enigmaax;477919 wrote:Bowls have an identity because each is part of a larger system. Killing off the biggest part (major bowls) of your successful system leaves the small cogs even more meaningless than you are going to say they already are. How does the NIT do?

You've pointed out that every other sport does a playoff system. Only one other sport has a "consolation" prize for those that don't qualify for the tournament (and it doesn't do all that well and is probably on its last legs), so why would anyone think that would succeed?

Its hard to get much more meaningless than the non-BCS bowl games. I have a hard time believing much would change about them. Players from those schools participating would still get to take a trip and go play in a game that determines which team can outsuck the other in a matchup of five loss teams. I don't think the Papajohns.com bowl will see its attendance/viewership change one way or the other, regardless of what happens with the BCS bowls/national championship game.

enigmaax;477932 wrote: Here is where we are always going to agree. It is about business and money, plain and simple.

Yup. I know a lot people say "there is too much money to be had! The BCS is here to stay."

To me I do not think it is as simple as that. Call me crazy but I think a playoff would be huge. There is a hunger for football and it's proven that fans will watch/attend. The hype would be off the charts IMO. My point is this, I am thinking that we never see a legitimate study into the plus and minuses of a playoff for a simple reason... the BCS is basically a front for the "BCS"/AQ conferences. As long as it remains status quo they can continue to rake in all the money and throw a couple million to the other guys here and there.

If the NCAA takes control, I think you see a more egalitarian (socialistic) system. All of the revenue goes to the NCAA and then it gets divvied up accordingly. Read: BCS/AQ conferences lose their cash cow.

That in my opinion is why we keep hearing how rich everybody is getting with the BCS and how a playoff will lose money. Which seems to be flawed reasoning IMO

jordo212000;477936 wrote:The bowl games are already meaningless. Coaches leave before their teams play all the time. Some coaches who join their new teams before the bowl games start coaching during bowl games to start getting momentum for next year (using it like a preseason game). Many of the early bowls are lightly attended and lots of schools lose money going to the bowl games. Why does a playoff make them more meaningless? How can you get any less meaningful than they already are. They don't solve anything, nor do they lead to anything. The main thing most of the early bowls decide is which 7-5 team sucks less.

I'm fine with keeping bowl games. I don't have a problem with them. I just shake my head when people try and say that bowl games are one of the reasons there shouldn't be a playoff. I really don't see how it is any different than it is now. Marshall and Ohio fans were aware that Alabama was going to be playing for the National Championship. Fans still went to the game and many still had a good time. Add a 4 game playoff and it's really not all that different.

I'm going to blame the bolded part on the NCAA and not the bowl system. The NCAA has a blackout period where coaches can't recruit so a school looking to hire a new coach must get him in place and on the recruit trail ASAP or they are sacrificing an entire recruiting class. If they end that practice or push back national signing day you would probably see less coaches leaving before their bowl game.

Mooney44Cards;476267 wrote:Well folks, its that time of the year again. The time of year where dreams of undefeated seasons by WAC and Mountain West teams conjures up thoughts and dreams of an elaborate playoff in which the stars align and all is right with the world when teams come together in fairness and equality to play in an elimination tournament set-up that depends more on the luck of the draw and being hot at the right time than anything else.

Boise State & Mtn West has been very respectable in their BCS games/non conference games. Not real sure why you are acting like the thought of them wanting a piece of the pie is such a joke. Boise and TCU played each other last season in what was an absolute travesty of a pairing, and before that Boise State had beaten a good Oklahoma team, Utah embarrassed Alabama, Utah beat Pittsburgh several years ago, and TCU has done much of their damage in the regular season thus far. (only BCS loss was to Boise).

Second, how would you describe the current system? You describe a playoff as "luck of the draw" but isn't the BCS kind of the same thing. Often several unbeaten teams get their rankings and computer rankings thrown into a computer, the computer does some fancy equation and it spits out who gets the privilege to play in a championship.

Mooney44Cards;476267 wrote: because you were under the impression that the only people that were against a playoff were some money-hungry bowl presidents and Athletic Directors across the country. Not true my friends. I believe a playoff system would change the very foundations of college football, and college football happens to be the one sport that I love so much, and don't want it fucked with.

Fact. The BCS is owned and operated as a front by the power conferences. It exists to "crown" a champion, correct, but this champion always resides in the power conferences, and the power conferences refuse to share the equation. Why didn't we get an answer to that question when we entered January with 5 undefeated teams? Why did two "little" guys who always get put down for not being able to compete with the big guy get paired up with one another in a game that solved nothing?

You act like a playoff would forever change the landscape of college football. All it is is more football! How is that a bad thing?

Mooney44Cards;476267 wrote: Don't get me wrong, in no way am I defending the BCS system as the best possible system for determining a national championship. But I don't think its inherently bad either, just flawed.

So you admit that it is flawed? Hmm that's a start. If it isn't the best possible system, why can't we move to something that is? I'm guessing you would have been against the forward pass if you were around many many years ago.

Mooney44Cards;476267 wrote: Many of the tournaments that other sports have set up have also been in place for a lot longer (compared to when the NCAA sanctioned the sport) and therefore are inherent to that sport's season. These tournaments also tend to include a pretty decent percentage of teams getting into the tournament, something that wouldn't be possible with CFB.

I'm with you here. No need to make a playoff absolutely huge. Doing so would devalue what is by the far the best regular season in sports (sadly it has the most meaningless postseason though). All along I have just wanted a 4-6 game playoff that ensures that the team who wins is a team who played an outstanding regular season and also had to go through some great opponents to do so. I love Ohio State but I find it hard to believe they were the #2 team the year Florida beat the bejesus out of them. A semi-final would have removed them from the frame and enabled us to send college football off with a game that most closely is 1 vs 2.

