I would go further and put in a 16 team play-off format, and I have to say that the bowls into play-off sights sounded good to me before, but they should be like any other play-offs and have the higher ranked team play at home. Even in your set-up once again USC at The Rose Bowl, come on. let's see some play-offs in the snow, see how those Pac10 and SEC teams fare in harsh weather, now that would be interesting!
The_Observer
· 12 months ago
"I would go further and put in a 16 team play-off format"
This is why I can't agree to the playoff idea. I don't mind the plus-one too much, but a 16 team playoff! It would ruin college football!
shiguy
· 12 months ago
No it wouldn't. Rivals posted and excellent playoff format that would have the first round of the 16 teams played at the field of the highest seeded team. every game after that at bowls. The tournament would include ALL 11 conference champions and then 5 at large bids probably from the BCS. This set up would even allow most the bowls to keep their tie ins as the loser of the first round would be out early enough to still go play in one of the lower bowls. It is probably the best set up i have seen for a play off and the first one that i've ever supported. By having the first round at the higher seeded teams field it would allow less travel on the fans parts. Unless you're a low seed team but chances are they arn't going to travel as well to the first game anyway.
The_Observer
· 12 months ago
Its an opinion and in mine it would ruin the sport.
Regan
· 12 months ago
Diminishing of Regular Season. College Football becomes NFL Lite.
Rapid Fire....Keep 'em coming. :)
FSU_Ben
· 12 months ago
With increased importance to the conference champion the regular season stays important (see this years ACC to see a conf where it mattered til the end, and most conferences are decided no sooner than 3 weeks out) Now you can have a shot at the championship by A. Being a real good team, B. Winning your conference. This is as opposed to 1 defeat taking you out in most years. I think it adds richness and depth to the regular season and I already watch games that don't matter (which as it stands are most of them, this would make MORE meaningful games not less).
Regan
· 12 months ago
"2005 FSU Clause":
Basing a Playoff exclusively on Conference Champs will allow for the possiblity of a 4-Loss National Champion.
This treads on the ground of dropping "season-accomplishment" with "hot at the right time", which is the hallmark of NCAABB.
It is antithetical to the established nature of CFB...at least the first 125 years or so...
FSU_Ben
· 12 months ago
And so it does, but we did beat 2 loss Miami and 2 loss VT to get there.
Anyways we did say ALL conf champions which means Troy would go this year, FSU is the least of your worries. The idea would be that those teams would be filtered out in the P-L-A-Y O-F-F. They would be reward games for upper level seeds while not leaving anyone out (MAC, WAC, C-USA etc.) and by the end of the season it would be something like 11-4 FSU (on a 5 game win streak) vs. 15-0 Texas in the NC game that year (for example). Doubt it would have come to that but slightly less embarssing looking, no?
FSU didn't beat Penn State that year (3rd ranked 10-1 penn state) after 3 OT, we were able to hang with the 3rd ranked team right? We also lost. We wouldn't have been the NC that year 99% sure BUT even if we were is it that terrible a team that won it's conference and pulled off 4 amazing victories (since it would have been such a low seed it would have been 4 tough games) wins the NC? Why is this "hot at the right time" so scarey to you? I think it's compelling and for this HALLMARK you are talking about when is the last time the NCAA Tourny wasn't won by someone in a BCS conference? I think the cool kids have won since 1992? On a related note when has a winner been a terrible team at any point in the year? Basketball and Football have in common that teams lose games they shouldn't but only in BB can we remedy that in some way and only in Basketball is there some share of glory for teams like Gonzaga, Butler, Memphis etc. that aren't in the power conferences.
We will now be telling schools that they can continue playing football all year long and it will still matter. That is a "season accomplishment". Not you luckily didn't lose a game so congrats you are going to the championship game.
Regan
· 11 months ago
As I have said, I have 2x Criteria for NC teams: #1: 0-Losses or 1-Loss #2: Must be Conference Champs
The reason is simple: A team that has lost four games when numerous teams have lost less cannot reasonably be called the National Champion.
NCAABB is about "Hot at the Right Time". It has been for years. CFB is about evaluating an entire body of work for the whole season, and every game mattering. It doesn't really matter what people think they should be - this is the way they ARE and always have been, the latter for well over 100 years.
CFB's NC has always been the following: > Win all your games against good competition and you WILL play for the NC. > Lose one game, and you throw your destiny to the Winds of Fate. It is still possible to play for the NC, but it is out of your control because YOU dropped a game. > Lose two games, and you are out.
Win - or Go Home. It isn't complicated.
Fire Trucks are red, Ice Cream is served cold, and the above is the way CFB is.
The way it is....way it is...
The_Observer
· 11 months ago
I agree with you wholeheartedly!
FSU_Ben
· 11 months ago
I responded later in the thread to this in case you care. Not sure how to counter a "that's the way it is" arguement. We also didn't have electricity at one point, that is the way it WAS. Change is coming!
Regan
· 11 months ago
Trust me, FSU_Ben, I do care. I'm glad that most people here are interested in helping come together to figure out a system that is best for everyone.
As far as the "that's the way it is" argument, I understand your point, but I use that simply because I want everyone to understand the sheer volume of fundamental change to the sport that we are looking at when we discuss the subject...
shiguy
· 11 months ago
So why wasn't hawaii in under your system..........
Regan
· 11 months ago
YES - I realized my system needed work when I ended up with OHST vs. HAW last year for the NC Game.
I pretty much copy-and-pasted it from 2006; I never updated it when I saw it's flaws. As of now, my plan is a work in progress....
The_Observer
· 11 months ago
Attempting to model NCAA Football after NCAA Basketball strengthens my resistance towards a playoff.
Okay, I examined it, and thoroughly trashed it. If I were smart enough to figure out the Color-Coding, I could paste my responses easily; I'll email 'em to ya...
Update #2: Wow; this guy is clueless....I'll email it, but I will have to apologize for my sarcasm.
I mean clueless........
Tyler_Tech
· 11 months ago
Letting conference champions from all 11 conferces in would be a huge mistake. You would have huge controversy, with teams bearly ranked inside the top 40 getting into the playoffs, and teams ranked inside the top 10 not getting in IMO.
FSU_Ben
· 11 months ago
1. Florida Going SEC Champ 2. Oklahoma Going Big-12 Champ 3. Texas (6) Going- At Large 4. Alabama Going- At Large 5. USC Going Pac-10 Champ 6. Penn State Going Big 10 Champ 7. Utah Going MWC Champ 8. Texas Tech Going- At Large 9. Boise State Going- Wac Champ 10. Ohio State - Going- At Large 11. TCU -Going At Large 12. Cincinnati Going - Big East Champ 21. Viginia Tech- Going ACC Champ Buffalo- Going MAC Champ Troy- Going- Sunbelt Champ ECU- Going C-USA Champ BEAT ACC Champ
Rankings aren't objective anyways Many unranked teams are better than many of these ranked ones. Using seeds the EASY WEAK teams become practically free games for the power teams and a shot at becoming an interesting Cinderella story. It's a good system. On the other hand parity would quickly catch up as weaker conferences became quicker doors to national championships we wouldn't have your stated problem for long.
This year the top 12 would get in. 3 unranked teams and 21 VT.
First Round looks something like this Troy@Florida Buffalo@Oklahoma ECU@Texas VT@Alabama Cinci@USC TCU@PSU OSU@UTAH Boise@TTU
Regan
· 11 months ago
Why have Troy (8-4) and not BYU (10-2)?
A Playoff still has the same flaws; pretending otherwise is...creative...
FSU_Ben
· 11 months ago
Few people are going to argue for BYU outside of the BYU fanbase, I don't think that is the case at this point. It's not just one pissed off fanbase and even when it is... BYU doesn't have nearly so impressive a loss resume. Playing teams worth a hoot should count for something. SDSU=everyone's free win this season. So BYU had 2 more free wins then Troy. Not really as much of a crime as Texas getting left out in the cold or never allowing non BCS participants in the NC game.
CommonManCommonSense
· 11 months ago
You just made the FSU BYU game a bit more interesting next fall. You may want to check BYU's record in Provo against eastern teams. Your Florida bros Miami lost their #1 ranking there a few years ago.
FSU_Ben
· 11 months ago
BYU's Record against Eastern Teams Alphabetically: Alabama: 0-1 Boston College: 1-2 (the win was Neutral site you lost at home) Bowling Green:1-1 (both@BYU) FSU:0-2 (Neutral Site both) Georgia:0-1 (Lost @ Georgia) GT:1-1 (Won@BYU Lost Away) LA-MONROE:1-0 (I guess this is an Eastern Team and you did win @BYU) Louisville:0-1 (Neutral site) Marshall:0-1 (Neutral site) Miami: 1-1 (as you know you won @BYU) Michigan: 1-0 (Famous NC game for BYU Neutral) Miss State: 1-1 (This you lost @BYU winning @ Miss ST.) Navy: 1-1 (won @ Annapolis lost Neutral site) Notre Dame: 2-4 (1-1@BYU 1-3 away) Southern Miss: 1-1 (won @ BYU) Syracuse: 1-1 (Won @BYU) Temple: 2-0 (home away) Tulane: 1-1 (both Neutral site) Virgina: 1-2 (all three types you lost @BYU)
Scan through that and see if you are impressed by your record @BYU against eastern teams. I'm not. Your overall record against eastern teams is shabby and sad. 7-5 @BYU is certainly not a record to jump for joy about. Your overall against eastern teams is abysmal and the competetion you got to come out to Utah aside from Notre Dame and Miami was either crap (La-Mon, Bowling green -who beat you @BYU-, Southern Miss, Temple make up 4 of those wins) or beat you. If you count only BCS opponents you have a losing record @BYU!
I look forward to the game too as we have only Maine and I suspect some other FCS school to look forward to -in our open date- out of conference and our yearly beating by Florida.
BYU does look amazing against Texas btw. Too bad they aren't eastern! Got a winning record against all Texas schools except Texas Tech and Rice: Texas: 2-0 Texas A&M: 2-0 North Texas: 3-2 Rice: 1-1 Houston: Never Met UTEP: 28-7 TCU: 5-2 (5-3 after this year) Texas Tech: 0-1
Apparantly you mess with Texas!
Ben Prather
· 11 months ago
His point was BYU 10-2 >> Troy 8-4
Most would agree BYU last year at 10-2 was better than Hawaii at 12-0.
Regan
· 12 months ago
Battle Lines are being drawn. Welcome to 'Team Reason', Observer... :-)
Ben Prather
· 12 months ago
I drafted this before Obama made those statements and only included the playoffs to reflect this change.
I do not advocate an 8 team playoff, that is Obama's deal.
Every conference champ needs a bid. 8-team playoff is thus out (crappy and unfair). Play-in is out (crappy and unfair). Liberty bowl is out (just really, really crappy).
Ben Prather
· 10 months ago
I was just referencing Bronco Mendenhall's idea on that.
Regan and I developed an idea below that is pretty darn sweet.
I don't think Troy or Cincinnati deserved a chance this year, but Texas Utah and Boise State did.
How did I come to that?
An average ranking difference of 1.5 or more would indicate the teams are closer to two spots apart than one spot apart. This translates into a BCS difference of 0.06. This makes Oklahoam, Florida and Texas close enough to warrent consideration. Alabama and USC had a gap of 0.06 between them and Texas.
Utah and Boise State were undefeated.
Only those five teams should have been a part, to invite more than this would undermine the integrity of the bowl structure.
USC lost any ligitimate title claim when Utah beat Alabama.
Mars
· 10 months ago
You can't say that USC doesn't deserve it but that Florida, Oklahoma, Texas, Penn State, Alabama, or Texas Tech did. They were all 1 loss teams, no different from each other. According to your rules, only Utah and Boise State should have been included.
Besides, Bronco Mendenhall's idea was as a pre-cursor to a true National Championship Playoff, not as a part of it.
Ben Prather
· 10 months ago
Rule #1: Utah and Boise State Rule #2: Oklahoma, Floria, Texas
The first gap of 0.06 was between texas and Alabama.
Technically, Mendenhall's idea was for inclusion in a BCS bowl.
Regan
· 12 months ago
Ben...informed and insightful analysis as always...
I have a whole Folder...772 KB of compiled Word Docs, links, etc., and I am not afraid to use it!
IT'S A TRAAAP!!!!!!!!! >:-)
Ben Prather
· 12 months ago
What parts of that playoff rebutal applies to a play in game before the BCS bowls if the #2 and #3 teams are close in the BCS standings?
While I entertain and critique the ideas presented for larger playoffs, I do see the futility of them.
Regan
· 12 months ago
I'll use 2002 and 2003 for this one:
2002: Use Standard BCS formula, matching up #1 MIA and #2 OHST, both undefeated; no need for #2 OHST to play #3 UGA first. No issues.
2003: There are 3x 1-Loss BCS Conf. Champ. Teams, no 0-Loss Teams. #2 LSU plays #3 SCAL; winner plays #1 OU.
Plus-One Contingent on Basis of Need.
Ben Prather
· 12 months ago
The current BCS formula was not used then so I only went back to 2004 in my analysis above.
Using a threshold of 0.04 would have added a playing for 2004 and 2006. These also coorespond with the Auburn vs Oklahoma and Florida vs Michigan disputes. It would have applied this year to Florida and Texas.
In 2007 LSU was clearly more deserving than Virginia Tech and in 2005 Texas was much better than Penn State. No play in would have been called for.
The system I describe, after the Obama induced introduction, works in all these cases by defining a threshold of 0.04 to trigger a playin game.
Regan
· 11 months ago
The best way I can imagine for coming up for a system to replace the current one is to look back to previous years retrospectively and figure out who should have been playing in the NC game, and which teams had "legit arguments".
It just isn't practical (thanks to hindsight) to claim that other teams than the ones listed each year deserved a chance to play for the NC.
Notice that in no year were there more than three "worthy" teams, and even then, teams like 2001 NEB and 2004 OU proved that even they didn't belong.
Diluting the system to allow for the 8th or 16th best team? Pointless.
If it works, it's useless, and damages the sport in the process.
FSU_Ben
· 11 months ago
You include no mid major programs in any years. Obviously they have been argueing for a shot at the national title bringing about a lot of this discussion. Just as Obviously we can't let them in the BCS NC game as it stands.
Also there is no way in hell to know those teams were the best in thier given years when they all play different teams with little to no crossover. That is vastly inane and useless as an argument. You must love preseason polls which define our entire season. We base these on irrelevant histories and on who graduated from what programs. Often they are VERY wrong but being #1 from the start is likely to keep you in the NC game at the end of a year while being unranked and going undefeated can end you at 6 or 9. I don't think Utah or Boise are NC material but I can't definatively say they aren't based soley on the fact they rank so low in recruiting or that thier conferences are piles of crap. We would still let an undefeated big east school in the NC and the MWC is probably better than them. I wouldn't know without a playoff though. Those are just some examples of what questions go unanswered each season. Unanswered questions aren't the only reason for a playoff though.
How you think it would dillute the regular season is beyond me. Now 16 teams regular seasons will matter rather than two.
Ben Prather
· 11 months ago
I thought the MWC, Big East questoin was settled on the field in 2004...
If Regan's list is edited to simply add all undefeated teams it would answer your objections and not have the issues of a large 8+ teams field.
FSU_Ben
· 11 months ago
You know I have said several times I think the Big East is worse than the MWC. I don't think they should have a bid and perhaps the MWC should. Especially if they pick up Fresno, San Jose, Boise. Hell I would probably be ok if they took any 12 teams and they certainly deserve a spot more than the BE. That said there is a free slot left in the BCS charter without kicking the big east out but if they stay I really wish they would expand.
Ben Prather
· 11 months ago
I am crunching the numbers now for an impending thread. Though I am not finished with the actual numbers they are clear enough to announce the conclusions:
1) The Big East has maintained a reasonable level for BCS Automatic Quailifiaction
2) The MWC has not maintained a reasonable level for BCS Automatic Qualification
3) The level that the MWC performed at this year is sufficient for an Automatic Quailification
4) Adding Boise State would significantly improve the MWC's numbers, but not enough to warrent a BCS bid.
5) Adding Hawaii, Fresno State, Tulsa, Houston, Nevada or San Jose State do not significantly improve the MWC's numbers.
FSU_Ben
· 11 months ago
Yes but I think they are trash rankings. For instance Cincinnati is not the 12th best team in the country. No other Big East team should be ranked judgeing by the quality of thier losses/schedule. They are being overranked drastically. If we rank teams based on numbers of wins/losses this is what you get. I pointed out earlier how FSU was ranked after beating 2 div 1-AA opponents. Voters don't know what they are doing even so far as what division the teams FSU played in I would guess. I might want to rank FSU had they won two conference games by a total score of 118 to 7 but not two southern conference games. The numbers lie.
Ben Prather
· 11 months ago
The BCS standings do favor W-L over the percieved strengths of the teams, but is that really a bad thing?
Is it worse than the bias of the pollsters?
Kevin @ Fanblogs
· 12 months ago
We will see a plus one in our lifetime. We will see a four-team playoff in our lifetime. And NONE OF IT will ever answer all of the questions.
All of the playoff arguments center around developing a "more fair" system. That's an indefensible goal. Any system that is "more fair" still falls short of "fair", which I still contend is not a valid goal in the first place. For example... four team playoff... OU, Texas, Florida, Alabama. Fair? Not if your Southern Cal.
Fair = matching the two best teams in a championship game. Regardless of how you calculate the two best teams (bcs/playoffs), there is always going to be a debate about it. If OU had beaten Texas in a playoff, would that be fair... or would Texas fans want a rubber match, 2 out of 3? See what I'm saying?
Ackbar was right - playoffs are a trap.
OU_Ron
· 12 months ago
2 out of 3, hell yeah
Ben Prather
· 12 months ago
With the optional play-in, it is fair to leave out a team if the gap between them and the preceeding team is more than some threshold.
If not, the play in is not needed for the championship and can be used for other purposes , like to seperate between two undefeated BCS outsiders or one outsider and an at large opponent.
Instead of offering a rigid structure with a a fixed number of teams this method allows for a play in if and only if the gap between #3 and #2 is such that it would not be fair to distinguish between them. I used 0.04 because it is generally argued that it was unfair to leave Auburn out in 2004 and that was the difference that year. It also represents an average across the board difference of 1 in all computers and voters.
The BCS could be argued to have a systematic uncertainty of 0.0210. The 0.04 value represents a 97% certainty that #2 is more deserving that #3. The difference between Florida and Texas represents an 80.6 percent certainty that Florida is more deserving than Texas. A 95 % confidence would be 0.0345, 99% confidence would be 0.0489.
If a final standings comes with #4 also within the threshold of #2 a playin with #1 and #4 would be justified. This is closer than #4 was to #2 any week this year.
Ben Prather
· 12 months ago
The measurment values above are a bit sloppy.
Measurement of uncertainty of the BCS components
Since each voter yields integer value for each rank, the descritizatoin error is one half. Massey's ranking comparision indicates the standard deviation for the top 5 runs about 1.84 (RMS average). The latter is a better estimate of the measurement error for each voter/computer.
