PDA

View Full Version : BCS and the Playoff System



SoCalDukeFan
12-03-2012, 05:17 PM
The "braintrust" that runs the BCS has this year given us bowls with Louisville and Northern Illinois. Wisconsin is also not deserving but the Rose Bowl loves the Big 10/Pac 12 thing so I can't blame the BCS on that.

Will the "braintrust" get it any better with a playoff?

Why does Florida go to BCS bowl and Georgia does not? GA beat Florida and won their division. One more loss but to Alabama in a game Florida did not qualify for.

Too bad Ohio State is ineligible this year.

Just think how much better the BCS bowls would be if you had Oklahoma playing Florida in the Suger and Georgia playing FSU in the Orange.


SoCal

rthomas
12-03-2012, 05:21 PM
To me there are only 2 interesting BCS games: the National Championship with Alabama and ND and the KState vs Oregon. The rest are really bad. Although I'm pulling for NIU.

Dev11
12-03-2012, 05:43 PM
Although I'm pulling for NIU.

As a Duke fan, you should not be doing this. Rarely have the non-AQ schools won BCS games, and we do not want our conference champion falling victim to one as lowly-regarded as this NIU team.

As the conferences slowly shift into what their future state is, we want whatever schools we are associated with at present to be as good at football as possible. Florida State may be a pain in the butt with their anti-ACC sentiment, but we want them to remain good at football. If they lose this game, they can (in their warped minds) convince themselves that being in the ACC has hurt their program and that they should more aggressively try to move elsewhere. I don't know if any conference really wants them, but I also don't want to find out.

The reason the ACC gets a lot of grief is that collectively, we perform poorly in bowl games. Root for the ACC schools of 2015 to win their bowl games.

sporthenry
12-03-2012, 05:44 PM
The "braintrust" that runs the BCS has this year given us bowls with Louisville and Northern Illinois. Wisconsin is also not deserving but the Rose Bowl loves the Big 10/Pac 12 thing so I can't blame the BCS on that.

Will the "braintrust" get it any better with a playoff?

Why does Florida go to BCS bowl and Georgia does not? GA beat Florida and won their division. One more loss but to Alabama in a game Florida did not qualify for.

Too bad Ohio State is ineligible this year.

Just think how much better the BCS bowls would be if you had Oklahoma playing Florida in the Suger and Georgia playing FSU in the Orange.


SoCal

I doubt the BCS is any more excited for this than we are. Their ratings are going to take a beating from these match ups. Those 2 games you mention (Sugar and Orange) aren't going to have very much anticipation to it and I'm not sure either will be competitive. UF should kill Louisiville. Less sure about FSU and NIU but not really compelled to watch that. And as you mention, the Rose Bowl doesn't even have much of a marquee match up with Wisconsin having 5 losses.

Ratings are not going to be pretty. Cotton Bowl is on a Friday night but that will probably be the 3rd highest rated game after Fiesta and the title game. And I'll probably watch the Capital One bowl (UGA/Nebraska) and the Chick Fil-A bowl (Clemson/LSU) over the other BCS games. I'll put the Rose bowl on equal footing as the UM/USC match up. Makes it easier for me since I won't have to plan around these games right after the holidays.

ForkFondler
12-03-2012, 06:15 PM
As a Duke fan, you should not be doing this. Rarely have the non-AQ schools won BCS games, and we do not want our conference champion falling victim to one as lowly-regarded as this NIU team.

As the conferences slowly shift into what their future state is, we want whatever schools we are associated with at present to be as good at football as possible. Florida State may be a pain in the butt with their anti-ACC sentiment, but we want them to remain good at football. If they lose this game, they can (in their warped minds) convince themselves that being in the ACC has hurt.

If FSU loses this game, we should kick them out.

Wander
12-03-2012, 08:00 PM
As a Duke fan, you should not be doing this. Rarely have the non-AQ schools won BCS games, and we do not want our conference champion falling victim to one as lowly-regarded as this NIU team.


If by rarely you mean 5 out of 7 games (with one of the two losses coming to also non-AQ Boise State), then sure. I'm sick of this conference realignment garbage, and was never convinced that conference pride was all that important to begin with. Go NIU.

In answer to the original question: there are about 1000 stupid, terrible, corrupt things about the college football postseason. The new playoff format merely takes one of them and makes it slightly (and I do mean slightly) less terrible. So, yes, SoCal is right, it won't get much better in 2014.

lotusland
12-03-2012, 10:11 PM
I'm not a big college football fan and I use to crow about how silly the bowl system was and how it was obvious that a playoff system was needed. However I had no idea that having a football playoff meant the end of regional sports conferences or I would have been more careful what I wished for. I ususally just watch the National Championship and whatever bowl the Gamecocks play in but I can live without an of them. I'm still not sure I understand why it is necessary to ruin basketball in order to make a football playoff happen.

ns7
12-03-2012, 10:19 PM
The "braintrust" that runs the BCS has this year given us bowls with Louisville and Northern Illinois. Wisconsin is also not deserving but the Rose Bowl loves the Big 10/Pac 12 thing so I can't blame the BCS on that.

Will the "braintrust" get it any better with a playoff?

Why does Florida go to BCS bowl and Georgia does not? GA beat Florida and won their division. One more loss but to Alabama in a game Florida did not qualify for.

Too bad Ohio State is ineligible this year.

Just think how much better the BCS bowls would be if you had Oklahoma playing Florida in the Suger and Georgia playing FSU in the Orange.


SoCal

Louisville, NIU, and Wisconsin are automatic selections. Wisconsin goes to the Rose Bowl as B1G Champs. NIU qualifies because it finished in the top 16 and ahead of an AQ champion (actually two, Louisville and Wisconsin). Louisville is the Big East rep.

And why is Oklahoma complaining? I don't get this logic--they finished 11th in a system that picks 10 teams. If anyone should complain, it's the multitude of top ten SEC teams that are left out, UGA, Texas A&M, South Carolina, and LSU.

Also to your point about Florida going over Georgia: Florida has the the best resume in the SEC. Georgia got into the SEC Championship because the schedule got altered this year, sending South Carolina to LSU instead of Mississippi State at home, and keeping Georgia at home against Ole Miss instead of at Alabama. If either of those games were flipped, Florida would be in the championship game.

gep
12-03-2012, 10:50 PM
I'm not a big college football fan and I use to crow about how silly the bowl system was and how it was obvious that a playoff system was needed. However I had no idea that having a football playoff meant the end of regional sports conferences or I would have been more careful what I wished for. I ususally just watch the National Championship and whatever bowl the Gamecocks play in but I can live without an of them. I'm still not sure I understand why it is necessary to ruin basketball in order to make a football playoff happen.

big money?

SoCalDukeFan
12-03-2012, 11:04 PM
Louisville, NIU, and Wisconsin are automatic selections. Wisconsin goes to the Rose Bowl as B1G Champs. NIU qualifies because it finished in the top 16 and ahead of an AQ champion (actually two, Louisville and Wisconsin). Louisville is the Big East rep.

And why is Oklahoma complaining? I don't get this logic--they finished 11th in a system that picks 10 teams. If anyone should complain, it's the multitude of top ten SEC teams that are left out, UGA, Texas A&M, South Carolina, and LSU.

Also to your point about Florida going over Georgia: Florida has the the best resume in the SEC. Georgia got into the SEC Championship because the schedule got altered this year, sending South Carolina to LSU instead of Mississippi State at home, and keeping Georgia at home against Ole Miss instead of at Alabama. If either of those games were flipped, Florida would be in the championship game.

Enugh Said.

ns7
12-03-2012, 11:24 PM
Enugh Said.

South Carolina beat Georgia 35-7. By your logic, that must mean they should be ranked above Georgia. But Florida beat South Carolina, etc, etc.

CDu
12-04-2012, 09:12 AM
And we can all thank the voters for this mess. The computers ranked NIU 19th. But the voters put them in the top 16. If it were up to the computers, Georgia would be in a BCS game as they should be.

The major flaw with the BCS is the same as the flaw with college football has always been: the voters screw things up.

blazindw
12-04-2012, 10:09 AM
And we can all thank the voters for this mess. The computers ranked NIU 19th. But the voters put them in the top 16. If it were up to the computers, Georgia would be in a BCS game as they should be.

The major flaw with the BCS is the same as the flaw with college football has always been: the voters screw things up.

NIU was helped by a lot of teams ahead of them losing. Texas got smoked by K-State, UCLA lost to Stanford, and Kent State lost to NIU. Couple that with Nebraska getting bo-beasted by Wisconsin, and it's not a stretch that voters would move NIU up to 16.

The Harris Poll wasn't close between NIU at 16 and UCLA at 17...208 points separated them. Those points, coupled with the 50 point separation between the two teams in the coaches poll, made up the difference with the computers.

CDu
12-04-2012, 10:16 AM
NIU was helped by a lot of teams ahead of them losing. Texas got smoked by K-State, UCLA lost to Stanford, and Kent State lost to NIU. Couple that with Nebraska getting bo-beasted by Wisconsin, and it's not a stretch that voters would move NIU up to 16.

The Harris Poll wasn't close between NIU at 16 and UCLA at 17...208 points separated them. Those points, coupled with the 50 point separation between the two teams in the coaches poll, made up the difference with the computers.

Which is, still, a problem of the voters. UCLA lost over 100 points due to a 3 point loss to Stanford? Meanwhile, NIU gained over 300 points for beating Kent State? Seems like a gross overreaction to the dichotomous (W/L) outcome rather than considering the full body of work.

Mal
12-04-2012, 10:38 AM
I don't resent the players the experience they're going to get, and under the current system, they've made it to the Orange Bowl fair and square, I guess. Everyone knows the rules, and they benefitted from a number of fluky occurrences - Nebraska getting unexpectedly housed, a bunch of 10-15 teams losing their last games, Ohio State's ineligibility, etc. This will be a ton of fun for the team, and a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for Northern's alums.

But it does show, yet again, flaws in the entire concept of the BCS and the algorithms it uses. This team has beaten NO ONE. Yes, they destroyed some of their MAC opponents, but their one game against a major conference team in non-con play was Iowa. Iowa went 4-8 and lost to Indiana, but they managed to beat NIU. The Huskies beat Army by a single point. I'm sorry, but that's just not a team that should be playing in a marquee bowl game. I don't care if those were early in the season. Their only test the rest of the year came last week against Kent State (let's not get started on how a team that lost by 33 points to Kentucky managed to climb to 17th in the polls), and it took them two overtimes to dispatch that team.

There's a distinction between earning their spot, which NIU did, and deserving it, which they don't. So, despite all the reasons one would be inclined to pull for them, I just can't get on board. The correct outcome is they get crushed by FSU.

kingboozer
12-04-2012, 11:08 AM
Although I'm pulling for NIU.

I will be too. I understand the argument that we shouldn't root against FSU since they are a member school and all that, but I cannot root for a fan base that openly belittles our conference and feels like the ACC holds them back (the conference they were members of when they won their 2 national titles). They held back themselves after nearly 10 years of mediocrity that hurt the conference image in the first place. If they could have kept up those years in football, would this even be an argument? How about not losing to a 7-5 NC State team, or not choking against Florida, I'm sure those loses were the ACC's fault too.:rolleyes:

TexHawk
12-04-2012, 12:24 PM
I don't resent the players the experience they're going to get, and under the current system, they've made it to the Orange Bowl fair and square, I guess. Everyone knows the rules, and they benefitted from a number of fluky occurrences - Nebraska getting unexpectedly housed, a bunch of 10-15 teams losing their last games, Ohio State's ineligibility, etc. This will be a ton of fun for the team, and a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for Northern's alums.

But it does show, yet again, flaws in the entire concept of the BCS and the algorithms it uses. This team has beaten NO ONE. Yes, they destroyed some of their MAC opponents, but their one game against a major conference team in non-con play was Iowa. Iowa went 4-8 and lost to Indiana, but they managed to beat NIU. The Huskies beat Army by a single point. I'm sorry, but that's just not a team that should be playing in a marquee bowl game. I don't care if those were early in the season. Their only test the rest of the year came last week against Kent State (let's not get started on how a team that lost by 33 points to Kentucky managed to climb to 17th in the polls), and it took them two overtimes to dispatch that team.

There's a distinction between earning their spot, which NIU did, and deserving it, which they don't. So, despite all the reasons one would be inclined to pull for them, I just can't get on board. The correct outcome is they get crushed by FSU.

Oh, you are incorrect sir! NIU also squeaked out a 7 point victory over a 1-11 KU team. They were down 23-13 with 10 minutes left before rallying. << insert KU-is-not-a-major-non-con joke here >>

Also, didn't UCONN lose millions of dollars in their Fiesta bowl debacle a couple years ago? I believe these teams are *required* to purchase a certain amount of tickets and hotel packages at FACE VALUE. Notoriety and press for your program? Sure, but an absolute kick in the teeth for your AD budget.

blazindw
12-04-2012, 12:34 PM
Oh, you are incorrect sir! NIU also squeaked out a 7 point victory over a 1-11 KU team. They were down 23-13 with 10 minutes left before rallying. << insert KU-is-not-a-major-non-con joke here >>

Also, didn't UCONN lose millions of dollars in their Fiesta bowl debacle a couple years ago? I believe these teams are *required* to purchase a certain amount of tickets and hotel packages at FACE VALUE. Notoriety and press for your program? Sure, but an absolute kick in the teeth for your AD budget.

For the Orange Bowl, NIU gets a mandatory block of 17,500 seats. They will have to sell more seats to this one game than they have averaged in home attendance (~15,500) all season!

kingboozer
12-04-2012, 03:06 PM
Oh, you are incorrect sir! NIU also squeaked out a 7 point victory over a 1-11 KU team. They were down 23-13 with 10 minutes left before rallying. << insert KU-is-not-a-major-non-con joke here >>

Also, didn't UCONN lose millions of dollars in their Fiesta bowl debacle a couple years ago? I believe these teams are *required* to purchase a certain amount of tickets and hotel packages at FACE VALUE. Notoriety and press for your program? Sure, but an absolute kick in the teeth for your AD budget.

Well there will definitely be some money games on NIU's non conference schedule the next few seasons

A-Tex Devil
12-04-2012, 03:35 PM
Louisville, NIU, and Wisconsin are automatic selections. Wisconsin goes to the Rose Bowl as B1G Champs. NIU qualifies because it finished in the top 16 and ahead of an AQ champion (actually two, Louisville and Wisconsin). Louisville is the Big East rep.

Agreed. The BCS' hands were actually more or less tied this year. You can't have more than 2 teams per conference (which I agree with, although maybe that number should be 3, more on that in a second), and because NIU and ND got auto-bids under the rules, there were only 2 open slots. You can argue which SEC team should have gotten in (it's Georgia, by the way - I hate that teams get punished for CCG losses in favor of teams that didn't have to play them), but certainly one SEC team deserved it and the next highest team was Oregon. Done and done. The BCS didn't "pick" anyone or screw over anyone like they did last year by picking Michigan and Va Tech over a higher rated K-State team.


And why is Oklahoma complaining? I don't get this logic--they finished 11th in a system that picks 10 teams. If anyone should complain, it's the multitude of top ten SEC teams that are left out, UGA, Texas A&M, South Carolina, and LSU.

I agree re: Oklahoma. I don't agree with the SEC. I will quietly look on with great curiosity as to how the SEC does in its bowl games this year. They may wreck shop again, but I think this is a bubble that is finally about to burst. The bottom 8 schools in the SEC went a big fat 0-fer against the top 6 schools. That's absolutely unprecedented. If TJ Yeldon doesn't fumble against A&M, that switches to top 5 and bottom 9. The reason you have a bunch of 1 and 2 loss teams in the SEC is because they all got to beat up on a horrid bottom of the conference. The Big XII on the other hand has 10 teams, and 9 are going to a bowl. Imnsho, the SEC isn't the murderer's row people think it is this year. This is also a huge factor for the Big Ten to add potential fodder in MD and Rutgers. The SEC model clearly works, and you also get two huge media markets to boot. Diluting your conference schedule creates more opportunity for multiple teams in the upcoming playoff.

Edited to add: *AND*.... *AND* the SEC only plays 8 non-con games. That's 3 cupcakes and a decent BCS school to further pad the record.


Also to your point about Florida going over Georgia: Florida has the the best resume in the SEC. Georgia got into the SEC Championship because the schedule got altered this year, sending South Carolina to LSU instead of Mississippi State at home, and keeping Georgia at home against Ole Miss instead of at Alabama. If either of those games were flipped, Florida would be in the championship game.

Obviously this can be argued and no one's minds are going to change, but this doesn't matter. You play the schedule you were given. Georgia and Alabama both had great draws from the other division. Such is life in a 14 team conference.

SoCalDukeFan
12-04-2012, 04:10 PM
Louisville, NIU, and Wisconsin are automatic selections. Wisconsin goes to the Rose Bowl as B1G Champs. NIU qualifies because it finished in the top 16 and ahead of an AQ champion (actually two, Louisville and Wisconsin). Louisville is the Big East rep.


The current system puts 10 teams in premier bowls. Why not give those bowls the option to not invite a conference champ if it was not in say the top 20 final BCS standings. Rose would stay take Wisconsin but I think Oklahoma would have been taken ahead of Louisville.

Whats so magic about top 16 for NIU? Top 12 might make more sense.

My issue is that the same people who came up with this very flawed system are going to come up with a system for the playoffs and major bowls in a couple of years. How do you think that will work out?

SoCal

A-Tex Devil
12-04-2012, 04:25 PM
The current system puts 10 teams in premier bowls. Why not give those bowls the option to not invite a conference champ if it was not in say the top 20 final BCS standings. Rose would stay take Wisconsin but I think Oklahoma would have been taken ahead of Louisville.

Whats so magic about top 16 for NIU? Top 12 might make more sense.

My issue is that the same people who came up with this very flawed system are going to come up with a system for the playoffs and major bowls in a couple of years. How do you think that will work out?

SoCal

I agree with this in concept re: poor conference champions, but the conferences will never, ever, never, ever, ever, never, ever go for it. Even though the Big Ten (barring its cheaters) didn't deserve a team in the BCS this year, there is no way in holy hell Kaiser Delaney would allow a system where the Big Ten was shut out.

blazindw
12-04-2012, 04:37 PM
The current system puts 10 teams in premier bowls. Why not give those bowls the option to not invite a conference champ if it was not in say the top 20 final BCS standings. Rose would stay take Wisconsin but I think Oklahoma would have been taken ahead of Louisville.

Whats so magic about top 16 for NIU? Top 12 might make more sense.

My issue is that the same people who came up with this very flawed system are going to come up with a system for the playoffs and major bowls in a couple of years. How do you think that will work out?

SoCal

Top 14, since that is the threshold for AQ schools to be eligible to be selected as an at-large, should be the threshold for non-AQ champions to be able to get in the BCS. Same rules for everyone.

Wander
12-04-2012, 09:19 PM
Top 14, since that is the threshold for AQ schools to be eligible to be selected as an at-large, should be the threshold for non-AQ champions to be able to get in the BCS. Same rules for everyone.

That's not "the same rules for everyone."



Agreed. The BCS' hands were actually more or less tied this year.


Come on. The point that everyone is arguing isn't the BCS should have broken its own rules to exclude NIU this year, it's that those rules are idiotic to begin with.

This isn't hard. We should be having a playoff that includes the 11 conference champions, Notre Dame, Florida, Georgia, Oregon, and LSU that gets played at the home stadiums. For those who complain that a playoff would ruin the regular season or some such nonsense, note that this excludes teams with fantastic regular seasons like Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas A&M, and so on. It's an incredibly easy system to come with theoretically (though I know it's not happening).

ns7
12-04-2012, 10:04 PM
And we can all thank the voters for this mess. The computers ranked NIU 19th. But the voters put them in the top 16. If it were up to the computers, Georgia would be in a BCS game as they should be.

The major flaw with the BCS is the same as the flaw with college football has always been: the voters screw things up.

Actually, the computers have Georgia at 10/11, which puts them as the *sixth* place team in the SEC. I don't understand the Georgia love. They rode the easiest schedule in the SEC the championship. But, as ATex said, such is life in a 14 team conference...



I agree re: Oklahoma. I don't agree with the SEC. I will quietly look on with great curiosity as to how the SEC does in its bowl games this year. They may wreck shop again, but I think this is a bubble that is finally about to burst. The bottom 8 schools in the SEC went a big fat 0-fer against the top 6 schools. That's absolutely unprecedented. If TJ Yeldon doesn't fumble against A&M, that switches to top 5 and bottom 9. The reason you have a bunch of 1 and 2 loss teams in the SEC is because they all got to beat up on a horrid bottom of the conference. The Big XII on the other hand has 10 teams, and 9 are going to a bowl. Imnsho, the SEC isn't the murderer's row people think it is this year. This is also a huge factor for the Big Ten to add potential fodder in MD and Rutgers. The SEC model clearly works, and you also get two huge media markets to boot. Diluting your conference schedule creates more opportunity for multiple teams in the upcoming playoff.

Edited to add: *AND*.... *AND* the SEC only plays 8 non-con games. That's 3 cupcakes and a decent BCS school to further pad the record.


I think you overlook the OOC wins of the "bottom 8." Tennessee beat NC State handily and Vandy obliterated Wake. Even poor, lifeless Kentucky beat Kent State. The top six are so strong this year that any of the six could be in the national championship game. However, I once again want to point out that Georgia has the weakest resume of those six teams.

I see your point on the Big 12 too and I'd buy your argument that it's the best conference top to bottom. Oklahoma and Kansas State (and maybe Oklahoma State now) are good enough to beat anyone in the SEC this year. But after that there's a drop off: TCU doesn't have an offense, Texas has major QB issues, WVU has no idea how to play defense. I'd argue that Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, and Ole Miss (now, later in the season) are comparable.

Bowl season will be interesting, but there are so many SEC/B1G matchups, and the B1G stinks so that won't tell us anything. I think the cotton bowl will be great though.

blazindw
12-05-2012, 07:34 AM
That's not "the same rules for everyone."

It would be close enough (minus conference champions).


Come on. The point that everyone is arguing isn't the BCS should have broken its own rules to exclude NIU this year, it's that those rules are idiotic to begin with.

This isn't hard. We should be having a playoff that includes the 11 conference champions, Notre Dame, Florida, Georgia, Oregon, and LSU that gets played at the home stadiums. For those who complain that a playoff would ruin the regular season or some such nonsense, note that this excludes teams with fantastic regular seasons like Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas A&M, and so on. It's an incredibly easy system to come with theoretically (though I know it's not happening).

I don't think anyone seriously thinks that a playoff would ruin the regular season considering that playoffs are accepted and appreciated on every other level of football (even in the lower divisions of college football). The debate for most rests in how many teams should make the playoff--4, 8, 16--and how the teams are determined. Everyone knows that the SEC will want to have the rules so as many of its teams get into the playoff as possible, while conferences like the Big East will want it so their conference champion gets a chance as well. 4's a good start, but I'm not sure that it will be where it stops.

A-Tex Devil
12-05-2012, 01:45 PM
I don't think anyone seriously thinks that a playoff would ruin the regular season considering that playoffs are accepted and appreciated on every other level of football (even in the lower divisions of college football). The debate for most rests in how many teams should make the playoff--4, 8, 16--and how the teams are determined. Everyone knows that the SEC will want to have the rules so as many of its teams get into the playoff as possible, while conferences like the Big East will want it so their conference champion gets a chance as well. 4's a good start, but I'm not sure that it will be where it stops.


What I think would be anathema to many college football fans, and why a larger format playoffs including all of the conference champions is frowned upon (and here, I include myself) is a format where a team like Wisconsin gets in because they are conference champion, then they manage to run the table and win it all. Sure -- that is a very impressive run, but it negates the fact that they lost 5 games during the regular season.

Here is what I *don't* want in college football -- 2 loss teams with a shot at the National Championship. It has happened once in my lifetime, and perhaps it may happen again one day. But I like the 4 team format because, frankly, I'd rather keep it small enough to leave an undefeated team out, than open up big enough to allow 2 and 3 loss teams in.

I kinda like where the current playoff system is going. It would have been ND, 'Bama, Oregon and Florida this year, and even if KSU felt let out, I would have been fine with that.

CDu
12-05-2012, 02:55 PM
What I think would be anathema to many college football fans, and why a larger format playoffs including all of the conference champions is frowned upon (and here, I include myself) is a format where a team like Wisconsin gets in because they are conference champion, then they manage to run the table and win it all. Sure -- that is a very impressive run, but it negates the fact that they lost 5 games during the regular season.

Here is what I *don't* want in college football -- 2 loss teams with a shot at the National Championship. It has happened once in my lifetime, and perhaps it may happen again one day. But I like the 4 team format because, frankly, I'd rather keep it small enough to leave an undefeated team out, than open up big enough to allow 2 and 3 loss teams in.

I kinda like where the current playoff system is going. It would have been ND, 'Bama, Oregon and Florida this year, and even if KSU felt let out, I would have been fine with that.

I agree. A 4-team playoff would be, in my opinion, more than enough. I don't think that more than 4 teams in any given season really merit playing for the national championship. I certainly don't believe that 16 teams do.

Further, the more teams you let in, the harder it is to distinguish between the deserving and undeserving. With 2 teams, there is occasionally a third that screams foul. With 4, there's probably a fifth and (maybe) a sixth. With 8, you're looking at maybe 3-4 teams that have an argument for that 8th spot. At 16? Who knows?

blazindw
12-05-2012, 03:07 PM
I agree. A 4-team playoff would be, in my opinion, more than enough. I don't think that more than 4 teams in any given season really merit playing for the national championship. I certainly don't believe that 16 teams do.

Further, the more teams you let in, the harder it is to distinguish between the deserving and undeserving. With 2 teams, there is occasionally a third that screams foul. With 4, there's probably a fifth and (maybe) a sixth. With 8, you're looking at maybe 3-4 teams that have an argument for that 8th spot. At 16? Who knows?

I'm in the 4-team boat, but think that eventually, the money will get to where the push will be for 8 teams. No matter how many spots are in the playoff, just like the Big Dance, there's always 1-3 teams that will feel like they were snubbed. But you're both right...most years, there's no more than 3-4 teams that really have a legit case to play for the national title.

ForkFondler
12-05-2012, 03:15 PM
I'm in the 4-team boat, but think that eventually, the money will get to where the push will be for 8 teams. No matter how many spots are in the playoff, just like the Big Dance, there's always 1-3 teams that will feel like they were snubbed. But you're both right...most years, there's no more than 3-4 teams that really have a legit case to play for the national title.

The NCAAT has many teams with no chance, but people still seem to like it. But, the best reason for at least an 8 FB team playoff is that it kills the stupid notion of four 16 team superconferences. With 8 teams you can have 4-6 AQs, and fill the remainder with at-large selections.

Dev11
12-05-2012, 04:22 PM
The NCAAT has many teams with no chance, but people still seem to like it. But, the best reason for at least an 8 FB team playoff is that it kills the stupid notion of four 16 team superconferences. With 8 teams you can have 4-6 AQs, and fill the remainder with at-large selections.

One thing I heard sometime this week was an argument how college football and college basketball treat parity very differently. In college football, interest generally increases when big-name programs are succeeding (re: why it's good for college football for Notre Dame to be #1), whereas in basketball, upsets generally make the tournament more interesting to the casual fan (everybody's pulling for Butler). I'm intrigued by this, especially because in the professional versions of these two sports, the opposite outcome is desired by those who run the league.

I think 4 is probably the right number for college football, and I'm not terrified of the superconference threat.

Wander
12-06-2012, 06:12 PM
I don't think that more than 4 teams in any given season really merit playing for the national championship.


2008, Utah is ranked outside of the top four at the end of the season. They beat Alabama in their bowl game, by a larger margin than BCS champion Florida did in the SEC title game. 2006, Boise State is ranked outside the top eight at the end of the season. We all know what happens afterward in the bowl game. I humbly submit that anyone who in retrospect thinks either of these teams didn't merit playing for a national championship is, as Seth Greenberg might say, certifiably insane.

Now, if you don't care about having a real national champion in football (like the pre-BCS system), then that's fine and I have no argument against that. But you simply can't get a true and fair national champion with 11 conferences and 4 playoff spots.

ForkFondler
12-06-2012, 06:31 PM
2008, Utah is ranked outside of the top four at the end of the season. They beat Alabama in their bowl game, by a larger margin than BCS champion Florida did in the SEC title game. 2006, Boise State is ranked outside the top eight at the end of the season. We all know what happens afterward in the bowl game. I humbly submit that anyone who in retrospect thinks either of these teams didn't merit playing for a national championship is, as Seth Greenberg might say, certifiably insane.

Now, if you don't care about having a real national champion in football (like the pre-BCS system), then that's fine and I have no argument against that. But you simply can't get a true and fair national champion with 11 conferences and 4 playoff spots.

I kinda think there is no such thing as "true and fair", but more is merrier. I'm in favor of 8, if not 16. Also, with 16 team conferences, I think the conference championship should be played as the last game of the regular season. Every team in a one of the divisions could schedule a home game with opponent TBD by seeding. The two #1 seeds would be the championship. Alternate the division at home every year.

A-Tex Devil
12-06-2012, 07:01 PM
2008, Utah is ranked outside of the top four at the end of the season. They beat Alabama in their bowl game, by a larger margin than BCS champion Florida did in the SEC title game. 2006, Boise State is ranked outside the top eight at the end of the season. We all know what happens afterward in the bowl game. I humbly submit that anyone who in retrospect thinks either of these teams didn't merit playing for a national championship is, as Seth Greenberg might say, certifiably insane.

Now, if you don't care about having a real national champion in football (like the pre-BCS system), then that's fine and I have no argument against that. But you simply can't get a true and fair national champion with 11 conferences and 4 playoff spots.

The ideal system would be a flex system, but that will never happen. I am just against any system that would give any 2 loss team ranked outside the top 4 a chance (except in extreme years like 2007) to win the national championship. This is a different type of championship than college basketball, and even the NFL. And if it has to stay "mythical" in some people's minds to maintain the integrity of what has traditionally been a 2 strikes and your out system? That's cool.

The conferences would never let this happen, but an easy set of rules for a top 4 would be:

1. Every undefeated team in top 10 (just use BCS formula). If there are more than 4, go to this new committee (or formula, or whatever floats your boat).
2. Spots left? Every one loss conference champion in the top 10. If there are more than there are remaining spots, go to committee.
3. Spots left? Every one loss non-conference champion in the top 10. If there are more than there are remaining spots, go to committee.
4. Spots left? Any remaining undefeated teams.
5. Spots left? Any remaining 1 loss teams
6. Spots left? 2 loss teams.

This would give some more leeway to undefeated teams from non-power conferences, but also require some semblance of a real schedule (unlike, say, Houston last year, if they hadn't lost to Southern Miss).

I am much more comfortable leaving OUT an undefeated team that played a crappy schedule then I am letting IN a team that couldn't make it out of their regular season. And I am also comfortable calling it a "real" national championship with that selection criteria.

SoCalDukeFan
12-06-2012, 07:46 PM
The ideal system would be a flex system, but that will never happen. I am just against any system that would give any 2 loss team ranked outside the top 4 a chance (except in extreme years like 2007) to win the national championship. This is a different type of championship than college basketball, and even the NFL. And if it has to stay "mythical" in some people's minds to maintain the integrity of what has traditionally been a 2 strikes and your out system? That's cool.

The conferences would never let this happen, but an easy set of rules for a top 4 would be:

1. Every undefeated team in top 10 (just use BCS formula). If there are more than 4, go to this new committee (or formula, or whatever floats your boat).
2. Spots left? Every one loss conference champion in the top 10. If there are more than there are remaining spots, go to committee.
3. Spots left? Every one loss non-conference champion in the top 10. If there are more than there are remaining spots, go to committee.
4. Spots left? Any remaining undefeated teams.
5. Spots left? Any remaining 1 loss teams
6. Spots left? 2 loss teams.

This would give some more leeway to undefeated teams from non-power conferences, but also require some semblance of a real schedule (unlike, say, Houston last year, if they hadn't lost to Southern Miss).

I am much more comfortable leaving OUT an undefeated team that played a crappy schedule then I am letting IN a team that couldn't make it out of their regular season. And I am also comfortable calling it a "real" national championship with that selection criteria.

Not sure this does not encourage teams to play a crappy schedule.

I would take the top 3 BCS or Committee rated conference champions then a fourth team via Comittee or BCS.

So this year Alabama, Stanford, KSU as top 3 conference champs and ND as the 4th team.
Last year LSU, Oklahoma State, Oregon then Alabama as the 4th.

I want to reward teams for winning their conference on the field.

SoCal

Jarhead
12-07-2012, 11:04 PM
As a newcomer to this thread, I sometimes get confused by certain acronyms, such as BCS, FBS and FCS. I think I understand their meanings, but what confuses me is how they are used to describe post season play. I do know that the FCS, formerly 1-AA, playoffs are in progress right now, but who is in charge? I have been watching tonight's game between Montana State and Sam Houston State, and it is 27-9 in favor of Sam Houston State at the end of the 3rd period in a quarter final game in front of a sellout crowd that seem to be having a good time. Well, maybe not Montana State.

Looks, to me, like an interesting game in an interesting tournament. All of the problems that people seem to have with playoffs in college football don't seem to be present in this division. If it can work for them why can't it work at the BCS, FBS, 1-A level? Anybody know? Do we really need 35 bowl games involving 70 teams to decide the national championship which will be decided between two teams in just one of those 35 bowl games?

ns7
12-08-2012, 01:14 AM
As a newcomer to this thread, I sometimes get confused by certain acronyms, such as BCS, FBS and FCS. I think I understand their meanings, but what confuses me is how they are used to describe post season play. I do know that the FCS, formerly 1-AA, playoffs are in progress right now, but who is in charge? I have been watching tonight's game between Montana State and Sam Houston State, and it is 27-9 in favor of Sam Houston State at the end of the 3rd period in a quarter final game in front of a sellout crowd that seem to be having a good time. Well, maybe not Montana State.

Looks, to me, like an interesting game in an interesting tournament. All of the problems that people seem to have with playoffs in college football don't seem to be present in this division. If it can work for them why can't it work at the BCS, FBS, 1-A level? Anybody know? Do we really need 35 bowl games involving 70 teams to decide the national championship which will be decided between two teams in just one of those 35 bowl games?

The BCS is run by the universities belonging to the top six conferences: ACC, B1G, Big XII, Big East, Pac 12, and SEC. The NCAA has no control over the BCS, so the universities in those conferences get the vast majority of the revenue.

The NCAA would love to run a playoff or postseason for football, just as it does for basketball, so that it could take the revenue. But I doubt the 60ish universities in charge of the BCS would allow that, and they would be foolish to give that revenue up from an economic standpoint.

So expect the "BCS" universities to continue to control football, or even break away from the NCAA to form their own association for college football. That's why many folks speak of a 64 team super division. But that has other issues of it's own, including geographical constraints.

Jarhead
12-08-2012, 11:39 AM
The BCS is run by the universities belonging to the top six conferences: ACC, B1G, Big XII, Big East, Pac 12, and SEC. The NCAA has no control over the BCS, so the universities in those conferences get the vast majority of the revenue.

The NCAA would love to run a playoff or postseason for football, just as it does for basketball, so that it could take the revenue. But I doubt the 60ish universities in charge of the BCS would allow that, and they would be foolish to give that revenue up from an economic standpoint.

So expect the "BCS" universities to continue to control football, or even break away from the NCAA to form their own association for college football. That's why many folks speak of a 64 team super division. But that has other issues of it's own, including geographical constraints.

That's all well and good, but the resistance to playoffs seem to whole shebang at the top level. I'm just wondering why there is so much resistance to a rational playoff system. If the FCS can do it, why can't the big guys do it? The arguments against a playoff are just plain irrational. It is the only segment of the sports world that has no playoff system. Even pro golf has an annual playoff.

uh_no
12-08-2012, 11:58 AM
That's all well and good, but the resistance to playoffs seem to whole shebang at the top level. I'm just wondering why there is so much resistance to a rational playoff system. If the FCS can do it, why can't the big guys do it? The arguments against a playoff are just plain irrational. It is the only segment of the sports world that has no playoff system. Even pro golf has an annual playoff.

If I were the NCAA what I would do is effectively the same way they killed the NIT.

start a playoff system alongside the BCS...crown the winner the NCAA champion. Invite the top teams....likely some of the bottom end BCS teams, and the top teams that didn't make the BCS would accept. With so many top teams in the playoffs, the tournament will get a TV contract. With a contract, the allure of an actual championship, and top teams, the top top teams will move towards that tournament the same way they did with the bball tournament over the NIT....eventually the BCS is relegated to secondary.

WHy won't it happen? probably the same reason that it hasn't ever happened....I would guess the NCAA heads are getting kickbacks from the bowls/BCS to not compete with them....

A-Tex Devil
12-08-2012, 12:31 PM
That's all well and good, but the resistance to playoffs seem to whole shebang at the top level. I'm just wondering why there is so much resistance to a rational playoff system. If the FCS can do it, why can't the big guys do it? The arguments against a playoff are just plain irrational. It is the only segment of the sports world that has no playoff system. Even pro golf has an annual playoff.

I don't think arguments against playoffs (or playoffs that go beyond4) are wholly irrational. I think the the BCS is pretty bad. But I also don't like the idea of conference champions with automatic bids when that would give a team like Wisconsin even a sniff at a chance of the championship. It's a difficult balance. But in this particular sport, I do favor exclusiveness over inclusiveness. And if that means an undefeated team gets left out occasionally? I am ok with it. Otherwise, win all your games or risk leaving your fate to others.

sagegrouse
10-14-2013, 05:23 PM
Here's the scoop on the board to select teams for the college football playoffs, following next season. I'm sorry I am so busy; otherwise, I'd be honored to serve.


Arkansas athletic director Jeff Long has been named the first chairman of the College Football Playoff selection committee.... ESPN and The Associated Press have identified the other 12 members of the committee as:


Wisconsin athletic director Barry Alvarez
Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Gould, a former Air Force Academy superintendent
USC athletic director Pat Haden
Former NCAA executive vice president Tom Jernstedt
West Virginia athletic director Oliver Luck
Former NFL and Ole Miss quarterback Archie Manning
Former Nebraska coach/athletic director Tom Osborne
Clemson athletic director Dan Radakovich
Former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
Former Big East commissioner Mike Tranghese
Former USA Today reporter Steve Wieberg
Former Stanford/Notre Dame/Washington coach Tyrone Willingham



ADs from Clemson (ACC), Arkansas (SEC), WVa (Big 12), USC (PAC-12) and Wisconsin (Big Ten -- I ain't ever using B1G).

Lt. Gen. Gould just retired as Superintendent at the AF Academy and -- surprise! -- played football there.

Condi Rice went to Denver U and grad school at Stanford, where she became Provost and currently serves at the Hoover Institution.

Former NCAA official played and studied at Oregon. Ex-USA Today staffer Steve Wieberg is far better known as a basketball writer -- YAY!

The other connections are pretty obvious.

sagegrouse

Dev11
10-14-2013, 05:44 PM
Here's the scoop on the board to select teams for the college football playoffs, following next season. I'm sorry I am so busy; otherwise, I'd be honored to serve.



ADs from Clemson (ACC), Arkansas (SEC), WVa (Big 12), USC (PAC-12) and Wisconsin (Big Ten -- I ain't ever using B1G).

Lt. Gen. Gould just retired as Superintendent at the AF Academy and -- surprise! -- played football there.

Condi Rice went to Denver U and grad school at Stanford, where she became Provost and currently serves at the Hoover Institution.

Former NCAA official played and studied at Oregon. Ex-USA Today staffer Steve Wieberg is far better known as a basketball writer -- YAY!

The other connections are pretty obvious.

sagegrouse

How will they work together? Do they just submit rankings at the end of the season and then they get averaged to pick the top 4, or do they sit together like the basketball committee and talk it out.

I wouldn't be surprised if Oliver Luck is working at a different Big 12 job soon.

sagegrouse
10-14-2013, 06:38 PM
How will they work together? Do they just submit rankings at the end of the season and then they get averaged to pick the top 4, or do they sit together like the basketball committee and talk it out.

I wouldn't be surprised if Oliver Luck is working at a different Big 12 job soon.

I assume that it is deliberation in a closed room that reaches a consensus or, if necessary, takes a vote to determine the playoff participants. Sounds like the Tournament Selection Committee, although there are many fewer teams to be selected, and all attention will be on the four semifinalists.

sagegrouse

Dev11
10-15-2013, 09:31 AM
I assume that it is deliberation in a closed room that reaches a consensus or, if necessary, takes a vote to determine the playoff participants. Sounds like the Tournament Selection Committee, although there are many fewer teams to be selected, and all attention will be on the four semifinalists.

sagegrouse

With so few teams, I'd be concerned about the influence certain members or groups of members could exert on the process. With the basketball committee, if one member stumps loudly for a particular borderline team, ok, that becomes team #67 or #68, which isn't a big deal. With only 4 teams, they have to be particularly exhaustive.

I bet it gets expanded to 8 teams after no more than 2 years. That should allow any potentially worthy teams in and let each of the major bowls host a playoff game.

Wander
10-15-2013, 09:44 AM
With so few teams, I'd be concerned about the influence certain members or groups of members could exert on the process. With the basketball committee, if one member stumps loudly for a particular borderline team, ok, that becomes team #67 or #68, which isn't a big deal. With only 4 teams, they have to be particularly exhaustive.


Right. Plus, every team in basketball had a chance to wins its auto bid, so it's hard to feel too terrible for whatever bubble team gets left out.

Regarding expanding to 8 teams, note that the famous undefeated Boise State team of 2006 would have been left out of a 4 team playoff, as would the undefeated Utah team of 2008 that beat Alabama. Boise State finished 5th.... even after they beat Oklahoma!

Jarhead
10-15-2013, 11:52 AM
When do fall semester exams end? When do spring semester classes start? Early December? Mid January? That's plenty of time to handle a 16 or 8 team playoff. I'd go with an 8 team playoff with qualifiers coming from 5, 6, or 7 conference championships and 1, 2, or 3 at large selections -- by committee, what else? With 5 conferences there is a potential for a total pool of 80 teams to qualify for first round slots. Add in 5 at large teams, and there it is, an 8 team playoff in stadiums now used for the major bowl games. That would be my preference.

Such a play off would be 7 games played over a 3 week period. It could be scheduled so that the final championship game would be played on the weekend before Superbowl weekend. From what I remember there were somewhere around 70 FBS teams that participated in bowls last year, but sports reporters and coaches voted for there choices to compete for the national championship. I know of no other team sport in which the annual championship is decided that way.

For those who would lament the loss of all of those bowl games -- most of those games could still take place as an end of season reward for those teams that qualify with the required number of season wins. You could call them the NIT of college football.

A-Tex Devil
10-16-2013, 11:20 AM
My fear is that the committee is going to over-think things. I also think that that many people may lead to some group think on a level you wouldn't really see in the NCAA Tourney selection committee.

I am still in the school that a team with more than one loss should have ZERO chance to play for the national championship unless there are no other options. And any undefeated teams from the 5 major conferences should automatically be considered ahead of any 1 loss team. I didn't really hate the BCS, although there are better systems and ideas. But I can't get behind an 8 team playoff that has auto-qualifiers.