Mooney44Cards;476267 wrote: This one always comes off the worst when people try to argue it because I always tend to ask "what is fair?" to which nobody can really give me a straight answer. Is fair and unfair black and white? Is it all or nothing? Playoffs is fair, BCS is not? Or are there degrees of fairness? Now if we truly wanted to be "fair", we would have a nationwide round robin tournament where everyone plays everyone and we see who wins the most. Thats definitely not possible though.

What is fair? hmm?? I can tell you one thing. The BCS is among the least fair postseason systems around. So much of it is based on voters who may or may not have watched you play trying to decide how you stack up against a team that could be 2,000 miles from you. Throw in the fact that teams often do not play tough schedules/weak conferences and it is nearly impossible to know how good anybody is. The best way to determine how good somebody is to let it play out on the field.

Obviously you can't have all 120 teams in a playoff. Don't be dense and try to make that what I am saying. The regular season needs to stay important so you take a whole season of results, digest it, and put the best 4-6 teams on the field together.

Mooney44Cards;476267 wrote:Cliff notes version: save the Emerald bowl!

Not sure why you are acting like a playoff is going to take away the bowls. Never have understood this really. There's already a championship that teams playing in the Emerald Bowl aren't eligible for. Anyways I've already made my opinion known about the bowls. Read my previous posts.

As to your point about fans traveling...You act like there is a cap of 20,000 fans. (There isn't). Ohio State has plenty of fans who would be more than willing to go to any game. You do realize that there are alums all over the world right? We are not talking about the same guy going to watch them every week. This is by far the silliest reason you've had so far. The NCAA tourney changes the location of your team several times before they reach the championship and people still go.

Mooney44Cards;476267 wrote:Boise State would be a Cinderella National Champion! Everyone would love it!

I think the main reason Boise State gets so much love is that deep down people want to see them take down the system. If Florida International was upsetting AQ conferences in exciting ways and pushing their way towards the BCS title game, then I would guess people would be rooting for FIU. For me, I see Boise State's success as an opportunity for the BCS to go away. If there was something that could make it explode, I think it would be Boise State playing in the National Championship and beating out a team like my Buckeyes to do it. The backlash at how subjective the system is and how Boise hasn't proven it enough on the field would help get the wheels in motion. Delany would certainly become a little less of a BCS superfan, right? Imagine how crazy this place would be if Ohio State (or Michigan or whoever) gets held out by Boise

My bottom line point on this argument is that people claim that the current system is not good because the two best teams do not always play for the national championship. In a playoff...the best teams would not always even make it into the playoffs. So there's no need to change anything until a system can be implemented that does not have flaws.

sherm03;478886 wrote:My bottom line point on this argument is that people claim that the current system is not good because the two best teams do not always play for the national championship. In a playoff...the best teams would not always even make it into the playoffs. So there's no need to change anything until a system can be implemented that does not have flaws.

You know how I stand, I respectfully disagree. I recognize that a playoff would not solve every single problem and would still have flaws of its own, but I think that a playoff is less flawed than the current system, as giving more equally qualified teams the opportunity to play for the championship increases the chances that the best team is included.

trep14;478901 wrote:You know how I stand, I respectfully disagree. I recognize that a playoff would not solve every single problem and would still have flaws of its own, but I think that a playoff is less flawed than the current system, as giving more equally qualified teams the opportunity to play for the championship increases the chances that the best team is included.

Well...when in Rome...




I'm still not sure what that phrase means.



As a side note...with the exception of a few chotch balls trying to ruin it...this has been one of the best discussions I have seen on this site. LOL.

sherm03;478944 wrote:Well...when in Rome...




I'm still not sure what that phrase means.



As a side note...with the exception of a few chotch balls trying to ruin it...this has been one of the best discussions I have seen on this site. LOL.

Thats cuz you're a fucking gay ass Notre Dame fag hurrrrr hurrrr you lost 200 bowls in a row HURRRRRRRR, did I mention Notre Dame is gay HURRRRRRRRDY HURRRRRRR

jordo212000;478826 wrote: I think the main reason Boise State gets so much love is that deep down people want to see them take down the system. If Florida International was upsetting AQ conferences in exciting ways and pushing their way towards the BCS title game, then I would guess people would be rooting for FIU. For me, I see Boise State's success as an opportunity for the BCS to go away. If there was something that could make it explode, I think it would be Boise State playing in the National Championship and beating out a team like my Buckeyes to do it. The backlash at how subjective the system is and how Boise hasn't proven it enough on the field would help get the wheels in motion. Delany would certainly become a little less of a BCS superfan, right? Imagine how crazy this place would be if Ohio State (or Michigan or whoever) gets held out by Boise

I honestly think that an undefeated Boise State team at the end of the season is a lose-lose for the BCS, whether it lets them in to the NC game or not. If the BCS doesn't let Boise in to the NC game, it is going to have a tough time answering questions to Congress about restricting trade and competition because Congress can regulate interstate commerce and the BCS falls under that. Boise has about as impressive of a resume that a team from a non-AQ conference can assemble and they would still be getting shut out, so it could be a pretty strong argument. I could see pressure from Congress prompting the BCS to change some things about how teams are selected for the national championship game, and who knows, that may bring about the long-anticipated plus one system.

On the flip side, as you said, if Boise State gets in to the NC game at the detriment of a one loss AQ team, particularly a Big-10 team, which would honestly probably be the ideal scenario. Jim Delany is a pretty powerful guy and has been a huge fan of the BCS and one of the biggest opponents to a playoff recently. He might not be as high on the BCS if Ohio State or some other Big-10 team gets snubbed for Boise State in the National Championship Game.

