|
I want someone to give me a good reason why we should keep the BCS around? It seems like it is just a tool to keep smaller schools and schools from non-BCS conferences from winning a national title. When was the last time a school from outside a BCS conference was even up for a national championship, let alone won one?
I want someone to give me a good reason why we should keep the BCS around? It seems like it is just a tool to keep smaller schools and schools from non-BCS conferences from winning a national title. When was the last time a school from outside a BCS conference was even up for a national championship, let alone won one?
BYU was the last non-BCS team to win the national championship. Of course, there wasn't a BCS system back then.
|
I agree that the BCS is bogus, and needs to be replaced with a playoff system of some sorts. Of course, that might not change much regarding who makes it into the National Championship. Several of the schools that are consistently high-ranked are that way because they are tough (SEC and Big 12 teams for example).
Still, I believe everyone should at least have a shot at getting to the big game. From what I've heard, my conference (SEC) already supports the idea of a playoff system, and I think the Big 12 does as well. I'm not sure about the others.
|
|
I have spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to set up a playoff series, and I think I have a solution. You take the conference champion for each of the twelve conferences, plus the top four teams that did not win their conference championships. That gives you sixteen teams, then they play each other in the openning round. Everyone is assigned a game based on a random draw and would be like the Music City Bowl and so forth. Then the next round is down to eight, which could be your second tier bowl games, like the Alamo Bowl or the Las Vegas Bowl. The next round of four could be the big four bowl game (Rose, Orange, Sugar, and Fiesta), and then you have the championship. It's fair, and it preserves the bowl games as well, which has been one big objection to a playoff system.
AS a Sooner fan- I want this to happen because I want a play-off. Personally I think OU and Texas should play for Big 12 title game, but Texas got robbed and Texas beat us, and then lost to a team We beat by 40 points. I just want a play-off.
Fairest way of doing it. I wish the two best teams in a conference would go to the conference championship game instead of the winner of one division against the other division winner. I'd rather see Texas Vs. OU than a Missouri/OU game.
|
It seems like it is just a tool to keep smaller schools and schools from non-BCS conferences from winning a national title.
Plus, the NCAA doesn't even award a championship to the BCS champion, so technically no FBS school has a shot at the title.
I have spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to set up a playoff series, and I think I have a solution. You take the conference champion for each of the twelve conferences, plus the top four teams that did not win their conference championships. That gives you sixteen teams, then they play each other in the openning round. Everyone is assigned a game based on a random draw and would be like the Music City Bowl and so forth. Then the next round is down to eight, which could be your second tier bowl games, like the Alamo Bowl or the Las Vegas Bowl. The next round of four could be the big four bowl game (Rose, Orange, Sugar, and Fiesta), and then you have the championship. It's fair, and it preserves the bowl games as well, which has been one big objection to a playoff system.
I would do it just like they do with basketball. You have to combine the FBS and FCS (football is the only sport to split up Div I...time to do away with that). That would mean 25 automatic bids for the conference champions. You could then have either a 32, 48, or 64 team playoff, depending on how many at-large bids you want to hand out (48 probably being the most reasonable number).
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
That would mean 25 automatic bids for the conference champions. You could then have either a 32, 48, or 64 team playoff, depending on how many at-large bids you want to hand out (48 probably being the most reasonable number).
This would mean 5-6 extra games per team - something that just isn't sustainable in a reasonable season. Football's not basketball, you can't do multiple games in one week. Any playoff with more than 12 teams probably isn't going to fly.
I have spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to set up a playoff series, and I think I have a solution. You take the conference champion for each of the twelve conferences, plus the top four teams that did not win their conference championships. That gives you sixteen teams, then they play each other in the openning round. Everyone is assigned a game based on a random draw and would be like the Music City Bowl and so forth. Then the next round is down to eight, which could be your second tier bowl games, like the Alamo Bowl or the Las Vegas Bowl. The next round of four could be the big four bowl game (Rose, Orange, Sugar, and Fiesta), and then you have the championship. It's fair, and it preserves the bowl games as well, which has been one big objection to a playoff system.