Due to the central limit theorm, the standard deviation of a the mean of a sample is reduced by a factor of the square root fo the number of sampls. In a poll this vaule is multiplied by the number of samples, thus the standard deviation of a poll is increased by a factor of the square root of the number of voters. For the coaches poll the standard deviation is 14.4. For the Harris Poll it is 19.6. The raw value is divided by the maximum possible, equal to the number of voters times 25. This gives a standard devaition of 0.0094 for the Coaches Poll component and 0.0069 for the Harris Poll component.
For the computers things are more complicated due to the dropping of the highest and lowest value. Calculating the variance for the middle four of six normally distributed values show the standard deviation is reduced by a factor of 0.705, to a value of 1.3. This Computer average compnent is divided by 100 yeilding a standard deviation of 0.013.
Measurment of uncertainty for the BCS formula The variance, the square of the standard deviation, of the sum of independent variables is equal to the sum of the sum of the variance of the parts. This gives a variance of 0.000305, or a standard deviation of 0.0175, for the sum of the three BCS components. Dividing by three yields a standard deviation of 0.0058 for each team in the BCS standings. The error from descritization alone is 0.0016.
Two teams are not independent if they are close. If they are next to each other one can move to the other's spot only if the other one moves. The standard deviation of the difference can be estimated to be the standard deviation times the square root of 3, giving 0.0100.
Certainty that one team is better than another The difference between Florida and Texas is 0.0181 for a z-score of 1.81. This results in a probability of 96.5% that Florida is indeed percieved to be better than Texas by most people. For a difference of 0.04 this would be a 99.996% probability.
Expected disagreement with the results What are the odds that a given polster (or fan) will agree with this value? A difference in the BCS of 0.0181 cooresponds to a difference of 0.45 in ranking, smaller than the discretization error. Assuming the pollster's opinions of the two teams independly have a standard deviation of 1.86 ranking spots from this value, the standard deviation of the difference between the two is found to be 2.63.
This represents a 56.7% agreement that Florida is better than Texas. A BCS difference of 0.04 would represent a 64.8% agreement that the results are correct.
Closing While 0.04 virtually assures that the correct teams are selected, a significant portion of the poulation would still feel this was the wrong choice.
These values do not depend on the error measure in the BCS because the error of the pollsters is significantly larger than the intrinsic error of the BCS.
FSU_Ben
· 11 months ago
Moved.
Regan
· 12 months ago
It seems clear that the box has now been opened. Best of Luck to each and all.
I have for years advocated a system that I have loosely termed "A Plus-One Contingent on Basis of Need"; essentially similar to the one you seem to be advocating.
In other words, if a 1999, 2002 or 2005-style scenario presents itself, the two top teams are evident already; no "Plus-One" is needed. In 98, 00, 01, 03, 04, etc., there were three top teams for two spots, and a "Plus-One" would be appropriate.
The CFB post-season is not a "One-Size-Fits-All" business, and no system will allow a perfect process that doesn't recognize that in each year, the circumstances are different. The subjective nature of the sport is what has always filled the gap,
To begin my shots, I will make two statements:
First, I have two criteria for a national champion: #1: A National Champion should be a 0- or 1-Loss team. #2: A National Champion should be a Conference Champion.
I can support any system that ensures it, even a 16-team playoff (if that were possible).
Second, I MUST point out that there is absolutely one and ONLY one reason why CFB's Post-season system is even up for debate to begin with, and that is quite simply the fact that people want an "undisputed" National Champion. [A team wins the NC and no one else can whine.]
This is important because it is an exceptionally petty reason to radically alter the sheer nature of the sport (Regular Season-Post Season relationship)...IMHO...
The best way to solve the problem is to address the problems themselves - not pretend that a playoff is the magic pill that would fix all the ills with no side effects...
We have a while until the first Bowl Games...I am locked and ready to go. :)
Ben Prather
· 12 months ago
Upon what standard do you base your "contingent on need?"
Should all 0 and one loss conference champions be seeded and put into a playoffs, with undefeated teams needing to be eliminated twice?
That would be: Oklahoma, Florida, USC, Penn State, Utah and Boise State, with the latter two needing two loses to be eliminated.
Aparently, if the desire is to make an undesputed champion by those standards, a very intensive post season would be needed to handle this years contingency.
By stating that a team must be within 0.04 in the BCS standings explicetly states a reasonable amount of concensus that a contingent need is upon us.
Regan
· 11 months ago
Despite what people think, in actuality, the only years we have 'controversies' are when a third team feels left out, they win the BCS game they play in, and one of the two teams in the NC Game gets blown out.
I'll use 2001 for this one: #1 MIA played #2 NEB in the Rose Bowl, and #3 COL played #4 ORE in the Fiesta. MIA blew out NEB, and ORE beat COL. Clearly, it should have been MIA vs. ORE.
This could have been taken care of easily had there been a clause that recognized my Criteria #2: Teams must be Conference Champions.
Criteria #1: 0-Losses or 1-Loss Criteria #2: Conference Champs
In some years, there just might be a need for a "#2 vs. #3; winner plays #1" semi-final. Heck, the stars could align so there just may be 4 or even 8 teams that meet these criteria at the end of a season! This has NEVER happened, but if it did, a contingency could be placed to allow for it.
So long as "Regan's Annoying Two Criteria" are met, I can deal with it.
I have posted my own Counter-Proposal, but it is also flawed and I would love suggestions for it...I'll post it again in a little while, but am interested in building up anticipation... :-)
FSU_Ben
· 11 months ago
I'm certain regan said earlier that people wanted a playoff for the sake of having a playoff, now he says he wants it for the sake of having an undisputed national champion.
I see opprotunity to involve a broader slice of the College football world and increase revenue. Saying we need an undisputed national champion is never gonna get the right people on board for a playoff. Show them the money! Think outside the box. Also having a one loss or 0 loss team requirement is frankly stupid, pardon my lack of patiance with such arguments. Injuries, emotions (Tulsa loss to Houston after losing to Arkansas), natural disastors (Hurricane rescheduleing) etc. can affect a season and I want to know who is the best team. The best team didn't invite 12 powder puffs at 300k a pop for 12 home games and get a national championship. Defeated and undefeated matter so extremly little in football. How you lost, who you lost to and other outside factors could be a part of a computer selection process but other then that strength of schedule should be the deciding factor.
0 or 1 loss requirement = nearly absolutly arbitrary. I think it is paramount that the idea you drop one or two games eliminates you for contention be scrapped. I also want to include Non champions as Texas proves this year that is another arbitrary requirement. Especially since Tie-breakers aren't uniform in all conferences. Must win your conference is silly but not as silly as 0 or 1 loss team. Save some space and just put: I <3 BCS!
Regan
· 11 months ago
Huge ratings and money from the four months of Regular Season would be lost for huge ratings and money from one month of Post-Season.
FSU_Ben
· 11 months ago
Again where does this argument come from? From BCS sponsers and the like. It has no foundation in reality. Where do these HUGE RATINGS come from? Fans watching thier teams make up the bulk. Those that watch the top few teams from the next tier down to see if they can make it up will simply be those that watch to see if they are in the top 16. Why would anything be taken from the regular season. It's a silly parroted arguement that makes no sense. Zero foundation. "NFL lite" you said earlier... no one watches NFL games? We have LESS meaningless games under this system. More games mean something, more teams mean something are you gonna shut the TV off and wait for the playoffs? I doubt it. How does MORE MEANING=LESS INTEREST? I realize you think there is less meaning to the regular season but in every single measureable way there is more meaning. It should equate to more interest. The TV contracts will hold the same value and that is really the only thing that we would need to worry about. It has many other benefits as well and the ONLY downside would be if a team that shouldn't really be champion made it. Vegas numbers suggest that would be an such an exceptional occurance that I would think it might actually be interesting the one time it happens inside a lifetime. Certainly doesn't happen in BB much. UNLV 1990 the last time.
1Tomcat
· 11 months ago
I totally disagree this regular season we had an outstanding year in college football. We had week after week of ranked undefeated against ranked undefeated and every game was extremely important until the end of the regular season, when instead of having 7 huge games that are all extremely important we have 1 huge game and the rest are just for bragging rites and nothing else, alot of these boys will never play again. To think that some of these boys played on one of the greatest teams in the history of Texas football beat your arch rivals by ten points, head to head during the regular season and not have a shot because of a flawed system is an injustice to the greatest American sport College football. In 2008 the importance of the regular season was diminished and the addition of a 8-team playoff utilizing existing bowls would actually make the regular season more important, because the bowls would actually mean something and if a freshman drops and int your still have a chance. Look Regan- first off I'll say that look giving the parity that exist how realistic is it for any team to play the perfect season? I dont like NFL and just using this as an example two teams are playing a 7-5 against a 8-4 bunch of losers why watch? These teams still have a shot at a championship Dont you think that folks would want to watch not only a OU vs FLA; but also maybe The winner of PSU vs USC play the winner of Texas vs Bama have the winner of OU vs Fla play the winner of Utah vs TTech Then the biggest game in history To go undefeated in the XII south has only happened 2 times 2000 OU 2005 UT Regan throw out the conference champ requirement, because some conferences are alot stronger than others and alot of times the best team in a conference is not the conference champ like 01 03 06 08
FSU_Ben
· 11 months ago
Ok good just drop the "utilizing existing bowls" those pigs don't deserve the best games. NCAA playoffs with a massive percentage (99%) going to the schools there is 1 million per school (all schools period) in the latest BCS (TV) contract leaving the extra 6 million for various expenses, that is huge and nearly what is being pulled down now per BCS school. 1.4 mil or so for a 12 team conference. Not saying that is how it should be split up just throwing out numbers. The bowls can still exist but these top games should belong to the schools, the money is huge. Can split the TV money and still give massive rewards to the involved schools (Ticket revenue, Sponsership monies, stadium revenue, so on so forth). Don't let private bowls make the big money.
As far as the conf champ requirement you take the conference champs and soon the conferences strength will even out, within a decade. In the mean time they are chumps to beat up on in the playoffs. His requirement was that you disclude people based on: Not being conf. champion. Losing more than one game. The Rivals proposal allows for a lot of good teams to get in it also includes Troy, ECU, Buffalo. ESPN has a playoff machine that allows for percent chances of upsets and actually allows for upsets. I couldn't get Ball State to win a NC even if I left out the top 5 teams I got them as far as the final round once I think. I got the playoff to give a broken team a championship once and again I didn't include any of the top 5 teams or TTU. Boston College won the NC with an upset over TCU, beat northwestern who upset cincinnati, and then upset penn state and then upset BYU. Required 4 upsets and still I left out all the good teams (Utah was the highest ranked with a number 2 seed). The argument that someone who shouldn't be there could win it is not really an issue, I think we would start to believe in BC if they pulled off that many wins (and it would have had to have beaten some much nicer teams).
Regan
· 11 months ago
The Conference Champ criteria is in there for one specific reason:
By sheer definition, a team cannot reasonably claim they are the National Champion if they are not even their Conference Champion.
I know sometimes (like this year with TEX), there are arguments, but I will always be the one that points out that that's what happens when you lose a game - you throw your destiny to the winds of fate.
Sometimes ya get bit...if you can't win your conference, then enjoy your BCS consolation prize...
Wardboy3
· 11 months ago
I don't buy that argument for one minute. Weak.
Regan
· 11 months ago
You don't have to. Numbers speak for themselves.
Wardboy3
· 11 months ago
What numbers? You said, "Huge ratings and money from the four months of Regular Season would be lost for huge ratings and money from one month of Post-Season."
Please don't make me research this anymore, I'm swamped...
NMLSooner
· 12 months ago
Kevin, that's why you need 16. It takes care of everyone who is deserving and a few who aren't. But at least you know the deserving teams are in.
Kevin @ Fanblogs
· 12 months ago
So... what happens when a "deserving" team gets knocked out of the playoffs? (And before you answer, my follow up question is going to be... How is that different than the current system?)
NMLSooner
· 12 months ago
If you can't win on your home field to a supposed inferior opponent, you regardless of your record, did not deserve to be there. Look farther down the thread at my playoff proposal. For example, Oklahoma State, do they deserve to be in the playoff for a NC? Probably not, but if they were to go to Tuscaloosa in front of 92,000 + screaming 'Bama fans and win, they have proven they deserved to be there and Bama would have proven they did not. College football,more than any other sport has a mysterious quality to it because it is so regional. Sure there are a few out-of-conference game, but where's the intrigue? It in seeing if our 12-1 is as good as yours or is our 9-3 even better than your 12-1. They play a playoff at every level of this sport from peewee to the pros except for this one little sliver of college football--Division 1-A. The difference is in a playoff a loss means the same thing to everyone, and the same for a win. Did a loss mean the same for every team in the current system (OU,UT, UF, Bama)? My question back to you is, why should our system be different from every other level and league?
Kevin @ Fanblogs
· 12 months ago
I would agree with you re: win=win, loss=loss across the board... if getting to that point didn't require the exact same system of measurements in seeding the playoffs. You yourself implied that wins & losses in the regular season are not equal, and yet that is the very system that you would be reliant upon to set the seeds for the perfect resolution??? Something doesn't add up.
NMLSooner
· 12 months ago
You have to have some measurement, and using the BCS does weigh w&l's or Utah and Boise State would be the #1 seeds. At some point you have to say ok maybe it's not perfect, but everyone who has shown they deserve a chance can now prove it on the field. Maybe they could use a committee like the NCAA basketball tourn. instead. I like the computers playing a partial role because they look at a season as a whole. I'm sure it's not perfect, but I tried to give some reward to a great reg. season (1st round home game), keeping the bowls involved (return of New Year's Day being great & even losers in 1st round could still go to other exhibition bowls), and making sure no one gets shafted (Auburn '04, undefeated Boise State or Utah).
Ben Prather
· 12 months ago
The BCS formula is significantly better than RPI.
FSU_Ben
· 11 months ago
The BCS formula is not the best, agreed. Use computers more and spineless wimps setting up the best possible game less. I don't want a system hyped up by ESPN telling us who is a great team. 90% computers or 100%. Objective not Subjective. SOS etc. Enough BS about how wonderful some fat fullback that Verne Lundquist has a mancrush on and can't throw a ball to to the numbers to save his life. How do I know how USC stacks against SEC style offense or defenses or BIG-12...? Had they scored, what 4 more points @Oregon State they would be in the NC game instead we have an entirely different game. PLAYOFF.
Regan
· 12 months ago
Define "Deserving", please.
In the BCS Era, name a year when more than 3 teams realistically deserved to be crowned National Champion.
You can try shooting at 2007, of course, but then you would still only get 3 teams (OHST, LSU, SCAL), since UGA had the same 2-Loss record as LSU but LSU had won the SEC Title.
Even in the most bizarre year CFB has seen since...fill in the blank - which other teams besides these honestly (and I mean honestly) deserved a chance to upset OHST or LSU to take home the NC Crown?
NMLSooner
· 12 months ago
I can refer you to the dictionary for the definition of deserving, but in this case, it is probably subjective. Who deserves a chance against OSU or LSU last year? How about any two-loss team (like LSU) from a decent conference. How about a team that qualifies for a 16-team tournament and wins four games in a row against some of the best teams in America.
Regan
· 11 months ago
Let me put it to you this way...which team was the best team in the NFL last year?
The problem is that many people have different definitions of what they believe the NC to be.
Some believe that it's "the Best two teams". Some think it's the "Most Deserving" two teams. Others think it should be "the two teams that played the most perfect seasons against decent competition."
I fit into the last category, along with 100+ years of CFB's tradition. Other sports are different, and I say more power to them.
CFB is different, always has been, and is the better for it, hence all the passion...
Wardboy3
· 11 months ago
But to use your point about the NFL last year. The way the current college football system is set up now the NYG would have never been able to play NE b/c everybody would be saying the NYG are not "deserving", too many losses, already lost to NE head to head.
Also all the passion about CFB only excist in the southeast of the US and around some other schools. It is not widespread across all 119 D1 teams. But maybe if all 119 D1 teams knew they had a chance to prove it on the field , maybe it would be more widespread.
Regan
· 11 months ago
The point was simple - anyone who paid attention to the season at large would have seen the Patriots literally bulldozing through every single game of the regular season and charging to the Super Bowl.
While Upsets are fun to watch, there can be no doubt that the Patriots were "The Best Team" last year in the NFL. NONE.
The Giants got lucky, the ball bounced their way, and they became Super Bowl Champs. They were better "That Given Sunday", and that's enough to win the NFL.
That works for them, so more power to them! But that is NOT CFB.
FSU_Ben
· 11 months ago
They didn't bulldoze thier way through every game but your point is taken. I think (and I don't even watch profootball much but happened to attend the dolphins/pats game and saw a couple others on TV) that Philly came somewhat close? and was it Balitmore? I was following it though because hadn't been done since the dolphins good story blah blah but yes it was a bit shitty to lose that last game and I agree the giants were inferior but there are what 36 teams in the NFL? And still we don't often go into the post season knowing who is the best.
There is no way in heck we can say who is the best of 119 (and some of the bottom of that 119 appear range below the best of the lower division!) teams with certainty and I doubt every year that we get the right two. Let alone a right one out of the two. To use your example I don't know USC was the best team in 2005 I just know the almost lost to Fresno State and let Vince Young walk all over them in the national championship game (and I do mean WALK). Being undefeated is not a sign of a good team necessarily. It is generally the sign of A. a lucky team and B. a consistantly motivated team.
As to motivation: I think that first loss can be an enormous blow to motivation in the current system, thinking you are out and certainly being out in any non BCS league and even in some BCS leagues. If you didn't start out in the preseason top-25 you didn't even make it to the national championship game, at least not yet. How do you stay motivated when pathetically bad sports casters have pretty much given your team no shot (because of the way rankings work) right from the start. We see that a team could go from unranked to NC but it still hasn't happened. A second loss and you might as well give up your season as it no longer matters unless a small bag of swag is all you are looking for (at the end of the season) or you really like you coach and don't want to see him fired. Why compete when it is meaningless. No playoff detracts from the game massively. I don't like CF because of a dumb BCS system and a chosen national champion I like it INSPITE of that. I like the emotion and I think there would be more if seasons mattered past 1-2 losses. I am compelled by the more amature nature and the drive of these kids to compete in the face of almost no reward (no fat checks). 99% of college football players will never see the NFL a good portion don't even see a regular bowl game. I want to see thier seasons have more meaning, give them a shot at something only BCS schools can ever do.
The system we have now is madness.
Regan
· 11 months ago
There is absolutely no way of knowing "who is the best team" with 12-game seasons.
CFB has always decided who deserves the title by evaluating each team's body of work throughout the entire season.
As far as TEX and SCAL being the two best teams at the end of 2005, you are entitled to your opinion, but the overwhelming consensus was that those were the right two teams to play for the NC.
As far as motivation goes, your analysis is massively disproved every single season by watching teams play hard to finish out their seasons.
If it was as you claim it is, as soon as a team gets that 3rd loss, they would lose the rest from lack of motivation, and this is NEVER the case. There is always something to play for (a better Bowl more often than not).
There is always motivation.
The system we have now is not madness. It is chaotic, though...
Wardboy3
· 11 months ago
But the current college football system does not take into account EVERYBODYS body of work. It only considers a few.
Regan
· 11 months ago
This is true, if you mean the few that have the best records and are most deserving for playing in the NC Game.
If you mean the mid-majors, you're spot on, however.
Check out the proposal that Ben Prather and I have put forth and see what you think. We're eager for some feedback.
Ben Prather
· 12 months ago
More than three, why not more than 1?
For deserving I'll go with this:
1) had 1 loss or less losses - accidents happen, allowed one strike.
2) won their conference - if you don't win your conference how can you claim the nation?
3) won their bowl game - you have to win when it matters most.
You can also shoot at 2004. 2004: USC, Alabama, Utah
Regan
· 11 months ago
Ben, both of us can be analytical and wordy, but it's looking like we are probably on the same page.
My system is set up similarly, but is flawed (partially) with how to include the mid-majors and how to ensure decent Strength O'Schedule...
Ben Prather
· 11 months ago
I have actually described two different changes to the current system and how they can be incorporated together.
The optional play in, used either to distinguish between two mid majors vying for a BCS spot or to face off #2 and #3 if the BCS standings indicate it is needed was one component.
A plus one was the other.
My synergism of the two is flawed because it loses the contingent flexibility.
FSU_Ben
· 11 months ago
Look how conference champions are chosen. FSU, Miami, and Boston College beat VT.... Texas beat OU. Lets not say a team is undeserving because the didn't win thier conference or because they did. It apprently means little unless you won all your games and the rest of the conference didn't. It is fair to say Utah is deserving of a playoff game with those criteria, it is NOT fair to say Texas doesn't. I could never agree to give anything out of the mountain west or WAC (although an undefeated TCU, Fresno State, or ECU would have had arguments) a shot at claiming best in the nation and not say Texas. Conference championship is arbitrary to the arguement.
One strike is hardly enough unless we start making people play more equal schedules. One strike for Boise or Utah is NOT equal to one strike for Alabama. Also the way the polls work one strike means more or less depending on when it happens in the season. Had Ole Miss beaten Florida two weeks before the SEC championship game I think we would send Texas and Oklahoma to replay. If not it would probably be USC against one of those two. Again, arbitrary. Weigh the losses. TCU loss to Oklahoma is a lot better than it's loss to Utah and Ball States Loss to Buffalo Not all losses are equal. Ball State losing to Miami (OH) (abysmal team this year) and winning against Buffalo would have still given them a conf. championship. Let's not start throwing around arbitrary loss restrictions. We ask:
Who did you lose to? Where did you lose? How Much did you lose by?
Those are questions that will give us a better picture as to the QUALITY of the football team. That is how you choose a national champion.
Example: Temple is a 5 win team. Examine more closely and you see that 5 win team is probably not to far off being conf champion in that league.
DATE OPPONENT W-L (CONF) RESULT 8/29 @ Army 1-0 (0-0) W 35-7 9/06 Connecticut 1-1 (0-0) L 12-9 OT (Big East Middle of the pack 3 points in OT) 9/13 @ Buffalo 1-2 (0-1) L 30-28 (by 2 points to the conference Champion AWAY) 9/20 @ No. 16 Penn State 1-3 (0-1) L 45-3 (ok MAC sucks) 9/27 Western Michigan 1-4 (0-2) L 7-3 (4 points) 10/04 @ Miami (OH) 2-4 (1-2) W 28-10 10/11 @ Central Michigan 2-5 (1-3) L 24-14 (10 points to the 2nd most winning team in the league?) 10/21 Ohio 3-5 (2-3) W 14-10 11/01 @ Navy 3-6 (2-3) L 33-27 OT (8 win navy needed an OT to win?) 11/12 @ Kent State 3-7 (2-4) L 41-38 (a field goal) 11/22 Eastern Michigan 4-7 (3-4) W 55-52 (looks like the need some defense heh) 11/28 Akron 5-7 (4-4) W 27-6
Not saying they should be in a playoff just showing you losses reveal as much as wins and we should examine them. We only have 12 games. Count the losses for something too. In BB it seems who you lost to and how much you lost by matters, that spastic sport it shouldn't matter at all. Any given day in that game it seems anything can happen but that is far less the case in Football.
Ben Prather
· 11 months ago
I disagree about the quality of TCU's loses.
Against Oklahoma they were throttled and looked out of their league. Against Utah they looked like the better team that managed to lose on the road.
FSU_Ben
· 11 months ago
Well you are free to find better examples :P TCU lost to Oklahoma though. Tulsa looked like a good team most the year then lost to Houston like 70-20. That is a very bad loss. It was obvious it was because they lost to the worst team in the SEC the weak before, to me at least. But still. Horrible loss to a poor opponent. They were a ranked team 2 weeks prior. I'm saying we don't consider losses at all except that we say, your F---ed for the season, you lost.
FSU_Ben
· 11 months ago
WVU?
Regan
· 11 months ago
In this case, it is the fact they played in a weaker conference, and lost late.
WVU 2007 lost their last game on their home field to a 5-7 PITT team, and had 2 losses, and SCAL finished with 4 wins.
Neither team had decent claim to go over LSU (2-Loss SEC team), who had the same number of losses in a far tougher conference.
IMHO, neither deserved to play for the NC, but since 2007 was such a crazy year, I included them simply because they were another candidate that was mentioned at the end of the season as potentially worthy of Title Game consideration.
Ben Prather
· 11 months ago
Did 2007 really warrant a national champion?
Do we actually need to crown one every year?
FSU_Ben
· 11 months ago
Ok are we giving out the crystal football for sparkling seasons or do we actually want to know what team is the best. A playoff is far more likely to indicate which team is best mathmatically speaking. It also won't be 100 percent of course but I think that makes it a little more fun!
Maybe we should invent an award for going 12 games without losing? Would that bring more people onboard to a playoff idea? Now we are suggesting that there is no best team because everyone had 2 losses? See why a requirement you only have 0 or 1 losses is arbitrary. Do you get to keep your strike if a 0 loss team losses to a one loss team in the NC game? Do they have to play again? Silly silly. Who is the best team is what we should be figuring out. Yes the Nature of the beast will be who is the best team at the end of the season. Unfortunatly being the best at the begining of the season doesn't matter and why should it.
Shiney seasons are good bragging rights but I want to know who is the best, head to head. As much as possible. I don't think anyone is argueing a playoff would be perfect.
Canada does 8 game regular season followed by a playoff in conf (including only the best teams top half of the conference or so.). They then send the best of each conference to two bowls which then funnel thier winners into the varnier cup game. I think they have a better although not perfect picture of who the national champion is every year. I don't want to cut down to 8 games but we could certainly lose everyones free FCS game we recently added (I refer to the 12th game). FSU and Clemson are guilty of TWO EACH this year to pad wins. Unwitting voters RANKED FSU after thier 2 wins over FCS opponents. Wins for the sake of wins because we apparently just like to see W or L to judge everything. Stop the insanity.
BTW I brought up canada even though we have 3 divisions that play playoffs in the US. I thought people might point out those sports all have very poor followings as if that has relevance. Those playoff's work very well and are good examples. Also they allow in just about any sizeable conference that wants in, some new leagues don't have automatic bids but i'm sure the future will change that. What we have now is outdated even as it slowly evolves into some other outdated creature.
Regan
· 11 months ago
>>>>Ok are we giving out the crystal football for sparkling seasons or do we actually want to know what team is the best. A playoff is far more likely to indicate which team is best mathmatically speaking. It also won't be 100 percent of course but I think that makes it a little more fun!<<<<
The 2007 Super Bowl is the best evidence that a Playoff is beyond flawed at giving us the "Best" team as the winner.
Also, given the proclivity for Upsets in CFB, Playoffs will yield even more flawed "Best" teams at this level of play.
The Problem is:
A Playoff will take away from what makes CFB great and unique NOW.
Same Flaws, Less uniqueness. It's a Lose-Lose...
FSU_Ben
· 11 months ago
I replied furthur up as to the 2007 NFL season and flawed playoffs. Basically as it stands I think we have MORE flaws. But we are in agreement that a playoff is not a cure all. Also I really don't think whatever it is about college football you think is unique has any value. No one watches footballs to see the bowls after. We basically watch our team for various reasons and the championship game, that won't change with a playoff. I guess it would be less unique but that level of unique to me is akin to deciding the coin toss by seeing which team captain can knit a sweater faster. Some uniqueness is bizzare and would add no value to the game (and we already see that is the case here imo).
Media driven games (choices of teams): Garbage
You will stop watching College football regan? really? are you playing devils advocate? I just don't see why you rehash these redherrings that have little merit. I said I would like to see bowl games spared so you can keep most the uniqueness and tradition just removing the crazy. You love the BCS? I am wondering how anyone could be informed and still enjoy the present system. I think it is disgusting, biased, and massively unfair, I also feel schools aren't getting thier share of the money from the current system. I want it gone at the very least I don't want to hear "Sugar, Orange, Fiesta, Rose" they are basically stealing money that should be in schools pockets. If we can't have a playoff I want the games we do have completely under the control of the colleges.
Regan
· 11 months ago
>>>> I replied furthur up as to the 2007 NFL season and flawed playoffs. Basically as it stands I think we have MORE flaws. But we are in agreement that a playoff is not a cure all. <<<<
What flaws does the current system have that a Playoff would fix completely?
>>>> Also I really don't think whatever it is about college football you think is unique has any value. No one watches footballs to see the bowls after. We basically watch our team for various reasons and the championship game, that won't change with a playoff. <<<<
Speak for yourself. I will watch any ACC or SEC team in a Bowl game, and check out good games whenever they are on. I will watch the BCS Bowls regardless, and the Title Game even if I hate both teams. Most CFB fans are with me on this.
>>>> I guess it would be less unique but that level of unique to me is akin to deciding the coin toss by seeing which team captain can knit a sweater faster. Some uniqueness is bizzare and would add no value to the game (and we already see that is the case here imo). <<<<
The uniqueness is in the value of the Regular Season and the tradition of the Bowl Games, the first of which was played in 1902.
It's what the sport IS and always has been. Many people love it. Others want to change it. And for those like me who could care less about any other sport, I get really riled up every winter when a whole bunch of NFL pundits take time out to bash CFB because it isn't as cookie-cutter as all the other sports...
It's not for everyone, I know....that's why they invented the No Fun League to begin with. :)
>>>> You will stop watching College football regan? really? are you playing devils advocate? I just don't see why you rehash these redherrings that have little merit. <<<<
Little merit? You aren't changing my mind any more than I am yours, but don't pretend my points have little merit.
>>>> You love the BCS? I am wondering how anyone could be informed and still enjoy the present system. I think it is disgusting, biased, and massively unfair, I also feel schools aren't getting thier share of the money from the current system. <<<<
Not since 2004; I no longer support the BCS. I just know that anything more than a "Plus-One" will scrap what is special about the sport.
>>>> I want it gone at the very least I don't want to hear "Sugar, Orange, Fiesta, Rose" they are basically stealing money that should be in schools pockets. If we can't have a playoff I want the games we do have completely under the control of the colleges. <<<<
Read Stewart Mandel's "Bowls, Polls, and Tattered Souls". Seriously. The Bowls are NOT in charge.
The dirty secret? (no one is in charge...)
FSU_Ben
· 11 months ago
I stated several times I would watch any college football so I wasn't speaking for myself. I was speaking for the ratings average joe fan not addicts. I will watch any bowl pretty much but I am far from typical and I know that. You are too.
The special has no value is my arguement. It would be like all college football players wear pom poms on thier helmets. It's dumb not valueble. And if you like bowls for the sake of bowls those can probably be perserved removing nothing unique from college football except the stupid way we choose national champions. That can't possibly hold value for you. Every year you are excited about this idiotic system that has been around since 1998.... Fantastic. It's predesessor started about 20 years ago, before that it was even more arbitrary how we chose national champions and before that we didn't bother choose them at all. Maybe we should go back to that so we can be unique? Come on with these arguments I seriously doubt you can advocate this on THAT reasoning. Maybe you feel like it is the only way that Miami and Tennessee will get national championships? That would betray a fundamental misunderstanding of our arguments though so I doubt that too. I don't get it.
Wardboy3
· 11 months ago
Who is to say that LSU 2 losses in a "tougher conf". LSU lost to KY who did beat FSU in the Music City bowl but if you look at the game it came down to the last play for FSU to possibley tie or win. And FSU was not very good last year & they had all the suspended players also. LSU also lost to ARK who got blown out in their next game against Mizzu 38-7. To me those 2 losses don't look very good now.
Regan
· 11 months ago
The SEC in 2007 was a much tougher conference than the Pac-10 or the Big East. The proof is in the rankings.
Even if it wasn't, LSU had to get through a Conf Championship Game and the other two didn't.
Wardboy3
· 11 months ago
As for the "proof is in the rankings"...just look back at this years rankings and look at who started where ranked and where they are now. To say the rankings are your proof...that is really weak.
As for 2007 LSU going thru a conf champ game & the others did not...the others played EVERYBODY in their conf & had a TRUE conf champ...the SEC and the 2007 LSU did not.
Ben Prather
· 12 months ago
Fair - Teams within 0.04 BCS points of a team given a guaranteed chance at the title should also have a chance at the title.
The BCS is intrinsically very accurate at determining the global concensus and poor at convincing everyone, as demonstrated below. A difference of 0.04 gives a 99.9996% chance that most people feel the teams are arranged properly, but only a 64.8% chance that a random fan will agree with the order.
By this argument, there is no need for a title game if one team has a lead of 0.04 after the season.
When their are two teams clearly ahead of the rest their is no problem wiht the current system.
The problem arises when two or more teams are near the boundary used for eligiblity. The farther you are from the top the murkier the details get. The more teams you add to a playoffs the harder it gets to fairly asign the last spots, whatever standard of fair is used.
The only way to avoid this is to: - Use a small number of teams - Use a gap to seperate the participants instead of a fixed ranking - Make a structure that can accomodate a variable number of teams
The current system with an optional play in game meets these criterion, and would not put BCS GURU out of business.
Wardboy3
· 12 months ago
Here is my wrinkle. You have 119 teams spread across 12 conf. Have each conf with just 10 teams (12 conf x 10 teams = 120). So one conf might be short, but stay with me. You play everybody in your conf (like the PAC-10) and you have yourself a TRUE conf champ. You can throw in one or two OOC games giving everybody 10 or 11 regular season games. All 12 advance to a playoff. No at-larges, no crying. You win & you are in. You can then use a BCS type formula to rank these 12 conf champs and give the top 4 a first round bye and play in a NCAA B-ball type ranking. 8 vs 9, 5 vs 12, etc. Understand?
Ben Prather
· 12 months ago
This is better:
12 conference of 10, or 10 conferences of 12, with conference championships as the first round of the playoffs.
The top 4 would be placed in BCS bowls, #5-#8 would host #9-#12 in geographically aligned games just before the bowls, with the winners of those games are then placed in the current BCS Bowl which act as the quarter finals.
Any proposal with the BCS Bowls as a quarter finals extend too far into January for the NCAA to allow. Indeed a plus one is resisted feircely.
Regan
· 12 months ago
Any system based on conference sizes being altered by rule will fail.
Large amounts of power in CFB actually comes from the conferences themselves. They come up with their own rules, each team makes its own OOC schedule, and even disciplinary actions are decided upon by the Conferences.
[I know you know this, Ben, just posting it for others...]
FSU_Ben
· 11 months ago
I don't know about that. They system requiring 12 teams per conf: ND would have a better chance of a playoff with two routes rather than one therefore it would join the Big 10 in all likelyhood bringing them to 12. PAC-10 asked to expand would probably take Utah/BYU and the mountain west could pull teams out of the WAC easily. The WAC could pull teams from C-USA (former members of the WAC for instance, not that far fetched, Tulsa could become a western conf team WACor MWC). The C-USA could replace it's losses from the Sunbelt or La Tech or taking the extra team from the MAC.
All of this could be accomplished through affiliations where teams remain in thier old conf for other sports etc. Many of these teams I suggest have been in the same conferences before historically. The only issue would be for C-USA who would take newcomers out of the Sunbelt, something they will likely be forced to do anyways as they are the first conference getting pillaged if the BIG EAST expands again.
Regan
· 11 months ago
IF (and I stress IF) all the conferences wanted to expand to 12, it would work.
The problem is that they don't, and no one can make them.
FSU_Ben
· 11 months ago
Make Automatic participation contingant on expansion. Isn't that hard with 5 conf already at 12 and 1 at 11 1 at 10.
The Sunbelt would be a 12 team conference if there were 12 teams, they take anyone that wants to come.
The WAC has historically taken anyone that wants to come. (was a 16 team monster for a little while).
I'm sure something could be worked out with the PAC-10 to get them to 12. The increased revenue of a CONF championship alone has been enough to get many legues to expand I think they just want to see what the best options are for them.
The MWC really broke off to get away from Hawaii. I think they might like some of the old teams back. The have no Idaho team atm either.
I'm just randomly speculating here of course. I think the biggest problem is the strange big east. Most people don't think it's stable in the long term but they seem to resist following the model of viable BCS conferences. only 11 of 16 schools play football only 9 at FBS level and only 8 as a conference. So odd. I guess as long as they keep an automatic BCS bid they will stay stable as is... Lets hope the keep sending Cincinnati to the BCS!
Regan
· 11 months ago
FSU_Ben, I strongly recommend you read Stewart Mandel's "Bowls, Polls, and Tattered Souls":
In this book it will explain the powers that be and how they relate to each other regarding the current Post-Season Structure, etc.
It is enlightening, and just a fun read. It also answers a LOT of questions and explains why things are the way they are, and how they could be improved in the future, etc.
It also has a great section on Conference Expansion, and ties it into the post-season...
FSU_Ben
· 11 months ago
I'll put it on my christmas list!
Regan
· 11 months ago
Awesome...you'll love it, even if we disagree on this issue, there's so much stuff that makes that book a keeper...
Ben Prather
· 11 months ago
When you look at who the MWC would take from the WAC ( and C-USA West ) you will see that the remnants of the WAC would then be far weaker than C-USA. C-USA would actually take Louisiana Tech and maybe a couple of the Eastern SunBelt teams. The WAC would take the western sunbelt teams.
Actually it could be argued that some schools, say Hawaii, would be better off independent than in the WAC-Belt.
FSU_Ben
· 11 months ago
Even with the special allowance from the NCAA to play 13 games if you play @Hawaii I don't see how they could fill out thier schedule each year. The whole MWC ran away from the WAC (4 MWC members are WAC founders as you are probably aware) in large part because of Hawaii (Travel expense). What convinces you they would actually fare better without the 7 games already penciled in each season?
What other schools do you think would fare better independent? I think there are a few BCS schools that might be able to pull it off. But smaller schools?
Ben Prather
· 11 months ago
Any team that could schedule predominately PAC 10 and MWC teams would fair better as intependents than in a WAC Belt conference.
Hawaii, Nevada and San Jose State could easily accomplish this.
That said, if the PAC 10 expands and the MWC goes to 12, Hawaii and Nevada would be in the MWC.
NMLSooner
· 12 months ago
16 teams from BCS rankings.1-16 with 17-20 ranked conf. champ replacing lowest ranked non-conf. champ. Play 1st rnd this weekend at home of top seeds. Add Cotton to make five major bowls. Second round this year played Jan. 1 in Cotton, Fiesta, Rose & Sugar. Orange Bowl Final Four played Jan. 10 & championship on Jan. 19. You would have to play one semi-final in Tampa since the Orange Bowl Stadium is no more and the field is grass. Other bowls with grass fields have nearby secondary stadiums to host a semi-final. This year it would look like this: 8 Georgia @ 1 Oklahoma 5 Boise State @ 4 Penn State 6 TCU @ 3 USC 7 Oklahoma State @ 2 Alabama 7 Georgia Tech @ 2 Texas 6 Cincinnati @ 3 Utah 5 Ohio State @ 4 Texas Tech 8 Virginia Tech @ 1 Florida After 1st rnd is played four bowls decide which game each gets. note: Rose Bowl can't have USC if playing Alabama because is higher seed (100 radius of stadium). This would give every deserving team a chance and a couple who don't. But, if those teams can go on the road and win at high seeds, more power to them.
Regan
· 12 months ago
What would it have looked like in 2005?
NMLSooner
· 12 months ago
I'll have to get back to you on that. I have it at home for every year the BCS has been in existence and resulting stats to go with it. Yes, I live a sad and pathetic existence: (
#17-20: Florida, Wisconsin, Louisville, Michigan none Conference champ, and not replacing anyone.
NMLSooner
· 12 months ago
I would swap the 8 seeds also. That's why I seeded 1-8 instead of 1-16 so that it made it easier to swap.
Regan
· 11 months ago
My point was simple:
After the end of the Regular Seasons, everyone and their cousin knew exactly who the best teams in the nation were.
If no upsets ever occurred, I'd say "go for it". This isn't the case, though. Both SCAL and TEX went out, won every game against good competition, and no one else did.
Period. Having it so that they had to play a bunch of other games and risk losing in an upset could have deprived us of the matchup we all KNEW was the one that was the Right One....
It wouldn't have worked in 2005. It might in 2013 if the Top 8 teams all finish 10-2, but it isn't worth it every year to have such a rigid system...
1Tomcat
· 12 months ago
I like it NML good job BTW 3 Texas teams from the old SWC Note to old bitter rivals: Texas A&M and Arkansas- look dont run off your coach after a winning season yall hurt our SOS-LOL Hookem
NMLSooner
· 12 months ago
I wish the SWC was still around. I liked it when OU played UT for "braggin' rites" alone. OU lost one of college football's great traditions with the Big XII, OU/Nebraska on Thanksgiving weekend. As for the playoff, I think you would agree Texas & Texas Tech both deserve a chance to win it all in a playoff.
AUtigerman
· 12 months ago
This is the time of year when i actually dont enjoy college football as much.
May seem like a strange thing to say, These are suppose to be the best games and all. But to me a college fan that started liking college football realitively late in life i just dont get it.
Bowl games used to be fun,an extra couple weeks of football to help get through the winter. But now days IMO it seems to have lost something.
Dont belive me? trying trecking half way across the country to watch your team play in a half empty stadium. Where neither team has a tremendous amout of support. Only to see that several of your star players are nicked up and not playing. The games arent the same unless your in a BCS game and even then maybe not if you were one of the teams left out of the big game.
My solution wouldnt be the most popular and nothing will ever be totally 100 % fair but here goes anyway.
First ,do away with the bowl games, They are a waste of money in most cases. Besides what young man in his right mind will sell out to play his best when he has been projected as a first round pick? especially in a minor bowl game. If im coaching a guaranted first round pick in a minor bowl, im telling him to sit this one out.
Secondly why should Division 1 (bowl championship seris) be the only one without a playoff. Division two does it and its very exciting. When i was a kid my parents used to feed me liver and tell me it was steak. We wouldnt eat liver but we loved steak....lol
My point is, we have been told forever it could never work but it does work, just look at division 2. A 16 team playoff.With no huge 6 week layoff. They have a comparable amount of teams.
Use the little brother as an example and get your stuff together
Regan
· 12 months ago
I give Auburn fans a bit of a break when it comes to this stuff, as I stopped being a full-on BCS supporter when the 2004 Undefeated SEC Champs were left out in the cold. Yall have a reason to get cranky regarding this stuff.
The reason Bowls are seeming more and more empty is because there are so many (68 bowl berths this year), and now most of the Bowls are smaller bowls. Trust me when I tell you that the Gator Bowl, Rose Bowl, Fiesta Bowl, Cotton Bowl, etc. will be packed...
In response, though, Regular Season devaluation.
AUtigerman
· 11 months ago
Regan
With all due respect could you explain why you think this would devaluate regular season? Ive heard that same point but noone explains it.
So do you think a 2-9 Auburn team playing 11-0 Alabama would be less of a game just because win or lose Bama still goes to a playoff? Well that happened this year and even though it wasnt much of a game i can assure you that it was of interest to AU.
This could be virtually avoided by the way you structure it.
Let all the BCS conferences have a championship game to determine who will represent their conference with an automatic bid. Let 4 at large teams have a playoff for the final 2 spots.
This way you have an 8 team bracket,totally fair? maybe not, however its far better then the fiasco called the BCS.
Actually i hate when a team like USC loses early to a good Oregon State team and has vertually no chance to win a NT. That seems to devaluate the entire season to me.
Play your hearts out every single game ,even go undefeated (Utah,Boise State) and get no chance.
In the interest of fairness something needs to be done.
Regan
· 11 months ago
All the postings I have made on this thread, and they are pretty much all from memory; I haven't even delved into my "Playoffs Suck" Folder.
This article was written in Feb. 2005, just a month or so after Auburn got shafted, and is flawless at pointing out the uniqueness of the CFB Regular Season as compared to March Madness.
As far as the Iron Bowl goes, of course not. Rivalry games will be Rivalry Games no matter what. I guarantee you that AUB-MSST or AUB-ARK would take a hit in interest, though...
My plan (which I am refining with Ben Prather), is one in which is flexible, taking into the account that different years have different circumstances and different scenarios.
IOW: If you have an 2005 SCAL-TEX year, then it works as normal (no reason for either to play another team prior if we already know who the two best are).
In a 2004 AUB-SCAL-OU debacle, then #2 plays #3 and the winner gets to play #1.
If Four teams are up there, then you get a Playoff of Four.
The biggest problem with both the current system and a Playoff Season is that both are Rigid.
Allowing for chaos will allow chaos to be dealt with much more smoothly. :)
SirSmokeAlot
· 12 months ago
Deserving teams get beat out of the play-offs in every sport. The thing is, is that 16 teams would have a chance, not some completely GAY +1 system. Bowls Suck!!! Like Notre Dame in a bowl-Who gives a fu_ _!!!
Regan
· 12 months ago
Some people just want a playoff because they want a playoff; not because it would actually fix the current problems the Post-Season suffers from.
It's kinda like some people in Congress just wanting to raise the minimum wage simply for the sake of doing so, giving no thought to exactly which issues need to be impacted and other potential better alternatives.
It's a thirst for a Cure without caring about what's wrong with the patient...
Kevin @ Fanblogs
· 12 months ago
DING! DING! DING!
NMLSooner
· 12 months ago
While I whole-heartedly agree with you when it come to the minimum wage, I obviously disagree with the thought of a playoff for playoffs sake. Because it is of great interest to me, I like to read as many commentaries on the potential stumbling blocks to a playoff and try to work out a system that best answers those and still gives a playoff. Other data I have, at home, shows why I think 16 teams is the best way to go based on the percentages of teams making the playoffs in all NCAA sports, including......division 1-AA football. I think a playoff system would be bigger than the Super Bowl in the US.
Ben Prather
· 12 months ago
The proper number of teams for a playoffs is the square root of the number of teams.
The NFL should have 6 teams but has 12 teams. Even if the conferences are examined separately they should only have 8 teams. This reduces the value of the regular season, as far as the championship goes.
For 120 teams, 11 teams would be ideal. The current system is at best 4 teams leaving much room for uncertainty in the matter.
16 would be much closer to the ideal, but 12 with the top 4 having a bye round would be even better.
Alternatively this idea can benefit from not specifying the exact number of teams. All conference champions in the top 20 should go, and all teams from the top until a large gap (Say 0.04) in the BCS standings closest to 12 teams.
NMLSooner
· 12 months ago
This is what I used to come up with a sixteen team playoff. http://web1.ncaa.org/web_files/championships/20... I was just following what the NCAA already has in place for all the other sports. If you have 32 of 120 (i'm including Western Kentucky) the percentage is 26.7% 16 of 120 is 13.3%, 8 is 6.7%. At 16 1-A football has the smallest percentage of participant in the playoffs. But I think football should be at the bottom.
Regan
· 11 months ago
Yeah, NML, I wasn't referring to you, FSU_Ben, Tomcat, or ksuwild (my long-time Playoff Nemesis).
All of you actually dig a little deeper to have legit reasons you believe Playoffs would work.
Some people don't.
CFB is different, and they don't want to even bother understanding why - they just bash it. (Many NFL fans fit into this group.)
NMLSooner
· 11 months ago
You mean CFB Division 1-A is different. Different from NCAA Division 1-AA, Division II, Division III, & NAIA,, which, of course, all have a playoff.
AUtigerman
· 11 months ago
This is the exact point i like to make. Not to mention High school, middlle school ,peewee league, and every other football association on the planet.
Regan
· 11 months ago
And yet none of them possess the passion and tradition of D1 CFB....
NMLSooner
· 11 months ago
The passion comes from rivalries, some over 100 years old, the connection people feel with the university they went to. I remember as a youngster listening to the games on the radio as I played outside, and when I got a chance to step onto Owen Field as a high schooler and all the thoughts of my childhood heroes rushing through my head. CFB is NOT popular because it does not have a playoff. It is popular because of the connection it has with its fans, some who could care less about football unless it involves their university.
Regan
· 11 months ago
Yep. Way it is...
Wardboy3
· 11 months ago
"I think a playoff system would be bigger than the Super Bowl in the US."
I could not agree more!!!!!!!!!
Regan
· 11 months ago
While scrapping the importance of the Regular Season...
No one denies that CFB's post-season could be improved.
And yet there is a reason why the "powers that be" continue to keep it going the way it is. And money is NOT one of these reasons (as anyone with a calculator and Nielsen ratings could tell a Playoff would make more money).
Why? Because they know what they're doing...
FSU_Ben
· 11 months ago
Ok Regan you must be getting a check from one of the Bowls... Does fanblogs get a kickback if the moderators argue insanity? Maybe Regan used to be on the Univeristy of Miami Forsensics team and he is just taking the Negative?
Regan
· 11 months ago
I WISH.
Ben Prather and I are nearing completion on our joint Playoff concept; hopefully I can get out of the "negativity zone" soon enough. :)
Ben Prather
· 11 months ago
I don't think we have built a play offs.
More like a wishbone, triple option post season...
In fact I think that's what I'll call it.
FSU_Ben
· 12 months ago
Bowl games are a lot of tradition and one of the best parts of college football, I would hate to see them go away. That said there is an article out there and I can't find it to link but it basically has a 16 team proposal that includes a bowl season. Mind you the BCS and bowls do not take part in the playoff, they just move back to the role they used to fill as reward games at the end of the season.
This format had all conf. champions and used seeds, 1vs16 style you can imagine the rest. With 11 Conf. there were 5 at large bids (a decent amount to keep the complaining din to a minimum). 2 rounds would be played immediatly post season and the final playoff would be post christmas with the NC game in the first or second week of the new year. The bowl games would be seperate and wouldn't make the money they make now but schools would get MORE revenue out of the playoffs (this proposal had the playoffs run by the NCAA). The final game and perhaps the final three games would be Neutral site games that would NEVER BE PLAYED IN JACKSONVILLE (ok I made that last part up).
Some would argue that sunbelt champions aren't better then the bottom of the SEC or even ACC but if we had this format there would be a general move toward more parity it would weaken BCS conferences stranglehold. I have mixed feelings about that.
The bowls would still be around though. They could still be corporate sponsered and fun diversions but the big games would belong to the NCAA and there would be MUCH more money to split up amoung conferences (although home seeded teams would get to keep ticket revenue (With some split with the visitor as is usual) the TV contract would be NCAA and split revenue). Losers from the playoffs could drop into the bowl picture as well. The champ and runner-up would be the only teams that could not get a bowl if the bowl season was extended out a bit. We can all see why sending a champ or the runner up to a bowl afterward would seem pointless and cause problems if either lost.
I really liked the plan and I probably don't do it justice truncating it so severely but like I said I couldn't find the link. Many think this would make the bowl season worthless but I would say it only strips the upper most vaule out and leaves the rest. It ruins those top 4 bowls. That leaves 30-32 or so at the same level of value in my book. I still would watch most bowls like I do now. Most bowls will survive with some of the crappier ones dying out maybe.
The main point is to stop talking about an 8 or 16 team playoff that involves bowls, either way it is less money for them they figure (and therefore will always oppose any change) so lets do it in such a way that we give the most money to the schools we can.
Ben Prather
· 12 months ago
So wait...
What you are saying is that we can have a playoff BEFORE the bowls?
Nice...
FSU_Ben
· 12 months ago
I think it must have been Rivals article... My point was not to scrap the bowls AND not to include them in any way with the championship.
It's more a playoff BESIDE the bowls, mostly in the same timeframe.
1Tomcat
· 12 months ago
Ben This is one of the best threads ever- I'm surprised- I thought it was my idea and not Obama's. Taking the top 8 utilizing existing bowls is a win-win for everybody. Teams like Utah,USC,PSU.UT,Bama & TTech would still have a shot at it. We would still have controversy and everyone could argue about who's #8 instead of who's #2 Hookem-Horns BTW I also believe that either all conferences have CCG games or they be eliminated The Idea of all conferences having the same number of teams also makes sense 10 conferences-12 teams each
Regan
· 12 months ago
Tomcat, I await you and ksuwild on the Jousting Field for Round #1 :-)
1Tomcat
· 12 months ago
Thanks Regan I knew I could count on ya-ksuwild been kinda absent lately Hookem-Horns Go Owls Go Frogs
Regan
· 11 months ago
LOL, he's here...lurking...I can feel it.... :)
FSU_Ben
· 11 months ago
Which owls do you root for Tomcat? I assume Rice because it's a Texas team like the other two?
1Tomcat
· 11 months ago
Yes Ben Go to the give a hoot site-WEA did a great job- new & old
Ben Prather
· 12 months ago
Sorry, his is more famous, and I wasn't going to include a playoff scenario until he brought it up.
Just as long as Texas didn't win, I'm happy......;-)
Regan
· 12 months ago
LOL...so if Penn State wins the Rose Bowl, does EVERYONE in Vegas lose big? :)
1Tomcat
· 12 months ago
I really like it except I would love to see a Bama vs Texas and then Texas vs USC Great concept- I'd just arange it a little different- I think the fans would love a Bama vs UT game
Ben Prather
· 12 months ago
Yeap, the bookies never get it wrong. That is what makes March madness so much fun.
Why can't we have a playoff like they have in NASCAR?
Oh wait...
FSU_Ben
· 11 months ago
I will not tolerate comparisons to driving a car around in circles with any sport!
Regan
· 11 months ago
Let it not be said that we disagree on everything, FSU_Ben...
Turning Left at High Speed is NOT a sport.... :)
Clemson_Joe
· 12 months ago
I think that Lee Corso and Lou Holtz should each pick a team that they think should be the champion. Then they could have a good old fashioned duel (this actually was an Olympic sport at one time, albeit with some rules). The winner sets the champion. Regardless of the outcome, after 1 year, I win, and that's all I care about.
1Tomcat
· 11 months ago
Joe-Come on now Both Lou Holtz & Lee Corso are anti-Texas which is okay because ESPN hates my team. Lou Holtz asked what defense did they play against-Dr Lou they run up 52 against Arkansas and 45 against OU. Lee Corso picked OU over Texas then got angry when Texas won after he had hyped up on OU all day. He later in season the talked about how TCU held the Sooners to a season low 35 points, no mention that Texas also held them to 35. Lou Holtz coached at Arkansas & Notre Dame and played against Texas many times, I really admire our old anniversaries Jackie Sherril,Barry Switzer,Ken Hatfeild,Gene Stallings,Frank Broyles , Grant Taft and Paul Bryant and now we get to face Mike Leach,Bob Stoops,Art Briles,Gary Pinkle,, Mike Gundy,Mark Mangino,Bobby Petrino,David Bailiff and Jim Tressle. Hookem-Horns
lionfever
· 12 months ago
Hey I just ran across a site with a playoff that lets us vote on the winners. And the Nittany Lions are losing to TCU! Somebody fix this! www.bowlpoint.com
AUtigerman
· 12 months ago
Well id even go for an 8 team playoff with the winners of each of the 6 BCS conferences getting an automatic bid and the the final 2 spots decided by a 4 team playoff with the 2 winners advancing to the tournament.
The 4 team playoff would be played the same weekend as the conference championships.
This gives teams like Boise State and Utah a chance to play for a championship, not just a consolation prize. You may not like us AU fans much but trust me we have thought about this for years.... :)
FanoftheGame
· 11 months ago
I am not a big fan of the BCS. While there is alot of talk about maintaining the integrity of the regular season and the bowl games, I still have a hard time stomaching the fact that the overseers of the 6 BCS conferences and Notre Dame created this system to meet their own agenda with little or no regard for non-bcs schools, or college football in general. As a testiment to their own oversight, the BCS has acknowleged the need for "at-large" teams and a constant need to keep tweeking the BCS formula. Even with these changes, it is easy to see that there is a limit to how far the BCS is willing to go. If there is any doubt, just ask Boise State. I agree that even a play-off system won't solve all that is unfair with college football, but I do believe it would make it better. Not perfect, but better.
Just look at it this way: out of the 119 (give or take a few) teams in the FBS, only 30 of them have a legit shot of getting to a national championship. Cut that number in half if every team has at least 1 loss. I'm a die-hard Auburn fan- but i felt bad for UTAH in 04 just like i did us that year. The reason there needs to be reform is for one reason: Every team that is WORTHY at the end of the season to have a chance to get to national title game SHOULD have a chance. I have a lot more fun watching the NFL season play out and hope and pray Atlanta makes the playoffs a lot more than I like seeing Auburn's chances fly out the door in week 4.
Kevin @ Fanblogs
· 11 months ago
Wow. I go away for a few days and you guys are still talking about this? ;-)
Ben Prather
· 11 months ago
We need somehting to discuss until the 20th...
How screwed up the system is (or how great it is, depending on who is talking) and coaching changes make for great discussion and news points.
Besides... I love poking holes in people's crazy playoff ideas.
I do think Regan and I are converging on a very workable system.
NMLSooner
· 11 months ago
You ain't poked a hole in mine, buddy : )
Ben Prather
· 11 months ago
It is a playoff over 12 games, the optimum for a league of 120+.
- It would extend too far into January, distract from finals, or shorten the regular season. - It would make the regular season mean less, as teams late in the season could have a spot secured. - The debate about whether the #16 team is truely better than the #17 team, or even the #20 team, is even more convoluted than the debate about whether #2 is better than #3.
NMLSooner
· 11 months ago
What's so bad about playing in January? Most universities have a January semester, so second semester starts at the end of January and in some cases,February. My plan has the first round being played the day conference championships are played, so if one distracts from finals so does the other. Yes, the regular season would be 11 games. I believe the regular season would mean less argument is often overstated. The only thing that would change is that a loss would not be the end for some, and not for others. And considering hosting a 1st round game would generate millions, I think teams would play hard to the end to secure that, and unlike the NFL, there would not be any "divisions clinched" with 2 weeks left. Also, don't you think there would be more debate and calls for fairness if instead of deciding between which at-large team is more deserving of the last #12 seed or whether it should have been Memphis, North Carolina, or UCLA that plays Kansas in the "NCAA Basketball Championship Bowl". Also most basketball teams miss more class time in the first month of the season than football players miss all year.
Ben Prather
· 11 months ago
Most universities use semesters. Fall semester ends in early December and Spring Semester runs from January through May.
The championship games are sheduled to be the week before final exams. By making this the first round of a playoff, the second and third rounds would trample on the Final exams for fall semester. This is why the first Bowls are scheduled for Dec 20th, after exams.
A loss would still be the end for Utah or Boise State, so that argument is invalid, but your natural response is that for those teams they would have a chance at the title they did not have before.
Suppose Troy or Utah State manage to get into the top 8. Should a team like Georgia be forced to travel to a stadium with a capacity under 30K? Soimething must be in place to ensure that stadiums are used that can handle the capacity such a game would draw.
Alabama, Oklahoama, Texas and Florida had top 8 spots secured regardless of the outcome of the championship game. With a loss the final week of the regular season they would not have been out of the playoffs and would still have a good chance at hosting a first round game with a win in the championship game.
NCAA Basketball makes the regular season almost meaningless for the championship game. By allowing 65 teams they allow 1/4 of the entire field to have a chance. This is made worse by guaranteeing spots to the conference champions, opening the playoff to the entire field.
NCAA Basketball regular seasons should be shortened and not started until late december. These games are near meaningless anyways.
FSU_Ben
· 11 months ago
Well unfortunatly there are some smaller stadiums. I think there are several teams in the ACC that would benefit from larger crowds for certain games if they had larger stadiums, unfortunatly thier stadiums are designed for the more regular size crowds. In this case one could schedule the game neutral site (if utah state decided they needed more revenue since 2/3 should belong to the home seeded team) or keep the "home field advantage" as it were, and stick to thier undersized stadium knowing they would need to give away 10k seats to the visitor. It could be forced on smaller schools that larger stadiums are used. 90% of the MAC has under 30k stadiums. Temple has the largest by more than double using Lincoln Financial Field. There are large venues around though. We could certainly find a way to accomadate such problems.
I don't think it is fair to not allow a chance for teams to get in. I'm not sure what you mean but I don't think we create a national champion by repeatedly saying over and over how wonderful the BCS schools are and then crowning one of them every year. Maybe they are awesome but I want them to have to prove it in a playoff. I wouldn't want to give Boise or Utah a shot this year unless all BCS teams posted 4-5 losses because that is how many I would expect them to take in a real conference (except the big east and I can't do anything about that so let's not bring it up). We aren't asking for 1/4 the field. We are asking for the top 13 percent just over 1/10th the field a field that in the next few years will widen out even more expect 4-5 more teams in the next 3-4 years.
NMLSooner
· 11 months ago
Ben, I understand most spring semesters start in January, but Jan. 2 is a lot different than Jan. 20. My system has the quarterfinals (second round) being played on New Year's Day in four of the five major bowls (I added the Cotton which is moving next year to the Cowboys' new stadium). The semis played Jan 10 and the finals, Mon., Jan. 19. In my system 10-2 TCU, second in Mountain West, made the playoffs. And yes, I think higher seed should get to host the game even if they have a smaller stadium. If they want to play it in a nearby larger stadium they can do that, but would not be forced. Looking at this year's final rankings, I don't think there is a guarantee any of those four with two losses would still host. I think a 1 vs 8 seed is much more attractive than taking on a 5 seed. I would not guarantee conference champions spots. Huge difference between SEC & Sunbelt, and big conferences would never go for that much of the pie going to the little guys. Over the 11 years of the BCS there would have been 24 non-BCS teams, with at least one participating every year. I think the 13% that would be in a 16-team field would still be small enough.
Ben Prather
· 11 months ago
I like the idea of higher ranked teams hosting the early rounds. I am embedding that into the Regan-Prather system, if more than 4 teams are included.
The semi finals should be at neutral site. Allowing the #1 team to play in their host bowl and the current NCG to function as the other semi final works quite well for 5-8 teams.
Regan
· 11 months ago
Yeah, Kev, people have been really considerate all season long and saving up all the Playoff spats for when a Thread came along...
4cornerz
· 11 months ago
Well I will say keep the bowl games and have a 32 team playoff. 1.the Regular season ends in the End of November. Use the Bowl games as playoff sites. 32 teams Friday and Saturday starting 1st week in Dec. 8 games on Friday and the other 8 on Saturday Take a week off for Finals then finish the playoffs. The national Champion will be crown the middle of January. I believe it would work
Ben Prather
· 11 months ago
From out of the deep end:
If we want a playoffs it would be best to scrap the existing regular season. Instead, make it a 14 week 12 game double elimination playoff from the start of the season.
Two loses and you are out of the title hunt.
The season is broken into three groupd of 3 games seperated by two weeks with a pre-arranged rivalry game and a bye week and ending with a third rivalry game.
The first three game segment can be pre arranged as well, allowing conferences to guarantee 6 conference gamas. Also, the system can be designed to favor pairings of teams from the same conference to get each team the appropriate number of conference games.
After the first three games are played, all teams with only one loss are put in a sepreate pool to assign the second round of three games. The pre arranged game and bye week allow teams two weeks to make travel plans. All other teams are assigned to regional games.
After the second round of three games the final three games are scheduled. Again two weeks are set aside for a rivalry game and a bye week while travel arrangements can be made. Again teams with one or no losses would be seperated into a national pool and the rest of the teams assigned to regional games.
This would force the top teams to play each other and allow smaller schools to play more regional games. A design prinicle could be to schedule 2 conference games in each round of 3 and to use 2 of the rivalry games to make a total of 8 conference games per year. This would allow conference championship to continue to be held after the season.
With the increased difficulty of the schedules of the top teams their would be far fewer 1 loss and undefeated teams than we currently have, if their would be any at all. We would also have a much better idead of the merits of each team as the top teams would have all played against other top teams.
Bowl games could then be scheduled and a tournament of all teams with one loss or less arranged to guarantee only one team is left standing.
FSU_Ben
· 11 months ago
I have thought along these same lines but I don't think anyone would ever listen to us! Truncating the regular season by one game at least would likely become a necessity, especially if we wanted to preserve the bowls and I think they have to be preserved to allow for less resistance to the (what I feel is) eventual 16 team playoff.
Kevin @ Fanblogs
· 11 months ago
The mere admission that the regular season might need to be shortened only further validates the widely held opinion that a playoff makes the college football season less valuable... a la every other sport that has a playoff.
FSU_Ben
· 11 months ago
I don't think it does much to validate any such point. For one thing I said truncating it by one game, we all have at least one trash freebie (2 for FSU and Clemson as you know), having 11 games would likely lead to higher percentage of QUALITY MATCHUPS (and you won't notice the difference if it isn't your team as there will be plenty of football). I just think this path helps to squelch the BS argument regarding team health or student athlete health concerns. We cut the garbage game (not saying never play FCS aka 1-AA opponents, it is a great thing to do for them, revenue wise and exposure wise).
Personally I would rather no cuts at all and only cite a possible need as compromises to the various red herrings the pro-BCS crowd tosses out at every turn. Let the season stretch until the first weekend in February and we will be the better for it. The arguments concerning when finals are and such are also bogus as some schools don't even use two semester (opting for tri-mesters) formats and are possibly 4 weeks into the WINTER tri-mester by the time the january bowl game rolls around. There is no reason at all not to have it go on longer except that student athletes argument concerning thier health, hence the thought that we might need to shorten the season. We already have some sports that last longer btw.
Ben's proposal (Prather, I don't refer to myself in the third person) is simply an idea to get the fairest possible detractors (on the grounds of thinking another team is more deserving of a national title) or arguments that someone else should have been there. It also helps to quell those of you that consistantly say that the regular season would have no meaning as every week there would now be important compelling games that no one could argue didn't have meaning (whereas we pretty much have 12 useless games a year) for most teams. 55% of which, undefeated would probably still not have a shot at the title, even more if the big schools had two undefeated representatives -by big schools I refer to FSU, Michigan, Miami, Florida, Auburn, Ohio State, Notre Dame, Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, USC- NO OTHER TEAM WOULD MAKE IT TO A NC GAME NONE NADA ZERO they had 12 useless games that year and possibly one all of them but the "great stories" of these "proven winners" going to the national championship game would ensure the corrupt BCS never let them in. I personally enjoy the regular season as is and don't mind if we leave it alone at all, it is compelling for me and will remain so either way.
Kevin @ Fanblogs
· 11 months ago
As rhetorical exercises go... I won't stop you, as you're on a roll; however, there's no evidence whatsoever to support your assumption that fewer games would result in a higher percentage of "quality matchups". After all, we had 11-game seasons for years and the matchups were not of any arguable better quality.
The other issue that I'm kinda surprised that no one has even dipped their toe into is that of conference realignments.
The introduction of the BCS ushered in a new era of conference realignments. Is there any reason to believe that this miracle playoff system would not bring about a similar shuffling of the deck chairs??
Ben Prather
· 11 months ago
Conference realignments are an impending truth, this time focused on the west coast...
Porcine
· 11 months ago
I was going to make a realignment plan, but decided to save for a hijack. The problem with realignment is that hole between the Big 12 and Pac 10.
FSU_Ben
· 11 months ago
There is quite a bit of talk of realignment in this thread. Prather and I discussed it above with some input from Regan and Wardboy. I think I can envision vaugely how a realignment would work minus the input of state govereners changing the landscape like last time. Ben has similar ideas although we disagree in the future of Hawaii were the PAC-10 to triger an expansion/realignment out west.
Regan
· 11 months ago
Conferences won't re-align unless they consider it to be in their best interests to do so.
They can't be forced to re-align, but if you go outside the box to give them exterior reasons to re-align, it's possible.
The BCS caused the recent re-alignment. Re-alignment is an effect to the system, not a factor in creating a new system.
I'm not shooting down any Conference Re-Alignment proposals on sight, but just be aware that they would require a bit of mastermind/manipulation of "the powers that be" to pull off; no one can just "make them do it".
1Tomcat
· 11 months ago
FSU Ben You excluded a lot of really good programs some of which have won MNC games like Fla,LSU,TCU,Arkansas,Texas A&M,Alabama,UGA. Conference realignment caused some schools to be in a better posistion like Louisville, Cincinatti and hurt others like TCU , Houston and SMU. Some programs like USF are on the same level as alot of C-USA or MWC teams IMHO- but because their program belongs to a so-called BCS conference they are at an unfair advantage over other programs. For example this year BE vs XII OU over Cinn blow out UConn over Baylor----real close USF over KU Colo over WV BU #5 from XII south hung tough with UConn Colo #4 from XII north beat WV I know that every year is different but this year seems as though the MWC from top to bottom is about equal to or above the BE, but the BE is a BCS conference and the MWC and C-USA are not
FSU_Ben
· 11 months ago
I put Florida. Yes Georgia and Alabama belong there it was in my head it just didn't make it to typing. Ok I'll grant you Texas A&M and LSU, but a 1938 national championship by TCU doesn't mean they will get respect. What you are missing I guess, is my point. If a pair of these other teams were available schools would be overlooked. Arkansas would be overlooked. Texas A&M probably would but I'll still give you that.
I'll grant you, as I have so many others and so many other times, the MWC is better than the Big East. They have been since the last realignment. WVU had some nice years but everyone else was gag worthy. That said the bottom of the Big East (Syracuse) beat notre dame while the bottom of the MWC (San Diego State) didn't. The top of the MWC if better for sure. Probably pretty equal around the bottom and I think the middle is probably leaning toward the BE.
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 11 months ago
Come on, Kev. It's not like it's baseball (162) or basketball (82) like long. It wouldn't even be NFL long (16). Do we ever hear any complaints about garbage games in pro football?
FSU_Ben
· 11 months ago
Cincinnati vs. Cleveland!
Porcine
· 11 months ago
Let's realign those and the NfL.
Porcine
· 11 months ago
Regan smash, Regan smash!
Regan
· 11 months ago
LOL....Regan Sleepy......
Regan
· 11 months ago
I usually post this somewhere around the 150th post on any Playoff Thread, so enjoy:
THE PERFECT SYSTEM:
The Regular Season:
> Every team plays every other team. 119 games. Everyone plays head-to-head - No more strength of schedule whining by anyone.
> Every game must take place at Neutral Sites so no outside factors interfere with the game. This also means either no fans in the stadiums, or an absolute 50-50 division of tickets enforced by Congressional mandate.
> Every Neutral Site must be in an indoor arena so that weather does not give a team an unfair advantage.
> So that teams can play each other in the fairest way possible, every player on each team will be cloned in order to make certain that injuries don't interfere in the fair and measured outcome.
> 9,000 cameras will monitor each game, so that every yard line will have every possible angle covered. (around the edges of the field will be 300 large camera poles, each 30 feet tall. There will be a pole placed upon each yard line on both sides of the field, 100x for both sidelines, and 50x for each end zone). Every play will be reviewed from every single angle to verify that all penalties are fairly seen and administered by the Congressionally-approved Officiating Staff before the next play is allowed to begin.
Games will take entire days to play, but since no fans will be permitted to attend the games, and the athletes themselves can be in class while their clones play the games, it matter how long it takes to get it right.
The Post-Season:
> Following the Regular Season of 7,140 College Football games, the 16 teams that have the best records will then have physical and psychological evaluations (administered by EA Sports, of course) for their players and coaches that will take into account all factors in each player so they can be constituted in terms of raw statistical data.
> From this raw statistical date, the top 2 of the previous 16 teams will be chosen so that complaings from teams with identical records will be resolved.
> These top 2 teams will play each other (as per the Regular Season rules) in the Generic Bowls in a "Best of Seven" Tournament, with six games to be played between the two teams. Since they would have already met once during the regular season, that game's result will serve as the result of "Game One", so as to pay lip service to those who believe the regular season should be important.
There. College Football - the way it was meant to be.
Porcine
· 11 months ago
the BCS, mostly tv contracts, is ruining college football. I almost rather it be like the old days when everyone was a champion, but that sounds like a soccer tie.
Ben Prather
· 11 months ago
NCAA Basketball is a bad comparison.
The reason games mean less in the regular season is not due to the tournement but the fact that so many games are played. Statistically everyone will lose a few, and with the improved connectivity even a ranking as bad as RPI can get close to a good value. The scheduling practices of college football make producing a meaningfull ranking a very complex problem, pushing our mathematical techniques to the limits.
The NFL is a bad comparison.
Here the teams are far fewer and the parity is significantly more level. The difference in schedule strength between teams is negligible. This is not the case for college football.
Ben Prather
· 11 months ago
The Regan-Prather Wishbone Triple Option post season:
Eligibility: 1) All undefeated teams 2) All teams above the first gap of 0.06 in the BCS standings (Possible add a requirement that a team won their conference)
Seed all eligible teams using the BCS standings
Structure: 1 team: Start over using the second gap of 0.06. 2 teams: Use current NCG. 3 teams: Add a neutral site playin game for #2 and #3. 4 teams: #1 team hosts the BCS bowl with conference tie ins. #2 hosts current NCG. Winners meet in a plus one. 5-8 teams: Play in games, hosted by the higher seeded teams, determine the final slots in the BCS bowls. 9+ teams: Star over but reduce the BCS cut off to 0.05, then 0.04, then the highest cutoff limiting the field to 8 or less -- reevaluate the need for a playoff.
(Hosting schools may be required to use a stadium of their choice meeting a size requirement)
Recent Years The current BCS formula paradigm has only been in place since 2004.
2008: Oklahoma, Forida, Texas, Utah, Boise State (Texas did not win conference) Utah hosts Boise State for the chance to play Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl. Florida plays Texas in the current NCG. The winners would meet in a plus one. Rose Bowl: USC vs Penn State Sugar Bowl: Alabama vs Ohio State Orange Bowl: Virginia Tech vs Cincinnati
2007: Ohio State, LSU, Hawaii LSU and Hawaii would have played at a neutral site play in game to face Ohio State in the NCG. Rose Bowl: USC vs Illinois Fiesta Bowl: West Virginia vs Oklahoma Sugar Bowl: Georgia vs (ASU or Boston College) Orange Bowl: Virginia Tech ve Kansas
2006: Ohio State, Florida, Michigan, Boise State (Michigan did not win conference) Ohio State would host Boise State in the Rose Bowl, Florida would play Michigan in the current NCG. The winners would meet in a plus one. Fiesta Bowl:USC vs Oklahoma Sugar Bowl: LSU vs Notre Dame Orange Bowl: Wake Forest vs Louisville
2005: USC, Texas Same as BCS, but format has changed. NCG: USC vs Texas Rose Bowl: Penn State vs Oregon Fiesta Bowl: Ohio State vs Notre Dame Sugar Bowl: Georgia vs West Virginia Orange Bowl: FSU vs TCU(would have been an AQ under current rules)
2004: USC, Oklahoma, Auburn, Utah, Bosie State Utah hosts Boise State for the chance to play USC in the Rose Bowl. Oklahoma would play Auburn in the current NCG. The winners would meet in a plus one. Fiesta Bowl: Texas vs California Sugar Bowl: Georgia vs Michigan Orange Bowl: Virginia Tech vs Pittburgh
Regan
· 11 months ago
I, of course, still push for a Conference Championship criteria, but in practice, this system I think makes the perfect blend of what would "work" with what is "actually possible".
My Conference Championship criteria is based on the observation that 0-loss and 1-loss teams that would be considered for the NC Game most often are the Conference Champs. Ordinarily, it would be an inherent product of producing the "2 best teams". It is a "safety valve".
The CCG that the Big 12, ACC, and SEC play occasionally throws this one to the wind, however, as a team that can't win their division can somehow get a shot at the NC Game.
Essentially, the purpose of the whole process is to 'weed out' pretenders from contenders. In most conferences, it's easy, because all the teams play each other. In the 12-team conferences, though, it's a different bird.
The issue primarily devolves down to my core belief that teams need to "Win or Go Home." The core logic of the BCS was (until 2004), that if you win out, you're in the NC Game. If you have a loss, you throw your destiny to the Winds of Fate - you could still make it to the NCG, but you can't complain if you don't make it in, because it's your falut you didn't take care of business that one game when you needed to prove you were a team that could overcome any obstacle.
Lose twice, and you're out of the NCG, but there is still a lot to go out and play hard for.
Most practically, though, the Conf. Champ. Requirement exists to ensure that we never have a situation like we almost had in 2006, when we almost had an OHST-MICH rematch when MICH had their shot at the Buckeyes and LOST.
Not giving another team a chance at the undefeated Buckeyes would have been wrong, and this was proven in both post-season games involving the Big Ten teams.
[ The biggest critics to this Conf Champ Criteria (naturally) right now are Longhorn Fans. I will point out that the BCS is not what deserves your blame.
First, you blame the team for not stopping TXT on that last drive.
Second, you blame the Big 12 for how it structures it's tiebreakers. The SEC has a rule that has it that if the top 2 of the 3 teams are close in the BCS rankings, you drop the 3rd team and take the head-to-head winner of the top 2 teams.
Don't blame the BCS or the voters for changing the very way they vote specifically for benefitting your team. It's not cool... ]
That's the logic. The system Ben and I worked on allows for the CC Criteria to be used or not used. We await comments. :)
SirSmokeAlot
· 11 months ago
Every other level of football manages to have play-offs! Yet there are people on here that are so brain-washed into thinking that the bowl system is just a wonderful tradition. I will say it again-BOWLS SUCK-... I believe that the bowl system has actually hurt college football, most people I've ever talked to kinda watch some college football, but they definitely watch the NFL.. Personally I have found it harder to get a goup of people together to sit around and watch college football, when I have people over for NFL games, I have no problem getting a big group together, you know why, in the NFL you can lose a game, and possibly still play for a championship, EVEN if you lost that game late in the year, and sometimes even the less popular teams get a chance to make a run, sometimes even happens in the NCAA basketball tournament-WOW!!!--What a CONCEPT...Hasn't hurt either one of those two sports-HUH!!!
The_Observer
· 11 months ago
Are you telling me that the NCAA Tourney has NOT hurt it's regular season? WRONG!!! Try getting a group of people together for a NCAA Basketball game in November! It won't happen unless you're at Duke, Carolina or Kentucky!
Regan
· 11 months ago
And if every other level of football jumped off a cliff....
Also, "BOWLS SUCK" is your opinion. It is not a fact. What is a fact is that, like it or not, the Bowls have been around for over a century and are as much a part of college football as great upsets, tailgating, and fight songs written before 2002.
As far as getting people together to watch a game, there is a LOT more to do on Saturday than Sunday. Also, geography is an issue. The NFL is more popular where there are NFL-team-cities.
An ESPN poll conducted in 2006 had CFB more popular than the NFL by a 55% to 45%. 28 states had CFB fans in the majority to 20 NFL-majority states, with statistical ties in CA and CO. This was an unscientific (internet) poll, which is more likely that the margin is even wider because of all the older football fans who don't even bother with them.
In CFB, we don't want inferior teams to waste our time against contenders. We don't have enough Saturdays to allow it. We want the best vs. the best.
However, since you mentioned the NFL and NCAABB as being so superior to CFB, why bother posting?
Kevin @ Fanblogs
· 11 months ago
((STANDING OVATION))
1Tomcat
· 11 months ago
Sirsmokesalot You probably live in an urban area were there is a NFL team, because in the area were I live its the opposite, we have had Bowl games on the big screen at the local civic center{ former Nat Guard Armory} People tailgaiting, barqueing etc etc wearing team colors for CFB games and nobody cares about the NFL around here it- lacks the passion and enthusiasm associated with CFB games, bowls in particular. There will be a Fiesta Bowl party at my house Cold Beer and beef & venison fajitas. Nobody around here throws parties for NFL games- but alot throw parties for Bowl games
Zac
· 11 months ago
I for one would like to see a Div-1 college football play-off system. The expression of this desire is not new, nor do I desire it "just because". In fact, in my opinion, the 2007 season was a perfect example as to why there should be one, the 2004 season aside.
That said, I agree with Regan on one irrefutable count. The bowl system could not be extensively used. It would be difficult to expect 20,000 fans of a given team to attend one play-off game at one bowl, turn around and attend a 2nd bowl, before finally turning around to attend a 3rd. Only teams supported by schools with high student populations and exceptionally large fan bases would be capable of providing the 60,000-100,000 fans willing to travel to separate bowls featuring their team, provided their team advanced that far in a play-off.
It is for this reason; a play-off system should either begin at the conference level or be limited to no more than 16 teams, preferably 10. A Top-10 scenario would be just that: a play-off involving teams ranked only in the Top-10 at the end of the regular season (pre-bowls). It would consist of a "Preliminary" round, Quarter-Final, Semi-Final, and NC. The bottom 4 (7-10) would play-off at the site of the higher seed. The winners round out the Top-8. The Quarter-Final round could be done the same way. The winners round out the Top-4. If done this way, only 3 bowl games would be needed for the Semi-Final round and NC. Some of the losers of the earlier rounds could actually participate in bowls, if they wanted to. The point is, a format such as this would hardly tax the bowl system, nor would it tax the vast majority of fan-bases out there.
Then, there's Gator Hippy's format, which essentially was discussed between our two "Gentle Ben's" (FSU & Prather). The now 120 Div-1 teams would realign into ten 12-team conferences. Each would have a conference play-off. The winner then represents their conference in the system as Ben's described. The winners of the "Preliminary Round" round out the Top-8, and everything else falls into place as with the Top-10 system above. This system would have the added attraction of offering the possibility for a Cinderella. Consider VA Tech this year; consider FSU a few years back. Not to mention, every conference would be represented. BUT, some Top-10 teams would then be left out, and there's all that conference realigning.
A 3rd possibility would involve playing-off each conference's All Conference 1st, 2nd, and honorable-mention teams. This would be a lot more difficult to coordinate. The point is there are systems which should work, and when it's proven there's money to be made, the best one will be utilized (That is, the system which will result in the most money made, not necessarily the best system.). The other point is a 16 team system (an 8 game Preliminary Round - no byes) is as big as a play-off system should get. We don't want to begat the equivalent of March Madness, where-by as many as 67 teams make it to the dance and another 32 teams play in that "other" tournament. For now, we have what we have, and I suppose I can live with that...for now.
gatorhippy
· 11 months ago
It took me awhile to find it, Zac...
That's close...
With D-1 set up as it is NOW...
11 conference champs and 5 at large square off in four rounds...
At large determined by win percentage with opponents' win percentage used as a tie breaker (if a school is an independent then they rely on getting in on an at large bid)...
Seeding occurs in the same manner...
Higher seed plays at home, UNLESS an at large team is playing a conference champ...
Then game would be played at conference champs stadium regardless of seeding (as a reward for winning your conference you get some extra revenue)...
Title game played at nuetral location with higher seeded team wearing home colors...
FWIW - I would be all for a Division realignment where current BCS conferences were placed in their own division seperate from those outside the bubble currently thus reducing the number of teams in the field to 12 (6 confernece champs & 6 at large)...
SirSmokeAlot
· 11 months ago
Listen I enjoy and love college football, but I thought only a bunch of stodgy old farts were for this bowl-crap, give me an f___in break! Bowls are lame!!! How about Oklahoma in in the championship game even after they got beat by Texas... So yeah bowl games suck, and no I really am not a Big NFL fan. I am tired of this system, and by the way VERY God____Tired of the same teams in their home areas getting to play where they always play, You say we have neutral sights, funny how Pac10 and SEC always play real close to home. Come Play in the snow bitches,,,,
OU_Ron
· 11 months ago
That's why there's an on off switch on your tv, you probably should use it...
SirSmokeAlot
· 11 months ago
Hey observer and regan, how about we sacrifice people, because well you know, it was tradition with the mayans, romans, persians, etc...
Ben Prather
· 11 months ago
That could easily be incorperated into Regan's Perfect Season above.
It would be unpopular to sacrifice the atheletes themselve, but what are we going to do with all the clones when they lose eligibility?
Regan
· 11 months ago
Who cares about the welfare of the clones? All that matters is that we have a True National Champion!!!! :)
Regan
· 11 months ago
Well, why should we not worship chickens and call that 'progress' because we haven't done that yet?
LOL, JK dude...but you probably don't want to challenge me to an absurdity contest. :)
Zac
· 11 months ago
OK, that's it! Back to arranged marriges. Now, wat did I eva do wid my flaming alter?
Regan
· 11 months ago
Now you, Zac, might just have what it takes to challenge me in an Absurdity Contest...
"Iah got yer flaymin' alter raaaiiiiiiiiiiiiight heyere....."
Yup...that would be a heck of a battle all right.... :)
Ben Prather
· 11 months ago
I assume my credentials in this regard have been well established...
Zac
· 11 months ago
If I could stop laugh'n my butt off maybe...
4cornerz
· 11 months ago
It is all about the money. We have a playoff in Div 1-AA, D2 and D3 and it works for them, why cant we have a playoff in D1. If a playoff for the Sub division it can work for them (D1) too.
SirSmokeAlot
· 11 months ago
OU Ron yeah,m If I got a chance for the championship or a BCS berth every year then I wouldn't want to break the system. I think the dallas cowboys should play in the NFL championship every year, because well you know their the Dallas Cowboys.. Thank you 4cornerz, but these people should realize that there is more money in a play-off system. For all thoses who think the bowl system works, keep smokin that stuff!!!
OU_Ron
· 11 months ago
So what you're saying is if Illinois was good enough to play for the championship or play in a BCS bowl every year, you would be ok with the system as is............don't you think your frustrations would be better served by directing your comments to your coach and team to get better ???
I think most people on here would prefer a playoff, myself included......but there's not a thing wrong with bowl games...........bowl games IS college football...JMO
SirSmokeAlot
· 11 months ago
What's funny is that is exactly not what I am saying. Nothing to do with Illinois being good enough, fact is you got beat by Texas, same number of wins as losses, yet you get a shot and they don't, SORRY BOWLS are completely ludicrous, no point to them at all. If you think a system works beacause of TRADTITION-just like (Fiddler On The Roof-Arranged Marriages-you know just like the BCS Matchmaker), as well as a computer and some votes say that well this team goes to the NC but this other team doesn't deserve it Even though they beat this other teams arse, "who-Guess What, Goes to the NC Game--YEAH BOWLS DO ENTIRELY SUCK!!!! LOL-and I know ILLINI suck, have for awhile now-LMAO!
Regan
· 11 months ago
Then don't watch them, dude. Don't even worry about them.
Most of us are looking forward to Bowl Season regardless of what we think of the BCS, Playoffs, or anything else. It's alright if you're not, just don't get your opinions confused with facts.
You may think the Bowls, Tradition, etc. "suck", but if that is the extent of your viewpoint, don't be surprised if you aren't able to convince anyone you're 'right'.
...just sayin'...
SirSmokeAlot
· 10 months ago
The NCAA BB Tourney has not hurt-read (ENHANCED) the sport. NFL Play-Offs are exciting!!! Yes the bowls have some pretty interesting match-ups, but as much as I hate USC I feel like they along with Utah, Texas, Oklahoma, Florida, Ohio State, BYU, ETC. should have a shot at playing for the national championship-not just two teams. If you were to say that any other sports champion in any sport in the world was decided on votes, (other than the Presidency, ETC. LOL) then you would have people look at you like you were out of your damn mind. They could use home sights, and then still use bowl sights for the finals. I just believe that there are some very good teams that don't have that chance-Look at what Utah did to Alabama for instance, but we'll never know will we.
All Comments
This is why I can't agree to the playoff idea. I don't mind the plus-one too much, but a 16 team playoff! It would ruin college football!
Rapid Fire....Keep 'em coming. :)
Basing a Playoff exclusively on Conference Champs will allow for the possiblity of a 4-Loss National Champion.
This treads on the ground of dropping "season-accomplishment" with "hot at the right time", which is the hallmark of NCAABB.
It is antithetical to the established nature of CFB...at least the first 125 years or so...
Anyways we did say ALL conf champions which means Troy would go this year, FSU is the least of your worries. The idea would be that those teams would be filtered out in the P-L-A-Y O-F-F. They would be reward games for upper level seeds while not leaving anyone out (MAC, WAC, C-USA etc.) and by the end of the season it would be something like 11-4 FSU (on a 5 game win streak) vs. 15-0 Texas in the NC game that year (for example). Doubt it would have come to that but slightly less embarssing looking, no?
FSU didn't beat Penn State that year (3rd ranked 10-1 penn state) after 3 OT, we were able to hang with the 3rd ranked team right? We also lost. We wouldn't have been the NC that year 99% sure BUT even if we were is it that terrible a team that won it's conference and pulled off 4 amazing victories (since it would have been such a low seed it would have been 4 tough games) wins the NC? Why is this "hot at the right time" so scarey to you? I think it's compelling and for this HALLMARK you are talking about when is the last time the NCAA Tourny wasn't won by someone in a BCS conference? I think the cool kids have won since 1992? On a related note when has a winner been a terrible team at any point in the year? Basketball and Football have in common that teams lose games they shouldn't but only in BB can we remedy that in some way and only in Basketball is there some share of glory for teams like Gonzaga, Butler, Memphis etc. that aren't in the power conferences.
We will now be telling schools that they can continue playing football all year long and it will still matter. That is a "season accomplishment". Not you luckily didn't lose a game so congrats you are going to the championship game.
#1: 0-Losses or 1-Loss
#2: Must be Conference Champs
The reason is simple: A team that has lost four games when numerous teams have lost less cannot reasonably be called the National Champion.
NCAABB is about "Hot at the Right Time". It has been for years. CFB is about evaluating an entire body of work for the whole season, and every game mattering. It doesn't really matter what people think they should be - this is the way they ARE and always have been, the latter for well over 100 years.
CFB's NC has always been the following:
> Win all your games against good competition and you WILL play for the NC.
> Lose one game, and you throw your destiny to the Winds of Fate. It is still possible to play for the NC, but it is out of your control because YOU dropped a game.
> Lose two games, and you are out.
Win - or Go Home. It isn't complicated.
Fire Trucks are red, Ice Cream is served cold, and the above is the way CFB is.
The way it is....way it is...
As far as the "that's the way it is" argument, I understand your point, but I use that simply because I want everyone to understand the sheer volume of fundamental change to the sport that we are looking at when we discuss the subject...
I pretty much copy-and-pasted it from 2006; I never updated it when I saw it's flaws. As of now, my plan is a work in progress....
It is a good read - Regan this means you... : )
Update #2: Wow; this guy is clueless....I'll email it, but I will have to apologize for my sarcasm.
I mean clueless........
2. Oklahoma Going Big-12 Champ
3. Texas (6) Going- At Large
4. Alabama Going- At Large
5. USC Going Pac-10 Champ
6. Penn State Going Big 10 Champ
7. Utah Going MWC Champ
8. Texas Tech Going- At Large
9. Boise State Going- Wac Champ
10. Ohio State - Going- At Large
11. TCU -Going At Large
12. Cincinnati Going - Big East Champ
21. Viginia Tech- Going ACC Champ
Buffalo- Going MAC Champ
Troy- Going- Sunbelt Champ
ECU- Going C-USA Champ BEAT ACC Champ
Rankings aren't objective anyways Many unranked teams are better than many of these ranked ones. Using seeds the EASY WEAK teams become practically free games for the power teams and a shot at becoming an interesting Cinderella story. It's a good system. On the other hand parity would quickly catch up as weaker conferences became quicker doors to national championships we wouldn't have your stated problem for long.
This year the top 12 would get in. 3 unranked teams and 21 VT.
First Round looks something like this
Troy@Florida
Buffalo@Oklahoma
ECU@Texas
VT@Alabama
Cinci@USC
TCU@PSU
OSU@UTAH
Boise@TTU
A Playoff still has the same flaws; pretending otherwise is...creative...
Alabama: 0-1
Boston College: 1-2 (the win was Neutral site you lost at home)
Bowling Green:1-1 (both@BYU)
FSU:0-2 (Neutral Site both)
Georgia:0-1 (Lost @ Georgia)
GT:1-1 (Won@BYU Lost Away)
LA-MONROE:1-0 (I guess this is an Eastern Team and you did win @BYU)
Louisville:0-1 (Neutral site)
Marshall:0-1 (Neutral site)
Miami: 1-1 (as you know you won @BYU)
Michigan: 1-0 (Famous NC game for BYU Neutral)
Miss State: 1-1 (This you lost @BYU winning @ Miss ST.)
Navy: 1-1 (won @ Annapolis lost Neutral site)
Notre Dame: 2-4 (1-1@BYU 1-3 away)
Southern Miss: 1-1 (won @ BYU)
Syracuse: 1-1 (Won @BYU)
Temple: 2-0 (home away)
Tulane: 1-1 (both Neutral site)
Virgina: 1-2 (all three types you lost @BYU)
Scan through that and see if you are impressed by your record @BYU against eastern teams. I'm not. Your overall record against eastern teams is shabby and sad. 7-5 @BYU is certainly not a record to jump for joy about. Your overall against eastern teams is abysmal and the competetion you got to come out to Utah aside from Notre Dame and Miami was either crap (La-Mon, Bowling green -who beat you @BYU-, Southern Miss, Temple make up 4 of those wins) or beat you. If you count only BCS opponents you have a losing record @BYU!
I look forward to the game too as we have only Maine and I suspect some other FCS school to look forward to -in our open date- out of conference and our yearly beating by Florida.
BYU does look amazing against Texas btw. Too bad they aren't eastern! Got a winning record against all Texas schools except Texas Tech and Rice:
Texas: 2-0
Texas A&M: 2-0
North Texas: 3-2
Rice: 1-1
Houston: Never Met
UTEP: 28-7
TCU: 5-2 (5-3 after this year)
Texas Tech: 0-1
Apparantly you mess with Texas!
Most would agree BYU last year at 10-2 was better than Hawaii at 12-0.
I do not advocate an 8 team playoff, that is Obama's deal.
https://rcpt.yousendit.com/634991924/32559d7929...
Here's one from si.com
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/football/...
Regan and I developed an idea below that is pretty darn sweet.
I don't think Troy or Cincinnati deserved a chance this year, but Texas Utah and Boise State did.
How did I come to that?
An average ranking difference of 1.5 or more would indicate the teams are closer to two spots apart than one spot apart. This translates into a BCS difference of 0.06. This makes Oklahoam, Florida and Texas close enough to warrent consideration. Alabama and USC had a gap of 0.06 between them and Texas.
Utah and Boise State were undefeated.
Only those five teams should have been a part, to invite more than this would undermine the integrity of the bowl structure.
USC lost any ligitimate title claim when Utah beat Alabama.
Besides, Bronco Mendenhall's idea was as a pre-cursor to a true National Championship Playoff, not as a part of it.
Rule #2: Oklahoma, Floria, Texas
The first gap of 0.06 was between texas and Alabama.
Technically, Mendenhall's idea was for inclusion in a BCS bowl.
However...I beg you - heed the Words of Admiral Ackbar:
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNLuq0lW50k)
Offseason...Offseason...Offseason...
I have a whole Folder...772 KB of compiled Word Docs, links, etc., and I am not afraid to use it!
IT'S A TRAAAP!!!!!!!!! >:-)
While I entertain and critique the ideas presented for larger playoffs, I do see the futility of them.
2002: Use Standard BCS formula, matching up #1 MIA and #2 OHST, both undefeated; no need for #2 OHST to play #3 UGA first. No issues.
2003: There are 3x 1-Loss BCS Conf. Champ. Teams, no 0-Loss Teams. #2 LSU plays #3 SCAL; winner plays #1 OU.
Plus-One Contingent on Basis of Need.
Using a threshold of 0.04 would have added a playing for 2004 and 2006. These also coorespond with the Auburn vs Oklahoma and Florida vs Michigan disputes. It would have applied this year to Florida and Texas.
In 2007 LSU was clearly more deserving than Virginia Tech and in 2005 Texas was much better than Penn State. No play in would have been called for.
The system I describe, after the Obama induced introduction, works in all these cases by defining a threshold of 0.04 to trigger a playin game.
1998 - TENN, FSU, OHST
1999 - FSU, VT
2000 - OU, FSU, MIA
2001 - MIA, NEB, ORE
2002 - MIA, OHST
2003 - OU, LSU, SCAL
2004 - SCAL, OU, AUB
2005 - SCAL, TEX
2006 - OHST, FLA, MICH (to some)
2007 - OHST, LSU, SCAL
It just isn't practical (thanks to hindsight) to claim that other teams than the ones listed each year deserved a chance to play for the NC.
Notice that in no year were there more than three "worthy" teams, and even then, teams like 2001 NEB and 2004 OU proved that even they didn't belong.
Diluting the system to allow for the 8th or 16th best team? Pointless.
If it works, it's useless, and damages the sport in the process.
Also there is no way in hell to know those teams were the best in thier given years when they all play different teams with little to no crossover. That is vastly inane and useless as an argument. You must love preseason polls which define our entire season. We base these on irrelevant histories and on who graduated from what programs. Often they are VERY wrong but being #1 from the start is likely to keep you in the NC game at the end of a year while being unranked and going undefeated can end you at 6 or 9. I don't think Utah or Boise are NC material but I can't definatively say they aren't based soley on the fact they rank so low in recruiting or that thier conferences are piles of crap. We would still let an undefeated big east school in the NC and the MWC is probably better than them. I wouldn't know without a playoff though. Those are just some examples of what questions go unanswered each season. Unanswered questions aren't the only reason for a playoff though.
How you think it would dillute the regular season is beyond me. Now 16 teams regular seasons will matter rather than two.
If Regan's list is edited to simply add all undefeated teams it would answer your objections and not have the issues of a large 8+ teams field.
1) The Big East has maintained a reasonable level for BCS Automatic Quailifiaction
2) The MWC has not maintained a reasonable level for BCS Automatic Qualification
3) The level that the MWC performed at this year is sufficient for an Automatic Quailification
4) Adding Boise State would significantly improve the MWC's numbers, but not enough to warrent a BCS bid.
5) Adding Hawaii, Fresno State, Tulsa, Houston, Nevada or San Jose State do not significantly improve the MWC's numbers.
Is it worse than the bias of the pollsters?
All of the playoff arguments center around developing a "more fair" system. That's an indefensible goal. Any system that is "more fair" still falls short of "fair", which I still contend is not a valid goal in the first place. For example... four team playoff... OU, Texas, Florida, Alabama. Fair? Not if your Southern Cal.
Fair = matching the two best teams in a championship game. Regardless of how you calculate the two best teams (bcs/playoffs), there is always going to be a debate about it. If OU had beaten Texas in a playoff, would that be fair... or would Texas fans want a rubber match, 2 out of 3? See what I'm saying?
Ackbar was right - playoffs are a trap.
If not, the play in is not needed for the championship and can be used for other purposes , like to seperate between two undefeated BCS outsiders or one outsider and an at large opponent.
Instead of offering a rigid structure with a a fixed number of teams this method allows for a play in if and only if the gap between #3 and #2 is such that it would not be fair to distinguish between them. I used 0.04 because it is generally argued that it was unfair to leave Auburn out in 2004 and that was the difference that year. It also represents an average across the board difference of 1 in all computers and voters.
The BCS could be argued to have a systematic uncertainty of 0.0210. The 0.04 value represents a 97% certainty that #2 is more deserving that #3. The difference between Florida and Texas represents an 80.6 percent certainty that Florida is more deserving than Texas. A 95 % confidence would be 0.0345, 99% confidence would be 0.0489.
If a final standings comes with #4 also within the threshold of #2 a playin with #1 and #4 would be justified. This is closer than #4 was to #2 any week this year.
Measurement of uncertainty of the BCS components
Since each voter yields integer value for each rank, the descritizatoin error is one half. Massey's ranking comparision indicates the standard deviation for the top 5 runs about 1.84 (RMS average). The latter is a better estimate of the measurement error for each voter/computer.
Due to the central limit theorm, the standard deviation of a the mean of a sample is reduced by a factor of the square root fo the number of sampls. In a poll this vaule is multiplied by the number of samples, thus the standard deviation of a poll is increased by a factor of the square root of the number of voters. For the coaches poll the standard deviation is 14.4. For the Harris Poll it is 19.6. The raw value is divided by the maximum possible, equal to the number of voters times 25. This gives a standard devaition of 0.0094 for the Coaches Poll component and 0.0069 for the Harris Poll component.
For the computers things are more complicated due to the dropping of the highest and lowest value. Calculating the variance for the middle four of six normally distributed values show the standard deviation is reduced by a factor of 0.705, to a value of 1.3. This
Computer average compnent is divided by 100 yeilding a standard deviation of 0.013.
Measurment of uncertainty for the BCS formula
The variance, the square of the standard deviation, of the sum of independent variables is equal to the sum of the sum of the variance of the parts. This gives a variance of 0.000305, or a standard deviation of 0.0175, for the sum of the three BCS components. Dividing by three yields a standard deviation of 0.0058 for each team in the BCS standings. The error from descritization alone is 0.0016.
Two teams are not independent if they are close. If they are next to each other one can move to the other's spot only if the other one moves. The standard deviation of the difference can be estimated to be the standard deviation times the square root of 3, giving 0.0100.
Certainty that one team is better than another
The difference between Florida and Texas is 0.0181 for a z-score of 1.81. This results in a probability of 96.5% that Florida is indeed percieved to be better than Texas by most people. For a difference of 0.04 this would be a 99.996% probability.
Expected disagreement with the results
What are the odds that a given polster (or fan) will agree with this value? A difference in the BCS of 0.0181 cooresponds to a difference of 0.45 in ranking, smaller than the discretization error. Assuming the pollster's opinions of the two teams independly have a standard deviation of 1.86 ranking spots from this value, the standard deviation of the difference between the two is found to be 2.63.
This represents a 56.7% agreement that Florida is better than Texas. A BCS difference of 0.04 would represent a 64.8% agreement that the results are correct.
Closing
While 0.04 virtually assures that the correct teams are selected, a significant portion of the poulation would still feel this was the wrong choice.
These values do not depend on the error measure in the BCS because the error of the pollsters is significantly larger than the intrinsic error of the BCS.
I have for years advocated a system that I have loosely termed "A Plus-One Contingent on Basis of Need"; essentially similar to the one you seem to be advocating.
In other words, if a 1999, 2002 or 2005-style scenario presents itself, the two top teams are evident already; no "Plus-One" is needed. In 98, 00, 01, 03, 04, etc., there were three top teams for two spots, and a "Plus-One" would be appropriate.
The CFB post-season is not a "One-Size-Fits-All" business, and no system will allow a perfect process that doesn't recognize that in each year, the circumstances are different. The subjective nature of the sport is what has always filled the gap,
To begin my shots, I will make two statements:
First, I have two criteria for a national champion:
#1: A National Champion should be a 0- or 1-Loss team.
#2: A National Champion should be a Conference Champion.
I can support any system that ensures it, even a 16-team playoff (if that were possible).
Second, I MUST point out that there is absolutely one and ONLY one reason why CFB's Post-season system is even up for debate to begin with, and that is quite simply the fact that people want an "undisputed" National Champion. [A team wins the NC and no one else can whine.]
This is important because it is an exceptionally petty reason to radically alter the sheer nature of the sport (Regular Season-Post Season relationship)...IMHO...
The best way to solve the problem is to address the problems themselves - not pretend that a playoff is the magic pill that would fix all the ills with no side effects...
We have a while until the first Bowl Games...I am locked and ready to go. :)
Should all 0 and one loss conference champions be seeded and put into a playoffs, with undefeated teams needing to be eliminated twice?
That would be:
Oklahoma, Florida, USC, Penn State, Utah and Boise State, with the latter two needing two loses to be eliminated.
Aparently, if the desire is to make an undesputed champion by those standards, a very intensive post season would be needed to handle this years contingency.
By stating that a team must be within 0.04 in the BCS standings explicetly states a reasonable amount of concensus that a contingent need is upon us.
I'll use 2001 for this one: #1 MIA played #2 NEB in the Rose Bowl, and #3 COL played #4 ORE in the Fiesta. MIA blew out NEB, and ORE beat COL. Clearly, it should have been MIA vs. ORE.
This could have been taken care of easily had there been a clause that recognized my Criteria #2: Teams must be Conference Champions.
Criteria #1: 0-Losses or 1-Loss
Criteria #2: Conference Champs
In some years, there just might be a need for a "#2 vs. #3; winner plays #1" semi-final. Heck, the stars could align so there just may be 4 or even 8 teams that meet these criteria at the end of a season! This has NEVER happened, but if it did, a contingency could be placed to allow for it.
So long as "Regan's Annoying Two Criteria" are met, I can deal with it.
I have posted my own Counter-Proposal, but it is also flawed and I would love suggestions for it...I'll post it again in a little while, but am interested in building up anticipation... :-)
I see opprotunity to involve a broader slice of the College football world and increase revenue. Saying we need an undisputed national champion is never gonna get the right people on board for a playoff. Show them the money! Think outside the box. Also having a one loss or 0 loss team requirement is frankly stupid, pardon my lack of patiance with such arguments. Injuries, emotions (Tulsa loss to Houston after losing to Arkansas), natural disastors (Hurricane rescheduleing) etc. can affect a season and I want to know who is the best team. The best team didn't invite 12 powder puffs at 300k a pop for 12 home games and get a national championship. Defeated and undefeated matter so extremly little in football. How you lost, who you lost to and other outside factors could be a part of a computer selection process but other then that strength of schedule should be the deciding factor.
0 or 1 loss requirement = nearly absolutly arbitrary. I think it is paramount that the idea you drop one or two games eliminates you for contention be scrapped. I also want to include Non champions as Texas proves this year that is another arbitrary requirement. Especially since Tie-breakers aren't uniform in all conferences. Must win your conference is silly but not as silly as 0 or 1 loss team. Save some space and just put: I <3 BCS!
In 2008 the importance of the regular season was diminished and the addition of a 8-team playoff utilizing existing bowls would actually make the regular season more important, because the bowls would actually mean something and if a freshman drops and int your still have a chance.
Look Regan- first off I'll say that look giving the parity that exist how realistic is it for any team to play the perfect season?
I dont like NFL and just using this as an example
two teams are playing a 7-5 against a 8-4 bunch of losers why watch?
These teams still have a shot at a championship
Dont you think that folks would want to watch not only a OU vs FLA; but also maybe The winner of PSU vs USC play the winner of Texas vs Bama
have the winner of OU vs Fla play the winner of Utah vs TTech
Then the biggest game in history
To go undefeated in the XII south has only happened 2 times
2000 OU
2005 UT
Regan throw out the conference champ requirement, because some conferences are alot stronger than others and alot of times the best team in a conference is not the conference champ like 01 03 06 08
As far as the conf champ requirement you take the conference champs and soon the conferences strength will even out, within a decade. In the mean time they are chumps to beat up on in the playoffs. His requirement was that you disclude people based on:
Not being conf. champion.
Losing more than one game.
The Rivals proposal allows for a lot of good teams to get in it also includes Troy, ECU, Buffalo.
ESPN has a playoff machine that allows for percent chances of upsets and actually allows for upsets. I couldn't get Ball State to win a NC even if I left out the top 5 teams I got them as far as the final round once I think. I got the playoff to give a broken team a championship once and again I didn't include any of the top 5 teams or TTU. Boston College won the NC with an upset over TCU, beat northwestern who upset cincinnati, and then upset penn state and then upset BYU. Required 4 upsets and still I left out all the good teams (Utah was the highest ranked with a number 2 seed). The argument that someone who shouldn't be there could win it is not really an issue, I think we would start to believe in BC if they pulled off that many wins (and it would have had to have beaten some much nicer teams).
By sheer definition, a team cannot reasonably claim they are the National Champion if they are not even their Conference Champion.
I know sometimes (like this year with TEX), there are arguments, but I will always be the one that points out that that's what happens when you lose a game - you throw your destiny to the winds of fate.
Sometimes ya get bit...if you can't win your conference, then enjoy your BCS consolation prize...
You said, "Huge ratings and money from the four months of Regular Season would be lost for huge ratings and money from one month of Post-Season."
Where do you have numbers to compare?
Please don't make me research this anymore, I'm swamped...
In the BCS Era, name a year when more than 3 teams realistically deserved to be crowned National Champion.
You can try shooting at 2007, of course, but then you would still only get 3 teams (OHST, LSU, SCAL), since UGA had the same 2-Loss record as LSU but LSU had won the SEC Title.
Even in the most bizarre year CFB has seen since...fill in the blank - which other teams besides these honestly (and I mean honestly) deserved a chance to upset OHST or LSU to take home the NC Crown?
The problem is that many people have different definitions of what they believe the NC to be.
Some believe that it's "the Best two teams". Some think it's the "Most Deserving" two teams. Others think it should be "the two teams that played the most perfect seasons against decent competition."
I fit into the last category, along with 100+ years of CFB's tradition. Other sports are different, and I say more power to them.
CFB is different, always has been, and is the better for it, hence all the passion...
Also all the passion about CFB only excist in the southeast of the US and around some other schools. It is not widespread across all 119 D1 teams. But maybe if all 119 D1 teams knew they had a chance to prove it on the field , maybe it would be more widespread.
While Upsets are fun to watch, there can be no doubt that the Patriots were "The Best Team" last year in the NFL. NONE.
The Giants got lucky, the ball bounced their way, and they became Super Bowl Champs. They were better "That Given Sunday", and that's enough to win the NFL.
That works for them, so more power to them! But that is NOT CFB.
There is no way in heck we can say who is the best of 119 (and some of the bottom of that 119 appear range below the best of the lower division!) teams with certainty and I doubt every year that we get the right two. Let alone a right one out of the two. To use your example I don't know USC was the best team in 2005 I just know the almost lost to Fresno State and let Vince Young walk all over them in the national championship game (and I do mean WALK). Being undefeated is not a sign of a good team necessarily. It is generally the sign of A. a lucky team and B. a consistantly motivated team.
As to motivation:
I think that first loss can be an enormous blow to motivation in the current system, thinking you are out and certainly being out in any non BCS league and even in some BCS leagues. If you didn't start out in the preseason top-25 you didn't even make it to the national championship game, at least not yet. How do you stay motivated when pathetically bad sports casters have pretty much given your team no shot (because of the way rankings work) right from the start. We see that a team could go from unranked to NC but it still hasn't happened. A second loss and you might as well give up your season as it no longer matters unless a small bag of swag is all you are looking for (at the end of the season) or you really like you coach and don't want to see him fired. Why compete when it is meaningless. No playoff detracts from the game massively. I don't like CF because of a dumb BCS system and a chosen national champion I like it INSPITE of that. I like the emotion and I think there would be more if seasons mattered past 1-2 losses. I am compelled by the more amature nature and the drive of these kids to compete in the face of almost no reward (no fat checks). 99% of college football players will never see the NFL a good portion don't even see a regular bowl game. I want to see thier seasons have more meaning, give them a shot at something only BCS schools can ever do.
The system we have now is madness.
CFB has always decided who deserves the title by evaluating each team's body of work throughout the entire season.
As far as TEX and SCAL being the two best teams at the end of 2005, you are entitled to your opinion, but the overwhelming consensus was that those were the right two teams to play for the NC.
As far as motivation goes, your analysis is massively disproved every single season by watching teams play hard to finish out their seasons.
If it was as you claim it is, as soon as a team gets that 3rd loss, they would lose the rest from lack of motivation, and this is NEVER the case. There is always something to play for (a better Bowl more often than not).
There is always motivation.
The system we have now is not madness. It is chaotic, though...
If you mean the mid-majors, you're spot on, however.
Check out the proposal that Ben Prather and I have put forth and see what you think. We're eager for some feedback.
For deserving I'll go with this:
1) had 1 loss or less losses
- accidents happen, allowed one strike.
2) won their conference
- if you don't win your conference how can you claim the nation?
3) won their bowl game
- you have to win when it matters most.
You can also shoot at 2004.
2004: USC, Alabama, Utah
My system is set up similarly, but is flawed (partially) with how to include the mid-majors and how to ensure decent Strength O'Schedule...
The optional play in, used either to distinguish between two mid majors vying for a BCS spot or to face off #2 and #3 if the BCS standings indicate it is needed was one component.
A plus one was the other.
My synergism of the two is flawed because it loses the contingent flexibility.
One strike is hardly enough unless we start making people play more equal schedules. One strike for Boise or Utah is NOT equal to one strike for Alabama. Also the way the polls work one strike means more or less depending on when it happens in the season. Had Ole Miss beaten Florida two weeks before the SEC championship game I think we would send Texas and Oklahoma to replay. If not it would probably be USC against one of those two. Again, arbitrary. Weigh the losses. TCU loss to Oklahoma is a lot better than it's loss to Utah and Ball States Loss to Buffalo Not all losses are equal. Ball State losing to Miami (OH) (abysmal team this year) and winning against Buffalo would have still given them a conf. championship. Let's not start throwing around arbitrary loss restrictions.
We ask:
Who did you lose to? Where did you lose? How Much did you lose by?
Those are questions that will give us a better picture as to the QUALITY of the football team. That is how you choose a national champion.
Example:
Temple is a 5 win team. Examine more closely and you see that 5 win team is probably not to far off being conf champion in that league.
DATE OPPONENT W-L (CONF) RESULT
8/29 @ Army 1-0 (0-0) W 35-7
9/06 Connecticut 1-1 (0-0) L 12-9 OT (Big East Middle of the pack 3 points in OT)
9/13 @ Buffalo 1-2 (0-1) L 30-28 (by 2 points to the conference Champion AWAY)
9/20 @ No. 16 Penn State 1-3 (0-1) L 45-3 (ok MAC sucks)
9/27 Western Michigan 1-4 (0-2) L 7-3 (4 points)
10/04 @ Miami (OH) 2-4 (1-2) W 28-10
10/11 @ Central Michigan 2-5 (1-3) L 24-14 (10 points to the 2nd most winning team in the league?)