All that I know is things are going to be really interesting if Boise State goes undefeated and it is going to be interesting to see how the BCS handles it. Like I said, I don't think it will create any drastic changes to the system, but I think it could start turning some gears in motion. Of course, a minor tweak they could do is just make the new MWC an AQ conference or something to that extent. It would be like putting a band aid on.

trep14;479321 wrote:I honestly think that an undefeated Boise State team at the end of the season is a lose-lose for the BCS, whether it lets them in to the NC game or not. If the BCS doesn't let Boise in to the NC game, it is going to have a tough time answering questions to Congress about restricting trade and competition because Congress can regulate interstate commerce and the BCS falls under that. Boise has about as impressive of a resume that a team from a non-AQ conference can assemble and they would still be getting shut out, so it could be a pretty strong argument. I could see pressure from Congress prompting the BCS to change some things about how teams are selected for the national championship game, and who knows, that may bring about the long-anticipated plus one system.

On the flip side, as you said, if Boise State gets in to the NC game at the detriment of a one loss AQ team, particularly a Big-10 team, which would honestly probably be the ideal scenario. Jim Delany has been a huge fan of the BCS and one of the biggest opponents to a playoff recently. He might not be as high on the BCS if Ohio State or some other Big-10 team gets snubbed for Boise State in the National Championship Game.

All that I know is things are going to be really interesting if Boise State goes undefeated and it is going to be interesting to see how the BCS handles it. Like I said, I don't think it will create any drastic changes to the system, but I think it could start turning some gears in motion.

Umm, if Auburn didn't motivate the system to change, why would Boise State?

Mooney44Cards;479330 wrote:Umm, if Auburn didn't motivate the system to change, why would Boise State?

This seems to be somewhat of a different situation than the Auburn situation. Here we are talking about an entire group of teams (basically all non-AQ teams) that are being excluded from the NC game by the system. If teams like TCU, Boise State, and Utah (before they jumped to PAC-10) can't make the championship game despite a string of success dating back several years, it isn't possible for a non-AQ team to make the NC game.

I watch the bowl games, not because they're great, but because it's one last chance to see college football before the offseason begins.

The biggest issue is that polls are designed to nominate one team as the 'best' team. You can't put two teams at the top of the 'best of' list against eachother and call it a championship. A championship requires some form of qualification and elimination.

First, you have to qualify teams. The easiest and most 'hands off' way would simply be "conference champions only". Qualify which self-appointed conferences qualify. Maybe a set number of teams (say, 12 or more teams gives automatic qualification) or after a few years, create a UEFA like metric qualifying conference based on playoff performance (such as a point system for victories by round, 1 for first, 2 for 2nd, etc). That, of course, would take a few years before creating some sort of baseline for qualification.

As for why conference champions is 'the way' to go is simply it delegates authority to a subset of the larger group. For instance, the Big Ten would be put on notice to authoritatively name their undisputed champion. Meaning, the 12 teams of the Big Ten would be responsible for deciding their own rules for how they crown their own champion to be put into the playoff. Tie-breakers, scheduling, etc.

Secondly, so what if the Sun Belt gets creamed every year in the first round? At least they're given the chance on the field. So they lose. Why does that bother you so much? That a team was given a chance? A legitimate unbiased attempt to let them prove it.

Sure, the Sun Belt is the obvious easy whipping boy in this discussion, but I'd rather see them have the chance and lose than to not have the chance.

If you want to create a new 'middle ground' between FBS and FCS for the non-BCS schools. Argue that. But don't argue that there should be second class teams when they're all labeled Division I-FBS.

Meanwhile, as for why the NCAA is unable to do anything is because the schools ARE the NCAA. And Mount Union, or Ashland, or Youngstown State have no say on in what happens with the FBS. Division I-FBS is its own group of 120 schools, of which the BCS conferences and teams hold the majority (after Utah joins the PAC-10, that will mean 66 of the 120 teams are BCS members) which, if they vote as a block (as they currently do) they get what they wantr

The BCS schools know that a playoff would make much more money than the bowl system (and they also know they can make even more in a playoff that still lets non-playoff teams and even playoff losets into bowl games, similar to a consolation prize), but they also know that if they agreed to an FBS-wide playoff, they'd have to share the money with the 54 non-BCS schools equally. And they're not about to give up on that money. They argue the bowl system is for the players (finals, fewer games), for tradition (the neutered Rose Bowl, matchups and bowl games that have no history), and to let 30 teams end the season with a victory (halfway to the 'everybody gets a trophy' argument).

To end, 'champion does not equal best'. I've said it before. And I'll repeat it ad naseum. Polls let people sell newspapers, get viewers to tune into SportsCenter, and let people banter over who they think is best. It does not, however, begin to name a champion.

If Team A is #2 and Team B is #3, and Team A plays Team B and wins, why the hell does Team B drop? You expected them to lose by how you ranked them. But, if they don't play, and Team A & B both play other teams and Team A loses and Team B wins, then Team B is moved up and Team A drops. Funny, out of 120 teams, you play a 12 game schedule and that's supposed to give a cross-section to who is better or worse between two 11-1 teams, etc.

Yet, in a conference, you do have some form of qualification. If Ohio State is 8-0 in their Big Ten division, and Michigan State is 7-1 in their division. They play to eliminate one. The victor gets into the playoffs. They keep winning, they get closer to the title. They lose. Well, it wasn't meant to be.

As for those saying the regular season is the playoffs and every game matters. Good luck explaining to me how Indiana-Northwestern in October 'matters'. So, no, not every game matters.

Very rarely in the regular season do two teams late in the season have a legitimate argument to a be one of the two participants in the BCS Championship Game actually play eachother to act as a de facto playoff for the title game. Instead, we get Florida against 3 loss Mississippi State or Texas against 4 loss Texas A&M and we're sitting there hoping the underdog with nothing more than pride to play for does what an actual good team might have a chance to do in an actual PLAYOFF.

Argue in favor of what you want, but the status quo is only beneficial to those fans of favored schools.

Sykotyk

If a playoff gets put into place...where the conference champion gets an automatic bid...say goodbye to great matchups like Miami/Ohio State, or Florida State/Oklahoma, or Penn State/Alabama and say hello to snoozers like Ohio State/Villa Maria School for the Blind.

Why would a team have any motivation to schedule a good OOC opponent when they could schedule cake teams and then go on to win their conference to get an auto bid.

Don't act like a playoff wouldn't completely ruin the regular season skyotyk. Because it absolutely would.

And you think OSU-Marshall would make them more money than OSU-Miami? We'd see more of those games. Teams are so afraid right now to schedule 'too many' tough games and hope to squeak by playing mostly Cupcake U and Creampuff Tech around one somewhat decent school.

The reason games against FCS teams now count in the BCS every year is because teams needed more patsies. Previously, a team could only count a win against an FCS school once every other year. Why did they need this? To be able to schedule more and more meaningless games when there was a lack of available cupcakes at the FBS level.

Sykotyk

"Qualify which self-appointed conferences qualify. Maybe a set number of teams (say, 12 or more teams gives automatic qualification) or after a few years, create a UEFA like metric qualifying conference based on playoff performance (such as a point system for victories by round, 1 for first, 2 for 2nd, etc). That, of course, would take a few years before creating some sort of baseline for qualification."

That would not work because you would be right back to the same problem as now. You would have one conference who gets dominated all the time and then maybe has their one legit team in a year in which the conference's reputation has already cost it a spot and that team gets left out.

"Secondly, so what if the Sun Belt gets creamed every year in the first round? At least they're given the chance on the field. So they lose. Why does that bother you so much? That a team was given a chance? A legitimate unbiased attempt to let them prove it."

So, you want the best teams to have a chance but you are willing to give a team with 5 losses a shot over teams with 2 and 3 losses just because the 5 loss team has put itself in a conference of weak teams? Your solution doesn't even address its main point - to give the best teams a legitimate shot at the title.

"As for those saying the regular season is the playoffs and every game matters. Good luck explaining to me how Indiana-Northwestern in October 'matters'. So, no, not every game matters."

In that particular example, Northwestern is likely still playing for a bowl bid...or for a better bowl bid. It might not be a big deal to you since it isn't the championship game, but the players are still playing for something. You think Northwestern players are going to say, "well, I'd rather give up my bowl experiences for Ohio State (or Boise State, for that matter) to have had the chance to win a playoff"?

"Very rarely in the regular season do two teams late in the season have a legitimate argument to a be one of the two participants in the BCS Championship Game actually play eachother to act as a de facto playoff for the title game. Instead, we get Florida against 3 loss Mississippi State or Texas against 4 loss Texas A&M and we're sitting there hoping the underdog with nothing more than pride to play for does what an actual good team might have a chance to do in an actual PLAYOFF."

It doesn't have to mean as much for both teams directly involved to be important to multiple teams. As an OSU fan, LSU, VT fan, etc. you were probably watching WVU lose to an under .500 Pitt team a few years ago because you needed Pitt to win to have a shot at the title game yourself. With a playoff, how interesting would that game have been to the rest of the country? That is the difference between college football and what people call the value of the regular season - college football viewers watch plenty of games other than their own team's because those other games impact their own team.

Mooney44Cards;479330 wrote:Umm, if Auburn didn't motivate the system to change, why would Boise State?

Auburn wasn't held out by a small conference team playing a weak schedule. Auburn's fan base also isn't the loudest fanbase around. I'm just saying if Ohio State/Alabama/Texas gets held out of a championship by Boise State, the system will be skewered the entire month leading up to it. Frankly one of the reasons the BCS has continued to thrive is that it has the support of the schools that matter (i.e Ohio State, not freaking Auburn). If that support dries up, then we might see some momentum

I do not agree at all that the Sun Belt needs a shot in a playoff. The regular season needs to matter. If you go 7-5 (which the Sun Belt champ probably will/does)... then you do not deserve a chance in the playoff. A system that rewards regular season dominance is the only way it should be done. If the Sun Belt champ plays a tough schedule and is undefeated, and they are voted as a top 5 team, cool. Let them in. Just do not let them in because you feel like you have to.

after thinking about it, a six team playoff could work. use the final bcs rankings to determine seeds 1-6. have seeds 3-6 play each other (3 hosts 6, 4 hosts 5) on heisman weekend. have the winners advance to two of the bcs bowl games where the lowest remaining seed plays number 1 and the highest remaining seed plays number 2. winners of the two bcs games can meet in a game at the superbowl site a week before the super bowl.

using this system last year, cincinnati would have hosted boise state and tcu would have hosted florida. say boise and florida advance. then boise would have played alabama in the sugar bowl with texas and florida meeting up in the fiesta bowl. winners would have advanced to miami.

keeps the bowl games. maintains competitve and meaningful regular season games. determines a champion out of the top 6 ranked teams at the end of the season. are there flaws? of course, but i think there would be fewer flaws than what we have now or any other potential playoff system.

enigmaax;479591 wrote:"Qualify which self-appointed conferences qualify. Maybe a set number of teams (say, 12 or more teams gives automatic qualification) or after a few years, create a UEFA like metric qualifying conference based on playoff performance (such as a point system for victories by round, 1 for first, 2 for 2nd, etc). That, of course, would take a few years before creating some sort of baseline for qualification."

That would not work because you would be right back to the same problem as now. You would have one conference who gets dominated all the time and then maybe has their one legit team in a year in which the conference's reputation has already cost it a spot and that team gets left out.

I thought it was self-evident that there would be some sort of wildcard qualifier as well for the conferences without AQ status (like top 6 conferences AQ, the bottom five must have their champion be the higher rated non-AQ team. Under your perception, once a conference was 'eliminated' from the playoff AQ, they'd never get into the playoffs again ever (as the metric would be playoff results). I didn't think I had to spell it out. Will remember better next time.

"Secondly, so what if the Sun Belt gets creamed every year in the first round? At least they're given the chance on the field. So they lose. Why does that bother you so much? That a team was given a chance? A legitimate unbiased attempt to let them prove it."