Actually David there are only 11 conferences. I like your system. The only conference I wouldn't give an automatic bid would be the Sun Belt. The Sun Belt is a division 1-aa/FCS conference masquerading as a Div 1-a/FBS conference. I'd let 10 teams get automatic bids and 6 wildcards.
|
|
That would mean 25 automatic bids for the conference champions. You could then have either a 32, 48, or 64 team playoff, depending on how many at-large bids you want to hand out (48 probably being the most reasonable number).This would mean 5-6 extra games per team - something that just isn't sustainable in a reasonable season. Football's not basketball, you can't do multiple games in one week. Any playoff with more than 12 teams probably isn't going to fly.
Agreed, which is why I started with sixteen teams. That adds, at most, four extra games for the top two teams and most of them are during the bowl season anyway.
|
|
Actually David there are only 11 conferences.
Notre Dame also counts itself as a conference according to the BCS Website. Of course that would mean Notre Dame would get in every year. Rather than that I would leave the 12th slot open for the top ranked independent team.
|
|
This would mean 5-6 extra games per team - something that just isn't sustainable in a reasonable season. Football's not basketball, you can't do multiple games in one week. Any playoff with more than 12 teams probably isn't going to fly.
Well, Div III currently has a 64 team bracket in place. If you had a 64 team bracket this year in the FBS, you could play on these dates:
Opening Round
Dec 13
Second Round
Dec 20
Sweet 16
Dec 27
Great 8
Jan 3
Final 4
Jan 10
National Championship
Jan 17
You’d probably have to get rid of the 12th regular season game they added a few years ago. That would push the National Championship from Jan 17th to Jan 10th. (The BCS Title Game is Jan 8th, so the season would only be “extended” 2 days.)
This would mean 5-6 extra games per team - something that just isn't sustainable in a reasonable season. Football's not basketball, you can't do multiple games in one week. Any playoff with more than 12 teams probably isn't going to fly.Well, Div III currently has a 64 team bracket in place. If you had a 64 team bracket this year in the FBS, you could play on these dates:
Opening Round
Dec 13Second Round
Dec 20Sweet 16
Dec 27Great 8
Jan 3Final 4
Jan 10National Championship
Jan 17You’d probably have to get rid of the 12th regular season game they added a few years ago. That would push the National Championship from Jan 17th to Jan 10th. (The BCS Title Game is Jan 8th, so the season would only be “extended” 2 days.)
Wow! That's alot of games! However, we could easily get rid of the 12th game. Since its inception, the 12th game has only been used as another warm up game for the big schools.
|
As a student of the University of Utah, and a member of the Muss (our student section), I am all for the abolishment of the BCS. We've had a strong team this year and strong teams in the past, but the system has been seriously in the way of us getting the real recognition of a shot at the National Championship.
However, there is something to be said for the historicity of the bowl games, and I would hope any new system would find a way to incorporate them in some way.
I don't think I can defend the BCS even though the Big 10 tends to benefit from it with more bowl bids.
When the UW Badgers can be bowl eligible, have a good chance of getting one, while having a 3-5 conference record, there's something dreadfully wrong with the system. I'm not too keen on them scheduling 1/3 of their games with non-conference teams either, frankly. That usually smacks too much of filling the schedule with non-conference mismatches so they can pad the W column.
|
|
You can spread out the crap bowls 1st round and 2nd rounds Use big bowls that rotate to get for semi-finals and final. National title game can be the Saturday before the Super Bowl. It would be National Holiday.
While it would be great to use the big bowls on a rotating basis for the finals and semi-finals, the BCS already created a "National Championship Bowl." As a result, that system has already been broken.
I think if you did a play off, you'd have to start at no higher than the sweet 16. The BCS could still be used to determine who these 16 teams are.
|
I don't think I can defend the BCS even though the Big 10 tends to benefit from it with more bowl bids.
