it every week, just like they do now - perhaps even more!

Stop making this ridiculous argument!
 


dpodoll68 said:
No, No, NO!!!! Did you even read the rest of the thread? College football is nothing like the NFL, where you have the potential of skating into the playoffs at .500 or slightly better. You must, must, must lose 2 games or less to be considered in a potential college playoff. Teams would still have to bring it every week, just like they do now - perhaps even more!

Stop making this ridiculous argument!
Click to expand...

I have no problem if you disagree with me but don't tell me to, "stop making this ridiculous argument." Personally I think the idea of a playoff system in college football is ridiculous, but I won't attack you for stating your opinion.

Scenario 1: Ohio St is 11-0 heading into their final game vs. Michigan. Under a bowl system Ohio St. needs this game in order to get the best bowl bid and/or be considered for a national championship. Under a playoff system Ohio St would want to win in order to, "get a better seed for the playoffs" and if they lost it, "wouldn't really matter as long as they do well in the playoffs." I don't like that. That importance of that game has been dilluted.
 


I wasn't speaking in regards to your disfavor for a playoff. I myself am on the fence either way. What I was attacking, and will continue to do to anyone who asserts it, is your logic that it would dilute the regular season. In your hypothetical, is Ohio St. an infinitely worse team because they happened to lose to Michigan? No, they just had an off day. A 1-loss OSU team, in almost any year, deserves just as much of a shot at the title as an undefeated one.

Which brings me to the heart of my argument. My biggest problem with the BCS is that it demands perfection - something no other sport at any level does - and then when it doesn't happen (because perfection is rarely achieved, let alone by 2 and only 2 BCS conference teams), we end up with several teams that have a legitimate claim to the title. In my opinion, it was plain to see that either USC or Texas was better than Utah this year, and probably just as good as Florida. That is an argument that will never be settled, because the BCS system, as presently constituted, is nothing more than a glorified beauty pageant.
 

dpodoll68 said:
I wasn't speaking in regards to your disfavor for a playoff. I myself am on the fence either way. What I was attacking, and will continue to do to anyone who asserts it, is your logic that it would dilute the regular season. In your hypothetical, is Ohio St. an infinitely worse team because they happened to lose to Michigan? No, they just had an off day. A 1-loss OSU team, in almost any year, deserves just as much of a shot at the title as an undefeated one.

Which brings me to the heart of my argument. My biggest problem with the BCS is that it demands perfection - something no other sport at any level does - and then when it doesn't happen (because perfection is rarely achieved, let alone by 2 and only 2 BCS conference teams), we end up with several teams that have a legitimate claim to the title. In my opinion, it was plain to see that either USC or Texas was better than Utah this year, and probably just as good as Florida. That is an argument that will never be settled, because the BCS system, as presently constituted, is nothing more than a glorified beauty pageant.
Click to expand...


Ok so what if a team has an off day in the playoffs? What if a clearly inferior team barely makes it into the playoffs and then gets hot and wins it all? The problem with a playoff system is that it demands perfection in the playoffs. Rather than rewarding the team that has played the best EVERY WEEK, ALL YEAR you are rewarding the team that played good enough to get into the playoffs and then played the best DURING THE PLAYOFFS.
 



If we had a 12 team playoff format with all 11 conferences represented +1 it would enhance the conference play. A ten game B10 format would make more sense as the only way to the championship is by winning the conference and not the pollsters hearts. It would also result in more balance in the various conferences as schools opt for a conference that makes more sense for them and gives them a better chance of winning.

Right now as many point out, if you want to go to a championship calibre team you should consider the southern schools. That all changes in a 12 team playoff format. It would be somewhat of an equalizer in recruiting for the conferences. the last great barrier to parity
 

Schnoodler said:
If we had a 12 team playoff format with all 11 conferences represented +1 it would enhance the conference play. A ten game B10 format would make more sense as the only way to the championship is by winning the conference and not the pollsters hearts. It would also result in more balance in the various conferences as schools opt for a conference that makes more sense for them and gives them a better chance of winning.

Right now as many point out, if you want to go to a championship calibre team you should consider the southern schools. That all changes in a 12 team playoff format. It would be somewhat of an equalizer in recruiting for the conferences. the last great barrier to parity
Click to expand...


I personally enjoy seeing us play some of the non-conference games especially if they are BCS schools. I would prefer to see us keep the same number of conference games as we do now and keep the same amount of non-conference games and then have the big 10 divided into two divisions with a conference championship like so many other BCS conferences do. It would also help reduce the long layoffs between the end of the regular season and the bowl games that have hurt the big ten in the past.
 

Somebody get me a map

May as well throw out the directional informtion if Ohio is West of Pennsylvania.