So, you want the best teams to have a chance but you are willing to give a team with 5 losses a shot over teams with 2 and 3 losses just because the 5 loss team has put itself in a conference of weak teams? Your solution doesn't even address its main point - to give the best teams a legitimate shot at the title.

Where did I ever say I was looking for the best teams? I was looking to crown a champion of Division I-FBS football. If Florida and Alabama are the two 'best' teams in I-FBS, and they play eachother in the SEC title game and one eliminates the other, they had their shot in their conference to win their crown and advance. They didn't. There's no do-overs for the non-conference champions. No shot at redemption. They had their shot. They failed.

"As for those saying the regular season is the playoffs and every game matters. Good luck explaining to me how Indiana-Northwestern in October 'matters'. So, no, not every game matters."

In that particular example, Northwestern is likely still playing for a bowl bid...or for a better bowl bid. It might not be a big deal to you since it isn't the championship game, but the players are still playing for something. You think Northwestern players are going to say, "well, I'd rather give up my bowl experiences for Ohio State (or Boise State, for that matter) to have had the chance to win a playoff"?

So, we're back to the 'everybody gets a trophy' mindset. It makes N'western feel all warm and fuzzy inside to think that somebody still cares about their fruitless season. Sorry. It's a consolation. And with a playoff you can still let non-playoff teams feel all good about themselves in a bowl game. There may be a playoff in basketball, but there's still an NIT for the also-rans.

"Very rarely in the regular season do two teams late in the season have a legitimate argument to a be one of the two participants in the BCS Championship Game actually play eachother to act as a de facto playoff for the title game. Instead, we get Florida against 3 loss Mississippi State or Texas against 4 loss Texas A&M and we're sitting there hoping the underdog with nothing more than pride to play for does what an actual good team might have a chance to do in an actual PLAYOFF."

It doesn't have to mean as much for both teams directly involved to be important to multiple teams. As an OSU fan, LSU, VT fan, etc. you were probably watching WVU lose to an under .500 Pitt team a few years ago because you needed Pitt to win to have a shot at the title game yourself. With a playoff, how interesting would that game have been to the rest of the country? That is the difference between college football and what people call the value of the regular season - college football viewers watch plenty of games other than their own team's because those other games impact their own team.

But, it means very little when a team sitting at #3 has to hope another team settles it on the field for them by proxy. I'd rather see that #3 team have a shot at it themselves. As for Pitt-WVU. You're trying to argue ONE GAME matters because of the BCS. I can name HUNDREDS of games that don't matter because of the BCS that would still have meaning if there was a truly egalitarian, open, and fair playoff setup in I-FBS.

The regular season has value to teams still alive for the title. Anybody who thinks the Car Care Bowl, Humanitarian Bowl, Alamo Bowl, Poinsettia Bowl, etc are something to strive for are settling for consolation prizes. You lose two games. You're done. Completely. Your games don't matter to anyone than a handful of diehards unless you've got a rivalry game coming up or are lucky enough to be playing a 'top 5' school down the stretch to play spoiler.

Let's give everyone a trophy and end the charade, then. If the bowls are about making you feel good about your pathetic season and to give half the schools that qualify a chance to end the season with a win, then let's take that next step. Let's just give everyone a trophy and a free trip to San Diego, Los Angeles, Hawaii, Florida, New Orleans, Houston, etc and save ourselves the con game that somehow a sport that prides itself on 'every game is a playoff' gives consolation prizes to almost half the runner-ups.

Sykotyk

Sykotyk;479897 wrote: I thought it was self-evident that there would be some sort of wildcard qualifier as well for the conferences without AQ status (like top 6 conferences AQ, the bottom five must have their champion be the higher rated non-AQ team. Under your perception, once a conference was 'eliminated' from the playoff AQ, they'd never get into the playoffs again ever (as the metric would be playoff results). I didn't think I had to spell it out. Will remember better next time.

I didn't mean they'd never make the playoffs again, but if your conference has a stigma you do still run the risk of having your top team miss out without the AQ because you are still relying on some elements of the current BCS system - somebody has to pick teams.

Sykotyk;479897 wrote: Where did I ever say I was looking for the best teams? I was looking to crown a champion of Division I-FBS football. If Florida and Alabama are the two 'best' teams in I-FBS, and they play eachother in the SEC title game and one eliminates the other, they had their shot in their conference to win their crown and advance. They didn't. There's no do-overs for the non-conference champions. No shot at redemption. They had their shot. They failed.

So, you want a playoff that doesn't include the best teams? Okay, that is dumb. Oh, you are looking to crown a champion. Oh wait, that already happens. You aren't doing anything different except shifting games from one part of the existing postseason to another part of the postseason.

Sykotyk;479897 wrote: So, we're back to the 'everybody gets a trophy' mindset. It makes N'western feel all warm and fuzzy inside to think that somebody still cares about their fruitless season. Sorry. It's a consolation. And with a playoff you can still let non-playoff teams feel all good about themselves in a bowl game. There may be a playoff in basketball, but there's still an NIT for the also-rans.

I don't disagree about the everybody-gets-a-trophy mindset. I don't particularly care for it and the number of bowls has gotten out of control. However there are still reasons and benefits to the system and it still does impact a very large number of people and schools. I do not believe the bowl system would ultimately continue with a shift to playoffs. The marketing lure of a bowl game drops dramatically when you change the bowl dynamic (where there are several bowl games, but each has its own identity within the overall system).

Just because YOU or I don't think those lower bowls are worth a damn doesn't mean that the rest of the world agrees.....or even enough of the would-be participants. It still comes down to, the one thing you are looking for - crowning a champion - already happens, plus all the other stuff that works for participants. The fact that you want more teams to play more games toward that championship crown after the regular season is really not a strong point for why the system needs to change. It doesn't need to change, so there's no point in doing it.

Sykotyk;479897 wrote:But, it means very little when a team sitting at #3 has to hope another team settles it on the field for them by proxy. I'd rather see that #3 team have a shot at it themselves. As for Pitt-WVU. You're trying to argue ONE GAME matters because of the BCS. I can name HUNDREDS of games that don't matter because of the BCS that would still have meaning if there was a truly egalitarian, open, and fair playoff setup in I-FBS.

The regular season has value to teams still alive for the title. Anybody who thinks the Car Care Bowl, Humanitarian Bowl, Alamo Bowl, Poinsettia Bowl, etc are something to strive for are settling for consolation prizes. You lose two games. You're done. Completely. Your games don't matter to anyone than a handful of diehards unless you've got a rivalry game coming up or are lucky enough to be playing a 'top 5' school down the stretch to play spoiler.

Sykotyk

So how many of those games would become more important with a playoff? Heading into the last couple weeks of the season, you'd have 10-12 teams already locked into the playoffs whose outcomes don't count. Then you'd have 5-7 teams still with a shot at the playoffs. Instead of having the top 5-7 teams still with a realistic shot at the title game. It just shifts the important to the outcome of games involving lower ranked teams. Not better.

enigmaax;480066 wrote:I didn't mean they'd never make the playoffs again, but if your conference has a stigma you do still run the risk of having your top team miss out without the AQ because you are still relying on some elements of the current BCS system - somebody has to pick teams.

That's if you relied on bias and opinion to qualify teams. I'd rather use record vs. strength of schedule vs. opponents strength of schedule. Much more indicative of who is the better team.

So, you want a playoff that doesn't include the best teams? Okay, that is dumb. Oh, you are looking to crown a champion. Oh wait, that already happens. You aren't doing anything different except shifting games from one part of the existing postseason to another part of the postseason.

If Alabama loses in the SEC title game, and were the 2nd best team, why do they deserve a do-over while, say, Oregon in the PAC-10 only gets one shot at each level of the tournament?

If you don't win your conference, you obviously weren't THAT good, no matter how great your conference's champion was. Remember, my post stated qualification AND elimination. Just because a good team gets eliminated early (comparing the regular season to a preliminary round) doesn't mean they get a second chance.

Sorry, it's a cruel world.

I don't disagree about the everybody-gets-a-trophy mindset. I don't particularly care for it and the number of bowls has gotten out of control. However there are still reasons and benefits to the system and it still does impact a very large number of people and schools. I do not believe the bowl system would ultimately continue with a shift to playoffs. The marketing lure of a bowl game drops dramatically when you change the bowl dynamic (where there are several bowl games, but each has its own identity within the overall system).

And the lower bowls haven't been devalued enough? Even mid-level bowls such as the Alamo, Holiday, Cotton, Gator and Peach aren't what they used to be. The simple act of creating the BCS (and all its former personas) has slowly killed the bowls. They are a consolation prize. Nothing more. No team has ever played in a non-major bowl and proudly proclaimed, "We're champions of the Meineke Car Care Bowl" the next year. If you play Middle Tennessee and win by 40, you feel good. But you play Florida and lose by 2 you're supposed to feel bad?

The bowls are quite content with the status quo. The big six conferences are quite content with the status quo. Why? Because they're still in control. They get the money. They get to be the gatekeepers. They get to keep up this charade that hundreds of thousands of people fall for every year. I cast no aspersions as to what the bowls are. One last chance to see college football be played out over the course of mid-December to early January. Because I love the sport that much. But I don't think the bowl system is great. The 'our coach leaves our school before the bowl, but we're going to have fun anyways' mentality.

Just because YOU or I don't think those lower bowls are worth a damn doesn't mean that the rest of the world agrees.....or even enough of the would-be participants. It still comes down to, the one thing you are looking for - crowning a champion - already happens, plus all the other stuff that works for participants. The fact that you want more teams to play more games toward that championship crown after the regular season is really not a strong point for why the system needs to change. It doesn't need to change, so there's no point in doing it.

I can pull two teams out of a hat of 120 and call that a championship game, too.

If rankings were accurate, there'd be no surprises. The higher ranked team would always win and it would be a boring affair. Everyone was CERTAIN that Ohio State was the better team. There was no debate. Newspapers, magazines, television, all agreed. Then they played Florida. We were wrong. Horribly, horribly wrong.

So what makes you think that any other year given any other matchup you couldn't be horribly, horribly wrong again? There is no magic elixir, no amazing formula to decipher who the two best teams are to pit them in a title game. Because, if the system was so accurate, we wouldn't even need to play the game.

So how many of those games would become more important with a playoff? Heading into the last couple weeks of the season, you'd have 10-12 teams already locked into the playoffs whose outcomes don't count. Then you'd have 5-7 teams still with a shot at the playoffs. Instead of having the top 5-7 teams still with a realistic shot at the title game. It just shifts the important to the outcome of games involving lower ranked teams. Not better.

First, not every conference is wrapped up by the last week of conference play. It's foolish to state that, given five schools play a title game regardless of the regular season outcome. Every team that still is mathematically alive for their conference title would be playing a game that mattered. Miami lost a non-conference game today and are basically cast out of the championship picture. They could lay waste to the ACC and still have the scarlet & grey letter pinned to their chest.

I guess it comes down to this, if the current system was great, why doesn't any other sport or any other level of the NCAA follow suit? Why not eliminate March Madness and create the Basketball Championship Series where Duke and UConn are pulled out of a hat of 300+ schools and get to play each other for the title. No need to invite anyone else. No need to spend all that money on a tournament. Butler and Kent State can play in the Fort Wayne Basketball Classic on Memorial Day. Have a parade down Main Street and celebrate the wonderful tradition and pageantry of college basketball. Where half the schools get to end the season with the win and no ne'er-do-wells to worry about upsetting the title game with some mid-level school with few fans, athletic dollars, or history to get in the way.

Sykotyk

"That's if you relied on bias and opinion to qualify teams. I'd rather use record vs. strength of schedule vs. opponents strength of schedule. Much more indicative of who is the better team."