When the UW Badgers can be bowl eligible, have a good chance of getting one, while having a 3-5 conference record, there's something dreadfully wrong with the system. I'm not too keen on them scheduling 1/3 of their games with non-conference teams either, frankly. That usually smacks too much of filling the schedule with non-conference mismatches so they can pad the W column.
Every once in a while an Appalachian State will come up and bite a big school in the butt.
And no offence to Pac One, Little Ten, Almost Considered a Conference and Little East fans, but the "lesser" conferences seem to always have teams ranked higher than schools from these "major" conferences (with the exception of whichever overrated school wins the Big Ten and USC, anyway). I have no doubt that Utah, Boise State, TCU, and a few other schools might have won three of those conferences (Big Ten, ACC, Big East), and represented well in the other (Pac Ten), had they been members.
The BCS is a joke, the computers reward coaches who run up scores and punish sportsmanship (read: Mack Brown ALWAYS puts in his second and third string when a game is in hand), and the voters have short (one week at most) memories. A playoff is not only needed, it is also the only way to make what these kids do all season long mean anything.
I look forward to Oklahoma choking in a BCS bowl for the sixth straight year, Texas whooping up on whoever we wind up playing in our bowl game (like we do just about every year) and the Little Ten representative being blown out in their game (like they do almost every year...).
Again, the BCS is a joke. A cruel one at that...
|
|
I think if you did a play off, you'd have to start at no higher than the sweet 16. The BCS could still be used to determine who these 16 teams are.
The problem is that by simply using the top sixteen rated teams, you end up with a situation where some conferences will have multiple schools represented and some might not have any. If we went that way we might as well keep the BCS because it still wouldn't open it up to a wider array of teams.
|
|
I look forward to Oklahoma choking in a BCS bowl for the sixth straight year, Texas whooping up on whoever we wind up playing in our bowl game (like we do just about every year) and the Little Ten representative being blown out in their game (like they do almost every year...).Again, the BCS is a joke. A cruel one at that...
As a team that didn't win its conference, I doubt Texas will get invited to the BCS National Championship game (voters will push USC ahead of them if Mizzou beats OU). Assuming that's the case, I think UT's best shot at a split nat'l championship is for OU to win the BCS title game. OU will have the BCS crown, but if Texas wins its bowl impressively, AP voters might push UT to the top in its final poll. (Note that they UT ahead of OU this week...i.e. if they had their way, Texas would have been in the Big 12 Championship.) The AP did leave the BCS for a reason, and there hasn't been a split title since it left the BCS in 2005...they may want to make a point this year.
I think if you did a play off, you'd have to start at no higher than the sweet 16. The BCS could still be used to determine who these 16 teams are.The problem is that by simply using the top sixteen rated teams, you end up with a situation where some conferences will have multiple schools represented and some might not have any. If we went that way we might as well keep the BCS because it still wouldn't open it up to a wider array of teams.
Yeah, well some conferences on some years are just tougher. If 6 of the Big 12 are better than every team in the Big 10, why shouldn't all 6 of those have a better chance of playing off. I want to see the best 16 teams playing not just the best of the individual conferences.
|
|
As a team that didn't win its conference, I doubt Texas will get invited to the BCS National Championship game (voters will push USC ahead of them if Mizzou beats OU). Assuming that's the case, I think UT's best shot at a split nat'l championship is for OU to win the BCS title game. OU will have the BCS crown, but if Texas wins its bowl impressively, AP voters might push UT to the top in its final poll. (Note that they UT ahead of OU this week...i.e. if they had their way, Texas would have been in the Big 12 Championship.) The AP did leave the BCS for a reason, and there hasn't been a split title since it left the BCS in 2005...they may want to make a point this year.
I look forward to Oklahoma choking in a BCS bowl for the sixth straight year, Texas whooping up on whoever we wind up playing in our bowl game (like we do just about every year) and the Little Ten representative being blown out in their game (like they do almost every year...).Again, the BCS is a joke. A cruel one at that...
Most of the voters have written off USC (by-product of playing in the Pac-One) and Penn State (same deal, very weak conference). The #1 and #2 teams in the BCS standings go to Miami, and USC isn't close enough at the moment to catch Texas in the computers, unless they beat UCLA on Saturday by like 60 points (which could happen, I suppose, UCLA is a joke...)
OU will play (and lose badly to) the winner of the SEC championship (as much as i'd like Mizzou to step up, the loss to Kansas doesn't inspire much confidence...). Both FLorida and Alabama can do something no opponent (except Texas) that Oklahoma has played this year can do: play defense. Oklahoma can't stop anyone as they don't play defense. I see ugly happening in Miami...
Texas will play the loser of the SEC championship game in what will most likely be a classic Sugar Bowl.
Unless Missouri can win somehow, Texas has no real chance at a berth in Miami, and little chance at a split poll (OU chokes bad in the spotlight lately, so I'm not hanging my hopes on them upsetting Alabama or Florida, frankly...).
As far as Texas not winning their conference, well, yeah. Kinda hard when computers punish coaches who play their second stringers in the fourth quarters of blowouts instead of running up the score(see: every Texas game except OU, OSU and Tech). Oh, well. I guess all college coaches MUST be Gators era Spurrier to contend any more...
|
|
If 6 of the Big 12 are better than every team in the Big 10, why shouldn't all 6 of those have a better chance of playing off. I want to see the best 16 teams playing not just the best of the individual conferences.
It comes down to: What is your top priority? That which is the most entertaining or that which is the most just. Many believe that it is just for a conference champion to have a shot at the title, regardless if it's Florida or Harvard. I mean Harvard shouldn't have to bribe SEC officials to get in the SEC and it shouldn't have to schedule SEC or Big 12 opponents in all its non-conference games. Let them play their Ivy League opponents. If they win the Ivy, then show them how pathetic they are by beating the tar out of them ON THE FIELD. I don't like so-called experts dismissing champions out of hand.
Note: I'm for justice AND entertainment, thus my desire for a 32, 48, or 64 team field that includes every conference champion, plus the best of the rest.
|
|
Most of the voters have written off USC (by-product of playing in the Pac-One) and Penn State (same deal, very weak conference). The #1 and #2 teams in the BCS standings go to Miami, and USC isn't close enough at the moment to catch Texas in the computers, unless they beat UCLA on Saturday by like 60 points (which could happen, I suppose, UCLA is a joke...)
I hear ya. I just remember how LSU vaulted like 8,000 teams (one of them being non-conference-winning Georgia) ahead of them in the very last poll of the regular season last year. I mean, why even have a poll all those previous weeks if you're just going to bump up a team 8,000 spots in one week? Personally, I'd rather see Texas in the title game than USC if OU stumbles...I just have this bad feeling...
|
|
I'm just hoping that Alabama wins over Florida. Not that I care about Bama, I just want to see Tebow cry when the Gators lose.
As for Texas, it sucks that they missed out on the Big 12 Championship, but that doesn't mean they're out of the running. All they really need is for Oklahoma to lose to Missouri. Then the National Championship would likely end up either Albama(1) vs Texas(2) or Texas(1) vs Florida(2) depending on who one the SEC.
Of course, I'm thinking the big game is the SEC's to lose, so I feel for whoever has to play Bama or the Gators, but I'll still cheer against the Gators.
As for LSU doing the vault last season - that's because they earned it.
|
|
As for LSU doing the vault last season - that's because they earned it.
They earned their #7 spot the week prior by pathetically losing to Arkansas at home. The following week, #1 Mizzou and #2 WVU lost, so I'll grant you them. But a ho-hum win over 4-loss Tennessee "earning" them the right to hop over idle Ohio State, idle Georgia, idle Kansas, and Virginia Tech who doubled up a team (BC) ranked higher than Tennesee? Like I said, why even have the polls until the last week if you're going to butt-rape a half dozen teams? "Hi. We're LSU. We can lose to pathetic Arkansas at home and jump up 8,000 spots the next week because we're conference champs from the SEC. Nevermind the fact that we have 10 trillion losses and were ranked #8,000 just last week."
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Not only should there be playoffs, but I think they should eliminate the conference championship game for those conferences that have them. For one thing, this gives the winning teams in those conferences an additional win on their record, which isn't really fair when comparing to teams from conferences that don't. This would also free up another week in the schedule to allow for more playoff games.
It would also be great if the change to playoffs also included a rule that Rich Rodriguez was not allowed in the state of Michigan ever again. This would be integral to the success of a playoff system.
Wow, after watching ESPN all day, apparently the only people who don't think Texas got hosed are Bob Stoops and Sooner fans...
Yep, we got hosed. The way Oklahoma plays defense, they are going to make
a poor showing in the national championship.
|
|
Wow, after watching ESPN all day, apparently the only people who don't think Texas got hosed are Bob Stoops and Sooner fans...Yep, we got hosed. The way Oklahoma plays defense, they are going to make
a poor showing in the national championship.
Forget this year for a minute. Oklahoma has embarrassed the Big 12 in '04 (blown out by USC in National Championship game), '05 (barely beat Oregon. The Ducks. They barely beat waterfowl...), '06 (BSU, it was a great game, yeah, but, really. Boise State...), '07 (how does ANYONE get blown out by a Little East team whose coach just left to stink up Ann Arbor????)
The '03 loss to LSU wasn't an "embarrassment", at least LSU is from a real conference...
I also want a playoff.
But the most compelling argument I have heard goes as follows (more or less):
These kids are students foremost (in theory, not practice). For us to ask them to play X number of games extra a season
a) cuts further into their classtime, namely another semester.
b) puts them in additional danger, as each game played offers further chance for injury
c) further eats away at their time (increased travel, prep, practice, games).
Now obviously I am not framing this in the most persuasive way, and, truth be told, feel like I am missing one of the key arguments to this side of the fence.
But I heard something similarly framed in a much more persuasive way . . .
Wow, after watching ESPN all day, apparently the only people who don't think Texas got hosed are Bob Stoops and Sooner fans...Yep, we got hosed. The way Oklahoma plays defense, they are going to make
a poor showing in the national championship.Forget this year for a minute. Oklahoma has embarrassed the Big 12 in '04 (blown out by USC in National Championship game), '05 (barely beat Oregon. The Ducks. They barely beat waterfowl...), '06 (BSU, it was a great game, yeah, but, really. Boise State...), '07 (how does ANYONE get blown out by a Little East team whose coach just left to stink up Ann Arbor????)
The '03 loss to LSU wasn't an "embarrassment", at least LSU is from a real conference...
Well, Oklahoma is never good as advertised. A lot of people have accused them of being "chokers". I don't think that's the problem. The problem is that Stoops tends to run up scores on poor teams and it makes them look better that what they really are. An example of this was last week when Oklahoma scored that last touchdown on Oklahoma St with about 30 seconds left. Was that touchdown really necessary when the game was already in hand?
|
|
I also want a playoff.
But the most compelling argument I have heard goes as follows (more or less):
These kids are students foremost (in theory, not practice). For us to ask them to play X number of games extra a season
a) cuts further into their classtime, namely another semester.
b) puts them in additional danger, as each game played offers further chance for injury
c) further eats away at their time (increased travel, prep, practice, games).Now obviously I am not framing this in the most persuasive way, and, truth be told, feel like I am missing one of the key arguments to this side of the fence.
But I heard something similarly framed in a much more persuasive way . . .
The biggest flaw in this argument is that most of the games in a hypothetical playoff series would occur during the winter vacation, thereby eliminateing the missed class argument. As it is, most of these kids will be in a bowl game, somewhere, and so they will still be travelling, at risk for injury, etc. More importantly, in this setting, they will at least be under some degree of supervision. Left to their own devices they would be more likely to get hurt or killed than if they are in a structured, scheduled envirnoment.
|
|
These kids are students foremost (in theory, not practice). For us to ask them to play X number of games extra a seasona) cuts further into their classtime, namely another semester.
b) puts them in additional danger, as each game played offers further chance for injury
c) further eats away at their time (increased travel, prep, practice, games).
The kids at MIT do it (although I'm not sure if they've ever made the playoffs!) If the kids at MIT can balance football with classes and other commitments, surely the kids at Arkansas State can?
|
|
They earned their #7 spot the week prior by pathetically losing to Arkansas at home. The following week, #1 Mizzou and #2 WVU lost, so I'll grant you them. But a ho-hum win over 4-loss Tennessee "earning" them the right to hop over idle Ohio State, idle Georgia, idle Kansas, and Virginia Tech who doubled up a team (BC) ranked higher than Tennesee?
As for LSU doing the vault last season - that's because they earned it.
As you said, they moved up in the ranks over 3 teams that were idle, and one team from the ACC. That victory may have come against a 4 loss team, but it was a conference team and that was a conference championship. The SEC is one of the toughest divisions in college ball, and even lower ranked teams in that conference (like Arkansas) are middle-of-the-pack compared to some.
Like I said, they earned it. Don't hate them because they're beautiful.
|
|
My Tar Heels beat Duke. No great feat, but that's all we really expect of our football team. They gave us a little thrill by being ranked (briefly) in the top 25, and teased us with the possibility of a post-season bowl bid. But it turned out to be just another average Carolina Football year.
On to basketball! Time to kick @$$!
|
|
Twice as many losses as any national champ ever. They earned the right to be viewed as frauds.
Like I said, they earned it. Don't hate them because they're beautiful.
Not "ever" actually, Minnesota won the National Championship with 2 losses back in 1960, according to this site.
Besides, how they got to the game may be controversial, but that doesn't mean they didn't win a legitimate victory against a legitimate, and very tough opponent. If anything, this helped prove the point in favor of a play-off system.
If legitimacy is ruined for every controversy in the BCS that works in some other team's favor, then practically every National Championship since the system's inception is a fraud.
Tebow didn't cry the day he was born.
Maybe not, but after the loss to LSU last year he did. And again after their loss this year. Face it Heathy, the boy's a whiny baby. He needs some cheese.
ROLL TIDE!
|
|
Besides, how they got to the game may be controversial, but that doesn't mean they didn't win a legitimate victory against a legitimate, and very tough opponent.
I'm with you most of the way (regarding LSU last year), but please, PLEASE do not call an Ohio State team that got blown out by Florida and LSU (and I mean EMBARRASSED) a "very tough opponent". The "Little Ten" hasn't been a serious threat to anyone outside of their conference in at least five years...
|
|
Not "ever" actually, Minnesota won the National Championship with 2 losses back in 1960, according to this site.
Good catch.
Besides, how they got to the game may be controversial,
It wasn't right. The top two teams lost and people looked at # 3 and grudgingly had to give Ohio State its due as it was Big 10 champion. Georgia and Kansas? Not conference champions. Virginia Tech? LSU beat them. So people gave LSU a shot at the title. My whole point is that traditionally, the way the rankings work is that a team only moves down if it loses, perhaps wins weakly, or a team behind them just has the world's biggest victory. None of that happened. Teams ahead of LSU were either idle or won impressively. LSU's victory was over a relatively weak Tennessee team. Based on a hundred years of voting, Ohio State should have played Georgia. If not Georgia, Kansas. If not Kansas, Virginia Tech. Voters completely abandoned the traditional way teams move up and down in the polls and gifted LSU an undeserved shot at the title.
but that doesn't mean they didn't win a legitimate victory against a legitimate, and very tough opponent.
I agree, but it's a moot point. It's like I'm supposed to be having sex with my wife when an intruder comes in and rapes her. His technique and performance might be quite outstanding, but it doesn't change the fact that he's not supposed to be there. I cannot applaud his performance.