When talking of 80-120,000 attending the semis would better on the same day in two locations say Minnesota and Texas predetermined and the final also predetermined.


magpie said:
Easy, have all major conferences declare a champ per their rules (playoff or season title), and place them in a bracket per regional match-ups:

West
USC (Pac10) vs Penn St (Big Ten) - Rose Bowl
Utah (Non-BCS West) vs Oklahoma (Big 12) - Fiesta Bowl

East
Virginia Tech (ACC) vs Cincinnati (Big East) - Orange Bowl
Ball St/Boise St (Non-BCS East) vs Florida (SEC) - Sugar Bowl

Then just have a final four at a predetermined facility, same as hockey, basketball, etc. This year would've been USC, Oklahoma, Virginia Tech, and Florida -- most likely. That's a good final four, and that gives teams like Utah a chance to prove themselves.
Click to expand...
 

GopherGod said:
I personally enjoy seeing us play some of the non-conference games especially if they are BCS schools. I would prefer to see us keep the same number of conference games as we do now and keep the same amount of non-conference games and then have the big 10 divided into two divisions with a conference championship like so many other BCS conferences do. It would also help reduce the long layoffs between the end of the regular season and the bowl games that have hurt the big ten in the past.
Click to expand...

Really it'd be up to each conference to determine who the champ goes and how it's determined. A conference championship game is a great way to do it. I was responding to the idea that it'd be cool if we played each big ten team once, and right now it's a bad idea as you need to go undefeated to get a crack at the national championship but if the conference championship were the key to moving on then it would be a workable and maybe desirable schedule change.

Maybe ND would feel the need to get into a conference then. B10(12) with east west and a title game sounds good to me.

Mostly, the more you look at the playoffs the better they look.
 



If the tournament were limited to conference champions, then there would be no possible diluting of the regular season. If there were one or even two at-large sports, teams would still have powerful incentives to win that final game, as they would have no good reason to expect a guarantee of a playoff spot.

The phenomenon which allows NFL teams to sit their starters at the end of the season because they cannot drop a seed would not exist in a college tournament.
 

stevedave23 said:
Ok so what if a team has an off day in the playoffs? What if a clearly inferior team barely makes it into the playoffs and then gets hot and wins it all? The problem with a playoff system is that it demands perfection in the playoffs. Rather than rewarding the team that has played the best EVERY WEEK, ALL YEAR you are rewarding the team that played good enough to get into the playoffs and then played the best DURING THE PLAYOFFS.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point entirely. How is a "clearly inferior team" even going to get in the playoffs? As I have already stated, there is little parity in college football, unlike what exists in the NFL. Every team in will be, at worst, a 1- or 2-loss team. By definition, they will not be "clearly inferior."

And as far as rewarding the team that played the best DURING THE PLAYOFFS, that is how EVERY OTHER team sport, at every level, decides their champion. Seems to work out ok for them. Are you telling me that NCAA DI-A has it right, and everyone else, including divisions I-AA through III of the very same sport, has it wrong?
 

Ok, I did this in about 10 minutes.

I took the 11 Conference Champions.
ACC Virginia Tech
Big 12 Oklahoma
Big East Cincy
Big 10 Penn St
CUSA ECU
MAC Buffalo
PAC 10 USC
Sun Belt Troy
SEC Florida
WAC Boise St
Mountain West Utah

I have a 16 team tournament. Those 11 teams have an automatic entry into the tournament. Then I took the best teams according to the last BCS Standings to fill out the tournament field. These bids are:
Texas
Alabama
Texas Tech
Ohio St
TCU

First Round, the higher seed gets a home game.

1. OU
16. TCU

8. V Tech
9. Buffalo

4. Utah
13. Alabama

5. PSU
12. Texas

6. Boise St
11. Troy

3. USC
14. Texas Tech

7. Cincy
10 ECU

2. FLA
15. tOSU

With only an extra 5 teams makign the field, I don't believe you can afford to tank games.
 

If someone is really serious in opposition to a playoff, then the BCS should go, as it is a 2-team playoff. Or we could go back to the old, old way, and have the national champion decided before the bowl games.

You could do a 16-team playoff with all of the conference champions getting an autobid, but I would not give the at-large bids the 12-16 seeds. The seeding should be by ranking. In your tournament, #6 Boise gets #11 Troy, while #5 Penn State gets #12 Texas. Penn State winds up playing a much stronger opponent than does Boise State, despite getting a higher seed.
 

RodentRampage said:
If someone is really serious in opposition to a playoff, then the BCS should go, as it is a 2-team playoff. Or we could go back to the old, old way, and have the national champion decided before the bowl games.

You could do a 16-team playoff with all of the conference champions getting an autobid, but I would not give the at-large bids the 12-16 seeds. The seeding should be by ranking. In your tournament, #6 Boise gets #11 Troy, while #5 Penn State gets #12 Texas. Penn State winds up playing a much stronger opponent than does Boise State, despite getting a higher seed.
Click to expand...

Yes, I see what youa re saying and your right about the Penn St thing. Like I said, I had the general idea and I threw it together really quick. Maybe after work, I can sit down and think about it a little more :)
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom