If there was a 8 team playoff & your team is #8 seed that means the fans have to travel 3 weeks in a row to away games if you make it to the Championship game, tickets would be $100 or more, hotel,air travel & having payed for season tickets already do you think fans would do this?

enigmaax wrote:

Red_Skin_Pride wrote: Since you guys are so big on the bottom line, the bottom line of college football is WINS AND LOSSES. If your Mt. West champion is sitting there at 13-0, and your "great" SEC team is sitting there with 3 losses, hell yes you're taking the undefeated team. If you want to continue to play; WIN. It's like that in every other sport, at every other level in the country. Why do we baby college football players?

The argument is about taking a 3-loss SEC team over an undefeated MWC champion. It is about taking a 5-loss Sun Belt team over a 3-loss team from any other conference.

Either it is about wins and losses or it isn't. If it IS, then an autobid for winning a conference with 5 losses cannot be part of your equation. You can't say to one team, "you should have won more", then turn around to another team and say, "well, even though you didn't win very much, we'll still take you."

If a playoff were even a remote possibility, there would either be no autobids, only autobids for the current AQ conferences, or the requirements for playing in the highest division would be such that all those non-AQ schools that are just taking up space would be forced down a level.

The funny thing about this argument is people get so mad at those of us who shoot holes in their "perfect" system and it ends with basically saying we'd just have to accept the flaws. The problem is, the onus isn't on us. Until you think of a system that makes everyone happy, including those with the current leverage (because nobody is going to give that up), it is you who must accept the flaws. Replacing one set of flaws with another isn't a solution and it isn't any better.

But they won their conference though. How is that hard to comprehend??

If your team and my team played in the same conference in basketball, this is exactly how the system works. Lets say we play in a little tiny conference like the MAAC (metro atlantic athletic conference). Your team finishes with only two losses overall, but both of those losses were to my team (in conference). My team finishes with 10 losses overall, losing to a lot of OOC opponents, but we dominate the conference games and we win the conference tournament to get the autobid to the NCAA. Your team has an awesome record, but must rely on an at-large to get in. My team has an average record, but because I did what I knew I had to against the rest of my conference to reach the postseason, I get the autobid. Furthermore, it doesn't matter in the least that I lost 10 games, and a team with a better record from a different conference gets left out. The NCAA selection committee looks at that team with a better record and says "you should have done what they did". They tell teams for MONTHS before the tourney if they're on the bubble or not; if you are, you better get on it and win your conference tourney, or there's a chance you won't get an at-large bid. If you don't want that to happen WIN YOUR FREAKING CONFERENCE.

Your team might complain if they don't get an at-large bid, but the only ones they have to blame are themselves, for not beating the team(s) that they really NEEDED to beat to reach the postseason. In a playoff system, YOU are held responsible if you don't make the playoff, because you didn't get it done. The way the BCS is right now, a COMPUTER SYSTEM is responsible for determining who does and does not make the BCS, or a national championship game. Not to mention, as I said before, everyone starts off conference play with an equal opportunity to reach the post-season. OOC games help your cause to recieve an at-large bid if you don't win your conference. It is about wins and losses, just not in the way you're thinking it should be, and the way the current BCS system is set up to be. If you win your division in the NFL, you're in the playoffs. If you win your conference tourney in basketball, no matter your record, you're in the NCAA tourney. The Bengals are 9-4 right now in football; they should have no shot at the superbowl by BCS and your way of thinking. Will they win it? Most likely not. Haven't seen anyone who's going to march through both the Colts and Saints to win it. But the point is, even though they have 4 losses, they're doing what they need to do in their division to continue to play in the post season. I don't care if Florida is 12-1 and Troy is 7-5. One took care of buisness to win their conference, the other did not. You can't honestly tell me this system doesn't work, when the second-most popular college sport (basketball) and Pro football use it and it works.

And I'm not claiming it to be "perfect", but as a poster above mentioned, it would be a hell of a lot better to have two teams with 2-3 losses arguing over an at-large bid, than have 5 undefeated teams arguing over who should be in the NC game. Because at the end of the day, it's a lot more justifiable to tell a 2-3 loss team "you lost too many games, and you didn't win your conference", than it is to tell an undefeated team, who did win their conference that they have NO chance to even play for a national title.

If you don't want a playoff, you're an idiot. Sorry. That's just the facts of the matter at hand.

As a former student at University of Montana---let me just say---I am much more excited for the National Title game tonight than I am for a meaningless exhibition game in January.... which is what the Rose Bowl equates to this year.

The only reason it hasn't happened is because people who make money now wouldn't profit off the playoffs. That's just how it works in America.

^^Exactly. I love how Gordon Gee, OSU's president, says a playoff would result in the "professionalization of college football." Guess what, Gordon, college football has already gone down that path.
If anything, the current system is geared more for making money (not always bad, mind you) than determining a true champion, which would seem to be a pillar of any athletic pursuit. Nothing flies more in the face of true athletics than the lack of a proven method to determine a champion. Yes, the BCS is way better than the old system, but the 2-team playoff needs to be expanded.

The fact that other sports do things a certain way do not make them better. It is stupid for the NFL to give an 8-8 division champ a spot in the playoffs over an 11-5 team. It is stupid for NCAA basketball conferences to give their tourney autobid to a team that wins three games in a row after the regular season is over - what in the hell was the point of playing the regular season?