Accounted for the computer ratings aspect of the BCS formula.

"If Alabama loses in the SEC title game, and were the 2nd best team, why do they deserve a do-over while, say, Oregon in the PAC-10 only gets one shot at each level of the tournament?

If you don't win your conference, you obviously weren't THAT good, no matter how great your conference's champion was. Remember, my post stated qualification AND elimination. Just because a good team gets eliminated early (comparing the regular season to a preliminary round) doesn't mean they get a second chance.

Sorry, it's a cruel world."

Not winning your conference does not necessarily mean you weren't THAT good. If Alabama and Oregon both lost a game, Alabama lost to the #1 team and Oregon lost to a .500 team but still won its conference, why would Oregon deserve a do over just because they won a conference that was weaker. Typically there are plenty of 1-loss teams and typically there is a team whose resume is more impressive based on the very things you said needed to be included. Voters also weigh who beat better teams. And only two teams are selected for the title game. Sorry, it's a cruel world.

Again, you aren't saying anything earthshattering, groundbreaking, or anything that says your idea is any better than what is done today.

As for the last paragraph, the absolute worst argument for anything is that everybody else does this or that. The basketball tournament works for college basketball. Why don't college basketball teams play a series vs each opponent, that is clearly a better way of determining who is better - just look at the NBA. Or why doesn't the NBA adopt a single elimination tournament since that is clearly more exciting? There are plenty of different ways to determine a champion, each with good and bad and room for discussion. The bowl system works for college football. Changing just for the sake of change doesn't mean it is going to be better all the way around.

enigmaax;480869 wrote:"That's if you relied on bias and opinion to qualify teams. I'd rather use record vs. strength of schedule vs. opponents strength of schedule. Much more indicative of who is the better team."

Accounted for the computer ratings aspect of the BCS formula.

The computer rankings account for 20% of the total. Of which, there's like five computer polls that are averaged. Some of them, we don't even know what formula they use to rank teams. As much as people dislike the Harbins, the point system is very simple and easy to figure.

"If Alabama loses in the SEC title game, and were the 2nd best team, why do they deserve a do-over while, say, Oregon in the PAC-10 only gets one shot at each level of the tournament?

If you don't win your conference, you obviously weren't THAT good, no matter how great your conference's champion was. Remember, my post stated qualification AND elimination. Just because a good team gets eliminated early (comparing the regular season to a preliminary round) doesn't mean they get a second chance.

Sorry, it's a cruel world."

Not winning your conference does not necessarily mean you weren't THAT good. If Alabama and Oregon both lost a game, Alabama lost to the #1 team and Oregon lost to a .500 team but still won its conference, why would Oregon deserve a do over just because they won a conference that was weaker. Typically there are plenty of 1-loss teams and typically there is a team whose resume is more impressive based on the very things you said needed to be included. Voters also weigh who beat better teams. And only two teams are selected for the title game. Sorry, it's a cruel world.

Again, you aren't saying anything earthshattering, groundbreaking, or anything that says your idea is any better than what is done today.

When did I say Oregon would get a do-over? If one loss eliminated you, as you're strongly implying, why can an early season loss by a mere obstacle? You win your conference, you're in. if you didn't, you can't complain because, based on YOUR league, you're second rate. If we give Georgia a second pass, why not any other team? It's rather insulting to think a team that HAD a shot at a conference championship and failed should get a do-over against the same team that beat them while a team that did win their conference and proved over the course of the season that they were be better team out of the 10 teams in their league gets shut out because of preconceived notions of team strength or league strength.

As for the last paragraph, the absolute worst argument for anything is that everybody else does this or that. The basketball tournament works for college basketball. Why don't college basketball teams play a series vs each opponent, that is clearly a better way of determining who is better - just look at the NBA. Or why doesn't the NBA adopt a single elimination tournament since that is clearly more exciting? There are plenty of different ways to determine a champion, each with good and bad and room for discussion. The bowl system works for college football. Changing just for the sake of change doesn't mean it is going to be better all the way around.

It's one thing to have a better system. It's another to argue against something simply because you're a non-conformist. If the bowl system is PERFECT for NCAA DI-FBS, what makes it so? Compared to the other sports, other organizations, and more importantly, other levels of NCAA football.

Obviously, if this is a good system, it can be defended by more than just the 'why conform, we like being different' argument. What separates DI-FBS and D-FCS that makes a playoff the unwanted postseason system for DI-FBS but perfectly acceptable and well-received by the FCS crowd?

Money? Most definitely.
Bigger Schools? Obviously.
Tradition? We've disproven this one many times over. If the money is right, tradition goes out the window.
Distribution of Income? *bingo*

The biggest schools control where the money goes in the bowl system. Good or bad, win or lose, they've gamed the system over the decades to favor them. No need to worry about some ankle-biter. They'll nibble on the BCS scraps and like it.

In a playoff, you're compensated based on accomplishment, not notoriety.

But, go ahead, keep arguing until you're blue in the face that this isn't totalitarian, that somehow this biased 'not on the field' championship is somehow egalitarian and worthy for all involved. Because, as you failed to respond to most of my original points I'm assuming you either agree or have no way to defend.

Sykotyk

P.S., please learn how to use the 'quote' function. So much easy to read and disseminate who is writing what when you're responding to people.

Syk - So if you don't understand the computers it can't be a viable formula? Okay, let's dumb it down because that obviously makes it better.

Then you go back to, "you win your conference you're in". Now you are assuming all conferences are equal. But didn't you also just say you wanted a computer system? I don't really know what you are arguing any more. A computer system could quite easily favor the same schools and conferences that are favored now. And again, why would a conference champion be any more entitled to a "do-over" as you keep calling it even if they played inferior competition. Unless you are going to try and some way balance conferences, the simple fact is that they are not equal and should not be treated as such.

None of this has to do with being non-conformist. It has everything to do with the system works just fine. Big time schools get the biggest cut? Well, big time schools bring in the most dough. Look at attendance. Look at TV ratings. Why would those schools want to give equal revenue to schools that aren't contributing in kind? Do you know how far that money goes to support numerous other sports at the schools pulling it in? Call it totalitarian or whatever you want. Everybody isn't created equal, though. The sport is doing fine, the schools that pull in the money do well and the schools who don't always do well still get some slices of the pie. Why does anyone else deserve a handout?

"The biggest schools control where the money goes in the bowl system. Good or bad, win or lose, they've gamed the system over the decades to favor them."

Exactly right. They CREATED the system. The members own it. If anyone is unhappy, they could start a movement to create a different system. Why won't that happen? Because they aren't strong enough. But they are being treated unfairly? Please.

By the way, it is much easier to pull out and put quotations around the couple of sentences I'm responding to in your posts than quote the whole thing and delete 90% of it. Sorry, you'll just have to deal with that one.

enigmaax;481548 wrote:Syk - So if you don't understand the computers it can't be a viable formula? Okay, let's dumb it down because that obviously makes it better.

No, the issue is that some of the computer polls are 'private' and we don't know what their calculations are that bring them to their final ranking. It's not a matter of understanding or not understanding the formula. The problem is that we don't know what formula some of them are using.

Peter Wolfe
Wes Colley
Sagarin
Seattle Times
Richard Billingsley
Kenneth Massey

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/sports/content/sports/epaper/2008/11/21/1121computers.html

There also is the issue of accountability. Only Colley has made his formula public. The other five keep theirs secret, for business purposes.

And the BCS does not audit the formulas to make sure they are being run correctly.

Seems to me we really don't know. Right? Or, should we do this on faith?

Then you go back to, "you win your conference you're in". Now you are assuming all conferences are equal. But didn't you also just say you wanted a computer system? I don't really know what you are arguing any more. A computer system could quite easily favor the same schools and conferences that are favored now. And again, why would a conference champion be any more entitled to a "do-over" as you keep calling it even if they played inferior competition. Unless you are going to try and some way balance conferences, the simple fact is that they are not equal and should not be treated as such.

If they're inferior, it will be found out on the field, would it not? It's not like I'm suggesting school can do an end-run around their own inability to play.

Secondly, you keep talking about best, but Alabama played their schedule last year, and won every game. Would you not agree that Alabama, given all the same players, coaches, etc. would also go undefeated if they played Louisiana-Monroe's schedule? I would. But, this great team is hamstrung because of their schedule, not because they're any worse for wear.

So, you can argue my system is letting in inferior teams, while I know your system DOES let in inferior teams. If team A is #1 in your eyes, and team B is #2. And team B beats Team A. Who is to say that Team C (#3) couldn't also. You were wrong once. You could've been wrong again. We'll never know.

It's a popularity contest that no one wins.

None of this has to do with being non-conformist. It has everything to do with the system works just fine. Big time schools get the biggest cut? Well, big time schools bring in the most dough. Look at attendance. Look at TV ratings. Why would those schools want to give equal revenue to schools that aren't contributing in kind? Do you know how far that money goes to support numerous other sports at the schools pulling it in? Call it totalitarian or whatever you want. Everybody isn't created equal, though. The sport is doing fine, the schools that pull in the money do well and the schools who don't always do well still get some slices of the pie. Why does anyone else deserve a handout?

The payout would be based on tournament performance. If the bigger are best, they get the bigger cut of the money. But they don't want to take that chance. What if the Big Ten keeps flaming out in the first round. While the MWC keeps going to the semifinals. That would seriously crush their net revenue, while increasing the Mountain West's revenue. See where we're going? I'm not talking about a handout. If the payout is $a for an appearance, $b for a first round win, $c for a semifinal win, and $d for winning it all... you win, you get paid. You don't win, you don't get paid. That's not rocket science. That's how the March Madness system works. You advance, you make more money (which by conference affiliation you share with your conference), you lose. You don't make any more money.

And if you're driving your car and you have a half a tank, you're 'doing just fine'. But, keep on driving to Los Angeles and see just how 'fine' you are by doing nothing.

"The biggest schools control where the money goes in the bowl system. Good or bad, win or lose, they've gamed the system over the decades to favor them."

Exactly right. They CREATED the system. The members own it. If anyone is unhappy, they could start a movement to create a different system. Why won't that happen? Because they aren't strong enough. But they are being treated unfairly? Please.

66 schools in FBS are BCS schools. There's 120 FBS schools. Simple math dictates how the vote will fall every time. Which is why when the Big East was raided by the ACC the BCS felt it was imperative that the Big East remain a BCS conference. Otherwise, you'd have roughly 58 of 120 schools in the BCS. Which, is low enough to lose the vote. Same reason ESPN (which just agreed to billions of dollars for the BCS starting next year) were in background talks with the Big 12 promising more money to them if they stuck together while not reporting a word to the public about their conflict of interest. If the Big 12 dissolved (Nebraska to the Big Ten, and the six to the PAC-10) would've left the BCS with 61 of 120, much too close to 50%. If the Big East were raided by the Big Ten and ACC, the castoffs would probably put the BCS below 60, and unable to control the vote.

It was more than 'should the Big Ten invite Rutgers, Nebraska, Missouri, etc'. it was 'if we kill this league and their castoffs fall to non-BCS leagues, we're no longer in control'. The age of the superconference would only work if all four big conference switched immediately. Which, there was too much disagreement. Why? Because four superconferences would mean the creation of a playoff exclusive of the bottom-feeders. Which would fly in the face of congress (these are tax-free institutions of higher learning, after all). You can't argue the current system is better, but then create the same system you railed against while keeping the little schools down when your original argument was they couldn't compete for the title because there was no playoffs.

By the way, it is much easier to pull out and put quotations around the couple of sentences I'm responding to in your posts than quote the whole thing and delete 90% of it. Sorry, you'll just have to deal with that one.

No problems then.

Sykotyk