Pro football is a little different anyway in that teams play a far more balanced schedule across divisions. There is virtually ZERO scheduling balance in NCAA football. What little balance there is actually bores out the contenders from the pretenders. When the Sun Belt wins less than 20% of its games against big six conference schools, you see the distinction. Competition between NFL divisions doesn't tend to stray as far from the median over the long haul. The Sun Belt has NEVER and will likely never be anything remotely close to equal with the major conferences.

NCAA basketball allows 64 teams in the tourney. They have room to allow the mid-majors in. If you equate the records, 9-3 in a major football conference is like going winning 22-23 games in basketball. It isn't very often that a team who wins that many games in a major conference is left out of the tourney.

NCAA football has a discrepancy in talent levels within FBS that doens't exist in other sports or, as mentioned above, impacts it much differently than other sports. For all of these reasons, the argument that "other sports do it" doesn't have any merit.

This thought that dividing teams up for geographical reasons or scheduling reasons or whatever other reasons conferences form somehow makes all conferences equal is ridiculous. The fact that Middle Tennessee State isn't good enough or doesn't contribute enough to be admitted to a major conference, but can then go and form a conference with other similarly inferior teams and be treated as equals is laughable.

As I've said, autobids are stupid for BCS bowls and they'd be stupid for a playoff system.

enigmaax wrote: The fact that other sports do things a certain way do not make them better. It is stupid for the NFL to give an 8-8 division champ a spot in the playoffs over an 11-5 team. It is stupid for NCAA basketball conferences to give their tourney autobid to a team that wins three games in a row after the regular season is over - what in the hell was the point of playing the regular season?

Pro football is a little different anyway in that teams play a far more balanced schedule across divisions. There is virtually ZERO scheduling balance in NCAA football. What little balance there is actually bores out the contenders from the pretenders. When the Sun Belt wins less than 20% of its games against big six conference schools, you see the distinction. Competition between NFL divisions doesn't tend to stray as far from the median over the long haul. The Sun Belt has NEVER and will likely never be anything remotely close to equal with the major conferences.

NCAA basketball allows 64 teams in the tourney. They have room to allow the mid-majors in. If you equate the records, 9-3 in a major football conference is like going winning 22-23 games in basketball. It isn't very often that a team who wins that many games in a major conference is left out of the tourney.

NCAA football has a discrepancy in talent levels within FBS that doens't exist in other sports or, as mentioned above, impacts it much differently than other sports. For all of these reasons, the argument that "other sports do it" doesn't have any merit.

This thought that dividing teams up for geographical reasons or scheduling reasons or whatever other reasons conferences form somehow makes all conferences equal is ridiculous. The fact that Middle Tennessee State isn't good enough or doesn't contribute enough to be admitted to a major conference, but can then go and form a conference with other similarly inferior teams and be treated as equals is laughable.

As I've said, autobids are stupid for BCS bowls and they'd be stupid for a playoff system.

To expand on this a bit, you touched on it....this disparity between the best teams and the worst teams is much larger (both in size and skill) in college football than it is in college basketball. Thats why upsets happen, because the difference between an elite basketball team and a bad one isn't as big. Its also why teams don't often go undefeated in basketball. So letting the conference champions in for the basketball tournament is ok, because it makes for good basketball. Troy vs. Alabama makes for boring football, and the fact that people are actually wanting to switch to that is completely insane. I'd rather watch the New Mexico Bowl tomorrow than Troy vs. Alabama.

Lets take a look at these other divisions that supposedly do things the fair way and give everybody a chance, shall we?

NCAA Division I-AA Football Championship
1978 Florida A&M Massachusetts 35–28
1979 Eastern Kentucky Lehigh 30–7
1980 Boise State Eastern Kentucky 31–29
1981 Idaho State Eastern Kentucky 34–23
1982 Eastern Kentucky Delaware 17–14
1983 Southern Illinois Western Carolina 43–7
1984 Montana State Louisiana Tech 19–6
1985 Georgia Southern Furman 44–42
1986 Georgia Southern Arkansas State 48–21
1987 Northeast Louisiana† Marshall 43–42
1988 Furman Georgia Southern 17–12
1989 Georgia Southern Stephen F. Austin 37–34
1990 Georgia Southern Nevada 36–13
1991 Youngstown State Marshall 25–17
1992 Marshall Youngstown State 31–28
1993 Youngstown State Marshall 17–5
1994 Youngstown State Boise State 28–14
1995 Montana Marshall 22–20
1996 Marshall Montana 49–29
1997 Youngstown State McNeese State 10–9
1998 Massachusetts Georgia Southern 55–43
1999 Georgia Southern Youngstown State 59–24
2000 Georgia Southern Montana 27–25
2001 Montana Furman 13–6
2002 Western Kentucky McNeese State 34–14
2003 Delaware Colgate 40–0
2004 James Madison Montana 31–21
2005 Appalachian State Northern Iowa 21–16
2006 Appalachian State Massachusetts 28–17
2007 Appalachian State Delaware 49–21
2008 Richmond Montana 24–7
2009 Villanova Montana

Wow......that looks fair. From 1985-2001 there were only 7 different schools winning. 32 years....64 teams playing. 34 times out of 64 teams total it was one of 6 teams. Seven times out of 32 years both teams were one of those 6 powerhouses. Even I-A college football has more parity than that.

Go ahead check out D2, its even worse. Grand Valley State, Northwest Missouri State, and so on and so on.

D3, same story, a few elites in the title game every year. Mount Union vs. Wisconsin-Whitewater? Yawn, seen that played out before.

Seems like this precious playoffs isn't really doing anything except making the elite teams even more elite. Sweet I can't wait til USC gets a freee pass for losing to a shitty Pac10 team and steamrolls through the playoffs most years. Ditto Florida, ditto OSU. Its funny but the BCS actually CREATES parity more than it prevents it. Since 1980, only Florida, Nebraska and Miami have won a NC more than twice.

Yama Hama wrote: Lets take a look at these other divisions that supposedly do things the fair way and give everybody a chance, shall we?

NCAA Division I-AA Football Championship
1978 Florida A&M Massachusetts 35–28
1979 Eastern Kentucky Lehigh 30–7
1980 Boise State Eastern Kentucky 31–29
1981 Idaho State Eastern Kentucky 34–23
1982 Eastern Kentucky Delaware 17–14
1983 Southern Illinois Western Carolina 43–7
1984 Montana State Louisiana Tech 19–6
1985 Georgia Southern Furman 44–42
1986 Georgia Southern Arkansas State 48–21
1987 Northeast Louisiana† Marshall 43–42
1988 Furman Georgia Southern 17–12
1989 Georgia Southern Stephen F. Austin 37–34
1990 Georgia Southern Nevada 36–13
1991 Youngstown State Marshall 25–17
1992 Marshall Youngstown State 31–28
1993 Youngstown State Marshall 17–5
1994 Youngstown State Boise State 28–14
1995 Montana Marshall 22–20
1996 Marshall Montana 49–29
1997 Youngstown State McNeese State 10–9
1998 Massachusetts Georgia Southern 55–43
1999 Georgia Southern Youngstown State 59–24
2000 Georgia Southern Montana 27–25
2001 Montana Furman 13–6
2002 Western Kentucky McNeese State 34–14
2003 Delaware Colgate 40–0
2004 James Madison Montana 31–21
2005 Appalachian State Northern Iowa 21–16
2006 Appalachian State Massachusetts 28–17
2007 Appalachian State Delaware 49–21
2008 Richmond Montana 24–7
2009 Villanova Montana

Wow......that looks fair. From 1985-2001 there were only 7 different schools winning. 32 years....64 teams playing. 34 times out of 64 teams total it was one of 6 teams. Seven times out of 32 years both teams were one of those 6 powerhouses. Even I-A college football has more parity than that.

Go ahead check out D2, its even worse. Grand Valley State, Northwest Missouri State, and so on and so on.

D3, same story, a few elites in the title game every year. Mount Union vs. Wisconsin-Whitewater? Yawn, seen that played out before.

Seems like this precious playoffs isn't really doing anything except making the elite teams even more elite. Sweet I can't wait til USC gets a freee pass for losing to a shitty Pac10 team and steamrolls through the playoffs most years.Ditto Florida, ditto OSU. Its funny but the BCS actually CREATES parity more than it prevents it. Since 1980, only Florida, Nebraska and Miami have won a NC more than twice.

That argument, particularly the last paragraph, is so unbelievably stupid.

I am not even going to address Yama Hama's last post, it is that laughable.

=======

If there was a 8 team playoff & your team is #8 seed that means the fans have to travel 3 weeks in a row to away games if you make it to the Championship game, tickets would be $100 or more, hotel,air travel & having payed for season tickets already do you think fans would do this?

Well... that would be an issue if your school had 150 fans total, but that just isn't the case. Ohio State (and most other programs) has millions of alums all over the country who would love to go to a postseason game. This argument holds no water whatsoever for me

Really, that's the best you guys can do on that one?

Here's one - most of you point to the fact that all other divisions of college football have a playoff. That's cool - I'm not against a playoff, I just think it should be done the right way.

So regarding the autobids:

FCS has automatic bids for 8 out of the 14 conferences playing in its division. Why not for everyone?
Division II has no automatic bids and a selection committee picks the 24 participants
Division III gives auto bids to 23 of its 26 conferences and a selection committee picks the remaining 9 teams.

Since the crux of your argument for a playoff is that everyone else does it, which one are you going to use to back up your "every conference champion should get a bid" theory?

I like how no one can think of a good thing to say so you say its "laughable" and you're "not going to address it".

Lol, thats a good way to get out of having to argue....ummmm....facts.

Apparently anything that isn't for a playoff is dumb. lol Seriously it feels like I'm debating 4th graders.

Yama Hama wrote: Lets take a look at these other divisions that supposedly do things the fair way and give everybody a chance, shall we?

NCAA Division I-AA Football Championship
1978 Florida A&M Massachusetts 35–28
1979 Eastern Kentucky Lehigh 30–7
1980 Boise State Eastern Kentucky 31–29
1981 Idaho State Eastern Kentucky 34–23
1982 Eastern Kentucky Delaware 17–14
1983 Southern Illinois Western Carolina 43–7
1984 Montana State Louisiana Tech 19–6
1985 Georgia Southern Furman 44–42
1986 Georgia Southern Arkansas State 48–21
1987 Northeast Louisiana† Marshall 43–42
1988 Furman Georgia Southern 17–12
1989 Georgia Southern Stephen F. Austin 37–34
1990 Georgia Southern Nevada 36–13
1991 Youngstown State Marshall 25–17
1992 Marshall Youngstown State 31–28
1993 Youngstown State Marshall 17–5
1994 Youngstown State Boise State 28–14
1995 Montana Marshall 22–20
1996 Marshall Montana 49–29
1997 Youngstown State McNeese State 10–9
1998 Massachusetts Georgia Southern 55–43
1999 Georgia Southern Youngstown State 59–24
2000 Georgia Southern Montana 27–25
2001 Montana Furman 13–6
2002 Western Kentucky McNeese State 34–14
2003 Delaware Colgate 40–0
2004 James Madison Montana 31–21
2005 Appalachian State Northern Iowa 21–16
2006 Appalachian State Massachusetts 28–17
2007 Appalachian State Delaware 49–21
2008 Richmond Montana 24–7
2009 Villanova Montana

Wow......that looks fair. From 1985-2001 there were only 7 different schools winning. 32 years....64 teams playing. 34 times out of 64 teams total it was one of 6 teams. Seven times out of 32 years both teams were one of those 6 powerhouses. Even I-A college football has more parity than that.

Go ahead check out D2, its even worse. Grand Valley State, Northwest Missouri State, and so on and so on.

D3, same story, a few elites in the title game every year. Mount Union vs. Wisconsin-Whitewater? Yawn, seen that played out before.

Seems like this precious playoffs isn't really doing anything except making the elite teams even more elite. Sweet I can't wait til USC gets a freee pass for losing to a shitty Pac10 team and steamrolls through the playoffs most years. Ditto Florida, ditto OSU. Its funny but the BCS actually CREATES parity more than it prevents it. Since 1980, only Florida, Nebraska and Miami have won a NC more than twice.

You want a response? That's fine, its just that historically, no one has actually been dumb enough to try to seriously argue that the BCS creates parity. This is honestly a record low...I'm not even sure Bill Hancock himself would try to make this argument.

If USC, Florida, or OSU steamrolls through the playoffs, they would clearly stake claim to being the best team in college football for that year. How can you argue that the BCS creates parity in college football? Lets take a look at last year alone...A one loss Florida team won the title, they also won it in 2006. Unbeaten Utah, who may have been the best team that year (or may not, we will never know, all that we know is that they absolutely smacked Alabama down in a manner that Florida never did in the SEC championship game), never even got the opportunity to play for the title. How is that parity again?

Your argument is terrible. Those teams in Division 2 and Division 3 and etc. all earned their titles on the field. In fact, if those divisions used a BCS-like system to determine their national championship game participants, my bet is that most years those same few teams would make it. If the power is concentrated in the hands of a few, so be it. But at least every team that finishes the season undefeated has a chance to win the title. That's true parity.

trep14 wrote:
You want a response? That's fine, its just that historically, no one has actually been dumb enough to try to seriously argue that the BCS creates parity. This is honestly a record low...I'm not even sure Bill Hancock himself would try to make this argument.

If USC, Florida, or OSU steamrolls through the playoffs, they would clearly stake claim to being the best team in college football for that year. How can you argue that the BCS creates parity in college football? Lets take a look at last year alone...A one loss Florida team won the title, they also won it in 2006. Unbeaten Utah, who may have been the best team that year (or may not, we will never know, all that we know is that they absolutely smacked Alabama down in a manner that Florida never did in the SEC championship game), never even got the opportunity to play for the title. How is that parity again?

Your argument is terrible. Those teams in Division 2 and Division 3 and etc. all earned their titles on the field. In fact, if those divisions used a BCS-like system to determine their national championship game participants, my bet is that most years those same few teams would make it. If the power is concentrated in the hands of a few, so be it. But at least every team that finishes the season undefeated has a chance to win the title. That's true parity.

Maybe I should clarify, the BOWL SYSTEM in general has created more parity.

I-A: 19 DIFFERENT champions since 1980
I-AA: 17 DIFFERENT champions since 1980
II: 15 DIFFERENT champions since 1980
III: 14 DIFFERENT champions since 1980

Those are what we like to call "facts" and "numbers".

More unique champions=more parity.
More weak arguments from you=easier this gets

edit: oh yeah college basketball:
19 DIFFERENT champions since 1980

Yama Hama wrote:

trep14 wrote:
You want a response? That's fine, its just that historically, no one has actually been dumb enough to try to seriously argue that the BCS creates parity. This is honestly a record low...I'm not even sure Bill Hancock himself would try to make this argument.

If USC, Florida, or OSU steamrolls through the playoffs, they would clearly stake claim to being the best team in college football for that year. How can you argue that the BCS creates parity in college football? Lets take a look at last year alone...A one loss Florida team won the title, they also won it in 2006. Unbeaten Utah, who may have been the best team that year (or may not, we will never know, all that we know is that they absolutely smacked Alabama down in a manner that Florida never did in the SEC championship game), never even got the opportunity to play for the title. How is that parity again?

Your argument is terrible. Those teams in Division 2 and Division 3 and etc. all earned their titles on the field. In fact, if those divisions used a BCS-like system to determine their national championship game participants, my bet is that most years those same few teams would make it. If the power is concentrated in the hands of a few, so be it. But at least every team that finishes the season undefeated has a chance to win the title. That's true parity.

Maybe I should clarify, the BOWL SYSTEM in general has created more parity.

I-A: 19 DIFFERENT champions since 1980
I-AA: 17 DIFFERENT champions since 1980
II: 15 DIFFERENT champions since 1980
III: 14 DIFFERENT champions since 1980

Those are what we like to call "facts" and "numbers".

More unique champions=more parity.
More weak arguments from you=easier this gets

edit: oh yeah college basketball:
19 DIFFERENT champions since 1980

Once again, how is it parity when an undefeated Utah is shut out of a chance for a national championship opportunity for two one loss teams, each of whom had already won a title this decade? But the bowl system lends itself to parity right?

I'm just saying...you can throw out numbers of different divisions of college football and the number of different champions (which are chock full of confounding variables)...I'm giving you an example of a time when the bowl system infringed on the parity in D1A college football...and there are absolutely plenty more where that came from... (I think Auburn in 2004, Boise State in 2006, USC in 2003, etc. might have something to add to this conversation)

Yama Hama wrote:

enigmaax wrote: The fact that other sports do things a certain way do not make them better. It is stupid for the NFL to give an 8-8 division champ a spot in the playoffs over an 11-5 team. It is stupid for NCAA basketball conferences to give their tourney autobid to a team that wins three games in a row after the regular season is over - what in the hell was the point of playing the regular season?

Pro football is a little different anyway in that teams play a far more balanced schedule across divisions. There is virtually ZERO scheduling balance in NCAA football. What little balance there is actually bores out the contenders from the pretenders. When the Sun Belt wins less than 20% of its games against big six conference schools, you see the distinction. Competition between NFL divisions doesn't tend to stray as far from the median over the long haul. The Sun Belt has NEVER and will likely never be anything remotely close to equal with the major conferences.

NCAA basketball allows 64 teams in the tourney. They have room to allow the mid-majors in. If you equate the records, 9-3 in a major football conference is like going winning 22-23 games in basketball. It isn't very often that a team who wins that many games in a major conference is left out of the tourney.

NCAA football has a discrepancy in talent levels within FBS that doens't exist in other sports or, as mentioned above, impacts it much differently than other sports. For all of these reasons, the argument that "other sports do it" doesn't have any merit.

This thought that dividing teams up for geographical reasons or scheduling reasons or whatever other reasons conferences form somehow makes all conferences equal is ridiculous. The fact that Middle Tennessee State isn't good enough or doesn't contribute enough to be admitted to a major conference, but can then go and form a conference with other similarly inferior teams and be treated as equals is laughable.

As I've said, autobids are stupid for BCS bowls and they'd be stupid for a playoff system.

To expand on this a bit, you touched on it....this disparity between the best teams and the worst teams is much larger (both in size and skill) in college football than it is in college basketball. Thats why upsets happen, because the difference between an elite basketball team and a bad one isn't as big. Its also why teams don't often go undefeated in basketball.[/b] So letting the conference champions in for the basketball tournament is ok, because it makes for good basketball. Troy vs. Alabama makes for boring football, and the fact that people are actually wanting to switch to that is completely insane. I'd rather watch the New Mexico Bowl tomorrow than Troy vs. Alabama.

So, are you saying that upsets don't happen in college football?

And also, the fact that college basketball teams play 3x's the amound of games and play sometimes multiple games a week is more the reason teams don't go undefeated in basketball.

And so because you think it's "ok" for basketball but find a similar matchup "boring" for college football (Troy vs. Alabama in football would be comparable to about a 4 vs. 13 seed matchup in college bball), this is the basis of your argument? Gee, that's not subjective, or completely devoid of facts. It's precisely that attitude that is why people are sick of the BCS; because the FEW in charge force the MAJORITY of college football fans to be subjected to the same stale, biased, repititious cycle of teams, BCS matchups, and National champions year after year after year after year. Personally, I'd rather watch two conference champions play for the right to advance towards a national championship, than watch Wyoming and Fresno State play to decide who can suck their way to a 6-7 loss season the most.

And it's hilarious that you list all of the FCS national champions from the last few decades, and claim how repititious they are. Why don't you list the national champions from the BCS era, and see what you find. Go ahead, amuse me this this insane amount of parity you claim the BCS creates. Better yet, why don't you list the teams who have made more than 1 BCS game in that era. I'd be willing to bet that you would find that the same 8-10 teams are the ones we watch play in the BCS year after year after year. Texas, Ohio State, Florida, LSU, USC, Miami, and recently Georgia Tech and Alabama. And they're playing one of those same teams time after time after time. I don't even know why they have a BCS selection show. Why don't they just put the same 15 teams in a barrel at the beginning of the season, draw out names for BCS matchups, and skip the rest of the season. No one else is going to get a title shot anyways, last year and this year are proof of that; so why even mess with the season? Great thing the BCS has turned football in to. If this is what you want, and you're too blind to see that it's the exact same thing every year, then I feel sorry that you call yourself a "true" college football fan. The only thing true is that you can't see what a conglomeration of wealth, power, and archaic nostalgia for the way things used to be, and that the whitewigs in charge aren't going to let it change for anything, even if it means blatant corruption of a system that excludes, and does so proudly, equal opportunities for all 119 teams. If that's "real" college football to you, then I feel sorry for you my friend.

So, are you saying that upsets don't happen in college football?

And also, the fact that college basketball teams play 3x's the amound of games and play sometimes multiple games a week is more the reason teams don't go undefeated in basketball.

And so because you think it's "ok" for basketball but find a similar matchup "boring" for college football (Troy vs. Alabama in football would be comparable to about a 4 vs. 13 seed matchup in college bball), this is the basis of your argument? Gee, that's not subjective, or completely devoid of facts. It's precisely that attitude that is why people are sick of the BCS; because the FEW in charge force the MAJORITY of college football fans to be subjected to the same stale, biased, repititious cycle of teams, BCS matchups, and National champions year after year after year after year. Personally, I'd rather watch two conference champions play for the right to advance towards a national championship, than watch Wyoming and Fresno State play to decide who can suck their way to a 6-7 loss season the most.

And it's hilarious that you list all of the FCS national champions from the last few decades, and claim how repititious they are. Why don't you list the national champions from the BCS era, and see what you find. Go ahead, amuse me this this insane amount of parity you claim the BCS creates. Better yet, why don't you list the teams who have made more than 1 BCS game in that era. I'd be willing to bet that you would find that the same 8-10 teams are the ones we watch play in the BCS year after year after year. Texas, Ohio State, Florida, LSU, USC, Miami, and recently Georgia Tech and Alabama. And they're playing one of those same teams time after time after time. I don't even know why they have a BCS selection show. Why don't they just put the same 15 teams in a barrel at the beginning of the season, draw out names for BCS matchups, and skip the rest of the season. No one else is going to get a title shot anyways, last year and this year are proof of that; so why even mess with the season? Great thing the BCS has turned football in to. If this is what you want, and you're too blind to see that it's the exact same thing every year, then I feel sorry that you call yourself a "true" college football fan. The only thing true is that you can't see what a conglomeration of wealth, power, and archaic nostalgia for the way things used to be, and that the whitewigs in charge aren't going to let it change for anything, even if it means blatant corruption of a system that excludes, and does so proudly, equal opportunities for all 119 teams. If that's "real" college football to you, then I feel sorry for you my friend.

Great post. Co-sign.

Yama Hama wrote:

trep14 wrote:
You want a response? That's fine, its just that historically, no one has actually been dumb enough to try to seriously argue that the BCS creates parity. This is honestly a record low...I'm not even sure Bill Hancock himself would try to make this argument.

If USC, Florida, or OSU steamrolls through the playoffs, they would clearly stake claim to being the best team in college football for that year. How can you argue that the BCS creates parity in college football? Lets take a look at last year alone...A one loss Florida team won the title, they also won it in 2006. Unbeaten Utah, who may have been the best team that year (or may not, we will never know, all that we know is that they absolutely smacked Alabama down in a manner that Florida never did in the SEC championship game), never even got the opportunity to play for the title. How is that parity again?

Your argument is terrible. Those teams in Division 2 and Division 3 and etc. all earned their titles on the field. In fact, if those divisions used a BCS-like system to determine their national championship game participants, my bet is that most years those same few teams would make it. If the power is concentrated in the hands of a few, so be it. But at least every team that finishes the season undefeated has a chance to win the title. That's true parity.

Maybe I should clarify, the BOWL SYSTEM in general has created more parity.

I-A: 19 DIFFERENT champions since 1980
I-AA: 17 DIFFERENT champions since 1980
II: 15 DIFFERENT champions since 1980
III: 14 DIFFERENT champions since 1980

Those are what we like to call "facts" and "numbers".

More unique champions=more parity.
More weak arguments from you=easier this gets

edit: oh yeah college basketball:
19 DIFFERENT champions since 1980

How is hard for you to comprehend that winning a championship through playoffs is different than being given the opportunity to play for one because the system that selects the team automatically takes other teams out of contention?

I bet it would be a hell of a lot easier for a 1-AA school to win a NC if their system took Montana and Appalachian state out of contention to even try and win it before the post season started. That's basically what happened this year in college football. When you have 5 undefeated teams, and you take 3 of them out of the equation (Boise, TCU, Cincy) it makes your chances a hell of a lot better to win the national title. It also shows that the BCS is biased; they would make that move to keep those 3 teams out of the NC game 10 out of 10 times, and give Texas and Alabama the invite 10 out of 10. Really, really fair there. But hey, we shouldn't change it, because we couldn't possibly find anything better right?

Red_Skin_Pride wrote: And it's hilarious that you list all of the FCS national champions from the last few decades, and claim how repititious they are. Why don't you list the national champions from the BCS era, and see what you find. Go ahead, amuse me this this insane amount of parity you claim the BCS creates. Better yet, why don't you list the teams who have made more than 1 BCS game in that era. I'd be willing to bet that you would find that the same 8-10 teams are the ones we watch play in the BCS year after year after year. Texas, Ohio State, Florida, LSU, USC, Miami, and recently Georgia Tech and Alabama. And they're playing one of those same teams time after time after time. I don't even know why they have a BCS selection show. Why don't they just put the same 15 teams in a barrel at the beginning of the season, draw out names for BCS matchups, and skip the rest of the season. No one else is going to get a title shot anyways, last year and this year are proof of that; so why even mess with the season? Great thing the BCS has turned football in to. If this is what you want, and you're too blind to see that it's the exact same thing every year, then I feel sorry that you call yourself a "true" college football fan. The only thing true is that you can't see what a conglomeration of wealth, power, and archaic nostalgia for the way things used to be, and that the whitewigs in charge aren't going to let it change for anything, even if it means blatant corruption of a system that excludes, and does so proudly, equal opportunities for all 119 teams. If that's "real" college football to you, then I feel sorry for you my friend.

Since the BCS was implemented (1998), 12 different teams have made the BCS national championship game.

Since 1998, 15 different teams have made the FCS national championship game.

Since 1998, 9 different teams have made the DII national championship game.

Since 1998, 9 different teams have made the DIII national championship game.

They all seem about the same to me. Playoff or no playoff, its the same teams over and over.

This is fun, I throw numbers at you guys, you throw opinions, conjecture, and assumptions back at me.

"Yeah but.....but but UTAH!!! YA!!! And BOISE!!!" lol

Seriously you're not going to convince me or anyone by defending a bunch of teams from the Patty Cake Conference. Nor by promoting a playoff involving Troy (or some other Sun Belt champion). Nor by pointing to the other NCAA football divisions and saying "SEEE!!!!". All I see is the same thing in every sport. The same dozen teams winning championships every year. Adding a playoff would just delay the inevitable (on top of killing some serious influx of money for businesses around the 34 different bowl games around the country).

Yama Hama wrote: This is fun, I throw numbers at you guys, you throw opinions, conjecture, and assumptions back at me.

"Yeah but.....but but UTAH!!! YA!!! And BOISE!!!" lol

Seriously you're not going to convince me or anyone by defending a bunch of teams from the Patty Cake Conference. Nor by promoting a playoff involving Troy (or some other Sun Belt champion). Nor by pointing to the other NCAA football divisions and saying "SEEE!!!!". All I see is the same thing in every sport. The same dozen teams winning championships every year. Adding a playoff would just delay the inevitable (on top of killing some serious influx of money for businesses around the 34 different bowl games around the country).

Well, there's your official concession on the "BCS creates parity!" argument. You threw a big fit when myself and others called that argument stupid, then you actually looked at the numbers and realized that it was.

It is what it is. You can make fun of the Patty Cake Conferences all you want, but Utah last year could play on the field with anyone, as could TCU this year, they have beaten some darn good teams. You can try to find all the numbers you want about why they or any other undefeated teams out there don't deserve a shot at the NC, but at the end of the day, I have one number for you and that is the zero in the loss column. The only reason Texas and Alabama are in the "championship" game is due to name recognition, not anything that they accomplished on the field over Cincy, Boise, and TCU. Maybe Texas and Alabama are the best two teams in college football this year. Maybe if there was a playoff they would inevitably meet in the championship game. Hell, maybe they would meet in the championship game every single year. But we don't know that. With a playoff, we would be guaranteed that the two best teams that are the most deserving are meeting for the national championship. For someone who hates assumptions so much, you're blindly supporting a system that relies on them. It really boggles my mind how anyone who is a fan of college football could support this kind of system if they weren't a member of the BCS committee.

As for all this nonsense about "no one can agree on how to implement a playoff!", I think most college football fans would be willing to get behind anything that isn't the BCS or the old system at this point. Seriously, everything has to start somewhere.

trep14 wrote:

Yama Hama wrote: This is fun, I throw numbers at you guys, you throw opinions, conjecture, and assumptions back at me.

"Yeah but.....but but UTAH!!! YA!!! And BOISE!!!" lol

Seriously you're not going to convince me or anyone by defending a bunch of teams from the Patty Cake Conference. Nor by promoting a playoff involving Troy (or some other Sun Belt champion). Nor by pointing to the other NCAA football divisions and saying "SEEE!!!!". All I see is the same thing in every sport. The same dozen teams winning championships every year. Adding a playoff would just delay the inevitable (on top of killing some serious influx of money for businesses around the 34 different bowl games around the country).

Well, there's your official concession on the "BCS creates parity!" argument. You threw a big fit when myself and others called that argument stupid, then you actually looked at the numbers and realized that it was.

It is what it is. You can make fun of the Patty Cake Conferences all you want, but Utah last year could play on the field with anyone, as could TCU this year, they have beaten some darn good teams. You can try to find all the numbers you want about why they or any other undefeated teams out there don't deserve a shot at the NC, but at the end of the day, I have one number for you and that is the zero in the loss column. The only reason Texas and Alabama are in the "championship" game is due to name recognition, not anything that they accomplished on the field over Cincy, Boise, and TCU. Maybe Texas and Alabama are the best two teams in college football this year. Maybe if there was a playoff they would inevitably meet in the championship game. Hell, maybe they would meet in the championship game every single year. But we don't know that. With a playoff, we would be guaranteed that the two best teams that are the most deserving are meeting for the national championship. For someone who hates assumptions so much, you're blindly supporting a system that relies on them. It really boggles my mind how anyone who is a fan of college football could support this kind of system if they weren't a member of the BCS committee.

As for all this nonsense about "no one can agree on how to implement a playoff!", I think most college football fans would be willing to get behind anything that isn't the BCS or the old system at this point. Seriously, everything has to start somewhere.

Do you have a serious reading comprehension problem? Where the hell was my "concession" to the BCS NOT creating parity. I just gave you numbers that show that the BCS created MORE parity than DII and DIII. All I said was that I see "same dozen teams winning championships every year" which is the way it is in every sport, no matter what. We're not going to get all 120 teams taking turns winning the NC. Its hard to define "parity" but when the BCS is producing more unique participants in the national championship game than 2 out of the other 3 divisions, I'd call that parity. Or at least the opposite of whatever you're accusing the BCS of.

Here's what a playoff does: it rewards teams for winning 4 straight games late in the season.
Here's what the BCS does: it rewards teams for a successful body of work over the course of a season.

Therefore: Utah, Boise, TCU, UC, Creampuff U, Two Hand Tag State, James Woods Junior High....YOUR SCHEDULE BLOWS. BE BETTER AT SCHEDULING AND HOPE FOR A LITTLE LUCK, WHICH EVERY CHAMPIONSHIP TEAM NEEDS.

I have news for you, a playoff doesn't match up the 2 best teams.

Yama Hama wrote: This is fun, I throw numbers at you guys, you throw opinions, conjecture, and assumptions back at me.

I love how you continually point out that you have numbers to back everything up and that makes your opinion better. Of course you can throw out historical data to give yourself "numbers" and of course proponents of a playoff system don't have set in stone data to predict how a system would work in the future. Every single different playoff system is just based on "assumptions" according to you, and since there is no concrete data to predict the future, you're basically saying "The current BCS is flawless, never suggest another method" and that's pretty much how you've come across throughout this thread. Not sure what you were trying to accomplish when you started it if you can't understand why teams that finish 13-0 aren't getting a fair chance to play for a national championship.

You also say:
"Why would the BCS want to change their system unless it stopped people from complaining? It provides amazing games (USC vs Texas, Boise vs. Oklahoma, OSU vs. Miami) makes a shit ton of money and people come to the games, watch the games, and enjoy themselves. Other than a very loud vocal minority, they have no reason to change. If the bitching would continue after they implemented a playoff, why change to begin with? "

A vocal minority? Every year a vocal MAJORITY want playoffs. The minority are the people who refuse to get away from a system that needs a drastic improvement.

Per CBS Sports - over 75% of people want a playoff:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/12642771/-cbssportscom-college-football-playoffs/rss


I don't agree that every conference champ should get an automatic bid. I think they should keep a variation of the current BCS formula and any conference champ that finishes in the top 25 of the BCS gets an automatic bid. So if 9 of the 11 conferences have teams in the top 25, those teams automatically qualify and the 7 highest ranked non-automatic qualifiers receive at-large bids.

There's absolutely no way that you can say that Texas is the clear-cut #2 team in the country right now, especially after watching their performance on the field in their last two games. TCU is a much better team on both sides of the ball, yet they're not a nationally televised team every week like Texas is so nobody gets to see them play. The only reason Texas is #2 is because of name only and because they started the season ranked higher than TCU (preseason rankings are based on ASSUMPTIONS of future performance, which you love to say proves nothing). Basically the entire BCS system right now is based on an assumption at the beginning of the year.

I'm not trying to make it seem like I think the BCS is flawless or is the best method, but I simply prefer it to anything else that has been proposed.

And I throw out data to refute arguments of "sport x does it, its fucking awesome!". People kept pointing to other sports and saying look it works and I provide numbers showing those sports are lame and are like a broken record and they come back with "But UTAH!!!!!"

Oh man, that CBS sports poll showed that?! Oh man. I trust that ARTICLE, because clearly a 64 team playoff is what we need right? I scrolled down and saw that bracket and that was all I needed to see.

I equate people wanting a playoff to people not wanting to pay taxes. Yes the majority of people would be for it, but the powers that be know why taxes are necessary.

Sportsnation on ESPN also had a poll on the day of the BCS Selection Show that showed that over 82% of voters were in favor of a playoff system. I only picked that article cause it was the first to come up in a quick search. Regardless of the source, it's clear that most people want a playoff system because you can't crown a champion based on assumptions. You love to call everyone out for having assumptions compared to your facts, but all the BCS system creates is an assumed best team.

You said nothing to the fact that Texas started higher in the polls based on an assumed prediction of future results, giving them an unfair advantage over teams ranked below them. With human polls comprising 67% of the BCS calculation, this assumption goes a long way in dictating who plays for the title when teams finish with similar records.

I think my proposal of having a requirement of finishing in the top 25 of the BCS to receive an automatic bid as a conference champion is the best method. Hell, the ACC or Big East were close to not making that cutoff a few times in the past 5 years. The BCS system you worship elevates these conferences significantly above the Mountain West, who has had Utah or TCU finish in the top 5 three times in the past six years.

enigmaax wrote: Really, that's the best you guys can do on that one?

Here's one - most of you point to the fact that all other divisions of college football have a playoff. That's cool - I'm not against a playoff, I just think it should be done the right way.

So regarding the autobids:

FCS has automatic bids for 8 out of the 14 conferences playing in its division. Why not for everyone?
Division II has no automatic bids and a selection committee picks the 24 participants
Division III gives auto bids to 23 of its 26 conferences and a selection committee picks the remaining 9 teams.

Since the crux of your argument for a playoff is that everyone else does it, which one are you going to use to back up your "every conference champion should get a bid" theory?

i'm not tied to them one way or another. i want a playoff and i don't care how it gets done just as long as the postseason is determined on the field and not from some computer. would i think it would be more fair if the conference champs from the wac, cusa, sun belt, mac and mountain west be included as well (especially seeing how those five champions have a combined one conference loss between them)? well, yes, but i won't be broken up about it if they are left out.

if a playoff promotes the same teams in the championship game over and over again, then so be it. at least there would be no lingering suspicions about whether or not the champion is the end all be all of the sport for that year.

i'd also rather the complaints coming from college football's postseason be about which 3 loss team (whether that team be a low level conference champion or a middle of the pack big name conference team) should be included in the playoff as opposed to 3 undefeated teams being left out of the championship game