10/21 Ohio 3-5 (2-3) W 14-10
11/01 @ Navy 3-6 (2-3) L 33-27 OT (8 win navy needed an OT to win?)
11/12 @ Kent State 3-7 (2-4) L 41-38 (a field goal)
11/22 Eastern Michigan 4-7 (3-4) W 55-52 (looks like the need some defense heh)
11/28 Akron 5-7 (4-4) W 27-6
Not saying they should be in a playoff just showing you losses reveal as much as wins and we should examine them. We only have 12 games. Count the losses for something too. In BB it seems who you lost to and how much you lost by matters, that spastic sport it shouldn't matter at all. Any given day in that game it seems anything can happen but that is far less the case in Football.
Against Oklahoma they were throttled and looked out of their league. Against Utah they looked like the better team that managed to lose on the road.
TCU lost to Oklahoma though. Tulsa looked like a good team most the year then lost to Houston like 70-20. That is a very bad loss. It was obvious it was because they lost to the worst team in the SEC the weak before, to me at least. But still. Horrible loss to a poor opponent. They were a ranked team 2 weeks prior. I'm saying we don't consider losses at all except that we say, your F---ed for the season, you lost.
WVU 2007 lost their last game on their home field to a 5-7 PITT team, and had 2 losses, and SCAL finished with 4 wins.
Neither team had decent claim to go over LSU (2-Loss SEC team), who had the same number of losses in a far tougher conference.
IMHO, neither deserved to play for the NC, but since 2007 was such a crazy year, I included them simply because they were another candidate that was mentioned at the end of the season as potentially worthy of Title Game consideration.
Do we actually need to crown one every year?
Maybe we should invent an award for going 12 games without losing? Would that bring more people onboard to a playoff idea? Now we are suggesting that there is no best team because everyone had 2 losses? See why a requirement you only have 0 or 1 losses is arbitrary. Do you get to keep your strike if a 0 loss team losses to a one loss team in the NC game? Do they have to play again? Silly silly. Who is the best team is what we should be figuring out. Yes the Nature of the beast will be who is the best team at the end of the season. Unfortunatly being the best at the begining of the season doesn't matter and why should it.
Shiney seasons are good bragging rights but I want to know who is the best, head to head. As much as possible. I don't think anyone is argueing a playoff would be perfect.
Canada does 8 game regular season followed by a playoff in conf (including only the best teams top half of the conference or so.). They then send the best of each conference to two bowls which then funnel thier winners into the varnier cup game. I think they have a better although not perfect picture of who the national champion is every year. I don't want to cut down to 8 games but we could certainly lose everyones free FCS game we recently added (I refer to the 12th game). FSU and Clemson are guilty of TWO EACH this year to pad wins. Unwitting voters RANKED FSU after thier 2 wins over FCS opponents. Wins for the sake of wins because we apparently just like to see W or L to judge everything. Stop the insanity.
BTW I brought up canada even though we have 3 divisions that play playoffs in the US. I thought people might point out those sports all have very poor followings as if that has relevance. Those playoff's work very well and are good examples. Also they allow in just about any sizeable conference that wants in, some new leagues don't have automatic bids but i'm sure the future will change that. What we have now is outdated even as it slowly evolves into some other outdated creature.
The 2007 Super Bowl is the best evidence that a Playoff is beyond flawed at giving us the "Best" team as the winner.
Also, given the proclivity for Upsets in CFB, Playoffs will yield even more flawed "Best" teams at this level of play.
The Problem is:
A Playoff will take away from what makes CFB great and unique NOW.
Same Flaws, Less uniqueness. It's a Lose-Lose...
Media driven games (choices of teams): Garbage
You will stop watching College football regan? really? are you playing devils advocate? I just don't see why you rehash these redherrings that have little merit. I said I would like to see bowl games spared so you can keep most the uniqueness and tradition just removing the crazy. You love the BCS? I am wondering how anyone could be informed and still enjoy the present system. I think it is disgusting, biased, and massively unfair, I also feel schools aren't getting thier share of the money from the current system. I want it gone at the very least I don't want to hear "Sugar, Orange, Fiesta, Rose" they are basically stealing money that should be in schools pockets. If we can't have a playoff I want the games we do have completely under the control of the colleges.
I replied furthur up as to the 2007 NFL season and flawed playoffs. Basically as it stands I think we have MORE flaws. But we are in agreement that a playoff is not a cure all.
<<<<
What flaws does the current system have that a Playoff would fix completely?
>>>>
Also I really don't think whatever it is about college football you think is unique has any value. No one watches footballs to see the bowls after. We basically watch our team for various reasons and the championship game, that won't change with a playoff.
<<<<
Speak for yourself. I will watch any ACC or SEC team in a Bowl game, and check out good games whenever they are on. I will watch the BCS Bowls regardless, and the Title Game even if I hate both teams. Most CFB fans are with me on this.
>>>>
I guess it would be less unique but that level of unique to me is akin to deciding the coin toss by seeing which team captain can knit a sweater faster. Some uniqueness is bizzare and would add no value to the game (and we already see that is the case here imo).
<<<<
The uniqueness is in the value of the Regular Season and the tradition of the Bowl Games, the first of which was played in 1902.
It's what the sport IS and always has been. Many people love it. Others want to change it. And for those like me who could care less about any other sport, I get really riled up every winter when a whole bunch of NFL pundits take time out to bash CFB because it isn't as cookie-cutter as all the other sports...
It's not for everyone, I know....that's why they invented the No Fun League to begin with. :)
>>>>
You will stop watching College football regan? really? are you playing devils advocate? I just don't see why you rehash these redherrings that have little merit.
<<<<
Little merit? You aren't changing my mind any more than I am yours, but don't pretend my points have little merit.
>>>>
You love the BCS? I am wondering how anyone could be informed and still enjoy the present system. I think it is disgusting, biased, and massively unfair, I also feel schools aren't getting thier share of the money from the current system.
<<<<
Not since 2004; I no longer support the BCS. I just know that anything more than a "Plus-One" will scrap what is special about the sport.
>>>>
I want it gone at the very least I don't want to hear "Sugar, Orange, Fiesta, Rose" they are basically stealing money that should be in schools pockets. If we can't have a playoff I want the games we do have completely under the control of the colleges.
<<<<
Read Stewart Mandel's "Bowls, Polls, and Tattered Souls". Seriously. The Bowls are NOT in charge.
The dirty secret? (no one is in charge...)
The special has no value is my arguement. It would be like all college football players wear pom poms on thier helmets. It's dumb not valueble. And if you like bowls for the sake of bowls those can probably be perserved removing nothing unique from college football except the stupid way we choose national champions. That can't possibly hold value for you. Every year you are excited about this idiotic system that has been around since 1998.... Fantastic. It's predesessor started about 20 years ago, before that it was even more arbitrary how we chose national champions and before that we didn't bother choose them at all. Maybe we should go back to that so we can be unique? Come on with these arguments I seriously doubt you can advocate this on THAT reasoning. Maybe you feel like it is the only way that Miami and Tennessee will get national championships? That would betray a fundamental misunderstanding of our arguments though so I doubt that too. I don't get it.
Even if it wasn't, LSU had to get through a Conf Championship Game and the other two didn't.
As for 2007 LSU going thru a conf champ game & the others did not...the others played EVERYBODY in their conf & had a TRUE conf champ...the SEC and the 2007 LSU did not.
The BCS is intrinsically very accurate at determining the global concensus and poor at convincing everyone, as demonstrated below. A difference of 0.04 gives a 99.9996% chance that most people feel the teams are arranged properly, but only a 64.8% chance that a random fan will agree with the order.
By this argument, there is no need for a title game if one team has a lead of 0.04 after the season.
When their are two teams clearly ahead of the rest their is no problem wiht the current system.
The problem arises when two or more teams are near the boundary used for eligiblity. The farther you are from the top the murkier the details get. The more teams you add to a playoffs the harder it gets to fairly asign the last spots, whatever standard of fair is used.
The only way to avoid this is to:
- Use a small number of teams
- Use a gap to seperate the participants instead of a fixed ranking
- Make a structure that can accomodate a variable number of teams
The current system with an optional play in game meets these criterion, and would not put BCS GURU out of business.
12 conference of 10, or 10 conferences of 12, with conference championships as the first round of the playoffs.
The top 4 would be placed in BCS bowls, #5-#8 would host #9-#12 in geographically aligned games just before the bowls, with the winners of those games are then placed in the current BCS Bowl which act as the quarter finals.
Any proposal with the BCS Bowls as a quarter finals extend too far into January for the NCAA to allow. Indeed a plus one is resisted feircely.
Large amounts of power in CFB actually comes from the conferences themselves. They come up with their own rules, each team makes its own OOC schedule, and even disciplinary actions are decided upon by the Conferences.
[I know you know this, Ben, just posting it for others...]
ND would have a better chance of a playoff with two routes rather than one therefore it would join the Big 10 in all likelyhood bringing them to 12.
PAC-10 asked to expand would probably take Utah/BYU and the mountain west could pull teams out of the WAC easily.
The WAC could pull teams from C-USA (former members of the WAC for instance, not that far fetched, Tulsa could become a western conf team WACor MWC).
The C-USA could replace it's losses from the Sunbelt or La Tech or taking the extra team from the MAC.
All of this could be accomplished through affiliations where teams remain in thier old conf for other sports etc. Many of these teams I suggest have been in the same conferences before historically. The only issue would be for C-USA who would take newcomers out of the Sunbelt, something they will likely be forced to do anyways as they are the first conference getting pillaged if the BIG EAST expands again.
The problem is that they don't, and no one can make them.
The Sunbelt would be a 12 team conference if there were 12 teams, they take anyone that wants to come.
The WAC has historically taken anyone that wants to come. (was a 16 team monster for a little while).
I'm sure something could be worked out with the PAC-10 to get them to 12. The increased revenue of a CONF championship alone has been enough to get many legues to expand I think they just want to see what the best options are for them.
The MWC really broke off to get away from Hawaii. I think they might like some of the old teams back. The have no Idaho team atm either.
I'm just randomly speculating here of course. I think the biggest problem is the strange big east. Most people don't think it's stable in the long term but they seem to resist following the model of viable BCS conferences. only 11 of 16 schools play football only 9 at FBS level and only 8 as a conference. So odd. I guess as long as they keep an automatic BCS bid they will stay stable as is... Lets hope the keep sending Cincinnati to the BCS!
http://www.amazon.com/Bowls-Polls-Tattered-Soul...
In this book it will explain the powers that be and how they relate to each other regarding the current Post-Season Structure, etc.
It is enlightening, and just a fun read. It also answers a LOT of questions and explains why things are the way they are, and how they could be improved in the future, etc.
It also has a great section on Conference Expansion, and ties it into the post-season...
Actually it could be argued that some schools, say Hawaii, would be better off independent than in the WAC-Belt.
What other schools do you think would fare better independent? I think there are a few BCS schools that might be able to pull it off. But smaller schools?
Hawaii, Nevada and San Jose State could easily accomplish this.
That said, if the PAC 10 expands and the MWC goes to 12, Hawaii and Nevada would be in the MWC.
This year it would look like this:
8 Georgia @ 1 Oklahoma
5 Boise State @ 4 Penn State
6 TCU @ 3 USC
7 Oklahoma State @ 2 Alabama
7 Georgia Tech @ 2 Texas
6 Cincinnati @ 3 Utah
5 Ohio State @ 4 Texas Tech
8 Virginia Tech @ 1 Florida
After 1st rnd is played four bowls decide which game each gets. note: Rose Bowl can't have USC if playing Alabama because is higher seed (100 radius of stadium). This would give every deserving team a chance and a couple who don't. But, if those teams can go on the road and win at high seeds, more power to them.
8 UCLA @ 1 USC
5 Auburn @ 4 Miami(FL)
6 LSU @ 3 Oregon
7 Alabama @ 2 Ohio State
7 TCU @ 2 Penn State
6 WV @ 3 Notre Dame
5 VA Tech @ 4 Georgia
8 Texas Tech @ 1 Texas
It might be better to swap the 8 seeds...
#17-20: Florida, Wisconsin, Louisville, Michigan none Conference champ, and not replacing anyone.
After the end of the Regular Seasons, everyone and their cousin knew exactly who the best teams in the nation were.
If no upsets ever occurred, I'd say "go for it". This isn't the case, though. Both SCAL and TEX went out, won every game against good competition, and no one else did.
Period. Having it so that they had to play a bunch of other games and risk losing in an upset could have deprived us of the matchup we all KNEW was the one that was the Right One....
It wouldn't have worked in 2005. It might in 2013 if the Top 8 teams all finish 10-2, but it isn't worth it every year to have such a rigid system...
BTW 3 Texas teams from the old SWC
Note to old bitter rivals: Texas A&M and Arkansas- look dont run off your coach after a winning season yall hurt our SOS-LOL
Hookem
May seem like a strange thing to say, These are suppose to be the best games and all.
But to me a college fan that started liking college football realitively late in life i just dont get it.
Bowl games used to be fun,an extra couple weeks of football to help get through the winter.
But now days IMO it seems to have lost something.
Dont belive me? trying trecking half way across the country to watch your team play in a half empty stadium. Where neither team has a tremendous amout of support. Only to see that several of your star players are nicked up and not playing. The games arent the same unless your in a BCS game and even then maybe not if you were one of the teams left out of the big game.
My solution wouldnt be the most popular and nothing will ever be totally 100 % fair but here goes anyway.
First ,do away with the bowl games,
They are a waste of money in most cases. Besides what young man in his right mind will sell out to play his best when he has been projected as a first round pick? especially in a minor bowl game. If im coaching a guaranted first round pick in a minor bowl, im telling him to sit this one out.
Secondly why should Division 1 (bowl championship seris) be the only one without a playoff.
Division two does it and its very exciting. When i was a kid my parents used to feed me liver and tell me it was steak. We wouldnt eat liver but we loved steak....lol
My point is, we have been told forever it could never work but it does work, just look at division 2.
A 16 team playoff.With no huge 6 week layoff. They have a comparable amount of teams.
Use the little brother as an example and get your stuff together
The reason Bowls are seeming more and more empty is because there are so many (68 bowl berths this year), and now most of the Bowls are smaller bowls. Trust me when I tell you that the Gator Bowl, Rose Bowl, Fiesta Bowl, Cotton Bowl, etc. will be packed...
In response, though, Regular Season devaluation.
With all due respect could you explain why you think this would devaluate regular season? Ive heard that same point but noone explains it.
So do you think a 2-9 Auburn team playing 11-0 Alabama would be less of a game just because win or lose Bama still goes to a playoff? Well that happened this year and even though it wasnt much of a game i can assure you that it was of interest to AU.
This could be virtually avoided by the way you structure it.
Let all the BCS conferences have a championship game to determine who will represent their conference with an automatic bid. Let 4 at large teams have a playoff for the final 2 spots.
This way you have an 8 team bracket,totally fair? maybe not, however its far better then the fiasco called the BCS.
Actually i hate when a team like USC loses early to a good Oregon State team and has vertually no chance to win a NT. That seems to devaluate the entire season to me.
Play your hearts out every single game ,even go undefeated (Utah,Boise State) and get no chance.
In the interest of fairness something needs to be done.
However, I will now do so:
http://www.sportingnews.com/experts/matt-hayes/...
This article was written in Feb. 2005, just a month or so after Auburn got shafted, and is flawless at pointing out the uniqueness of the CFB Regular Season as compared to March Madness.
As far as the Iron Bowl goes, of course not. Rivalry games will be Rivalry Games no matter what. I guarantee you that AUB-MSST or AUB-ARK would take a hit in interest, though...
My plan (which I am refining with Ben Prather), is one in which is flexible, taking into the account that different years have different circumstances and different scenarios.
IOW: If you have an 2005 SCAL-TEX year, then it works as normal (no reason for either to play another team prior if we already know who the two best are).
In a 2004 AUB-SCAL-OU debacle, then #2 plays #3 and the winner gets to play #1.
If Four teams are up there, then you get a Playoff of Four.
The biggest problem with both the current system and a Playoff Season is that both are Rigid.
Allowing for chaos will allow chaos to be dealt with much more smoothly. :)
It's kinda like some people in Congress just wanting to raise the minimum wage simply for the sake of doing so, giving no thought to exactly which issues need to be impacted and other potential better alternatives.
It's a thirst for a Cure without caring about what's wrong with the patient...
The NFL should have 6 teams but has 12 teams. Even if the conferences are examined separately they should only have 8 teams. This reduces the value of the regular season, as far as the championship goes.
For 120 teams, 11 teams would be ideal. The current system is at best 4 teams leaving much room for uncertainty in the matter.
16 would be much closer to the ideal, but 12 with the top 4 having a bye round would be even better.
Alternatively this idea can benefit from not specifying the exact number of teams. All conference champions in the top 20 should go, and all teams from the top until a large gap (Say 0.04) in the BCS standings closest to 12 teams.
I was just following what the NCAA already has in place for all the other sports.
If you have 32 of 120 (i'm including Western Kentucky) the percentage is 26.7%
16 of 120 is 13.3%, 8 is 6.7%. At 16 1-A football has the smallest percentage of participant in the playoffs. But I think football should be at the bottom.
All of you actually dig a little deeper to have legit reasons you believe Playoffs would work.
Some people don't.
CFB is different, and they don't want to even bother understanding why - they just bash it. (Many NFL fans fit into this group.)
I could not agree more!!!!!!!!!
No one denies that CFB's post-season could be improved.
And yet there is a reason why the "powers that be" continue to keep it going the way it is. And money is NOT one of these reasons (as anyone with a calculator and Nielsen ratings could tell a Playoff would make more money).
Why? Because they know what they're doing...
Ben Prather and I are nearing completion on our joint Playoff concept; hopefully I can get out of the "negativity zone" soon enough. :)
More like a wishbone, triple option post season...
In fact I think that's what I'll call it.
This format had all conf. champions and used seeds, 1vs16 style you can imagine the rest. With 11 Conf. there were 5 at large bids (a decent amount to keep the complaining din to a minimum). 2 rounds would be played immediatly post season and the final playoff would be post christmas with the NC game in the first or second week of the new year. The bowl games would be seperate and wouldn't make the money they make now but schools would get MORE revenue out of the playoffs (this proposal had the playoffs run by the NCAA). The final game and perhaps the final three games would be Neutral site games that would NEVER BE PLAYED IN JACKSONVILLE (ok I made that last part up).
Some would argue that sunbelt champions aren't better then the bottom of the SEC or even ACC but if we had this format there would be a general move toward more parity it would weaken BCS conferences stranglehold. I have mixed feelings about that.
The bowls would still be around though. They could still be corporate sponsered and fun diversions but the big games would belong to the NCAA and there would be MUCH more money to split up amoung conferences (although home seeded teams would get to keep ticket revenue (With some split with the visitor as is usual) the TV contract would be NCAA and split revenue). Losers from the playoffs could drop into the bowl picture as well. The champ and runner-up would be the only teams that could not get a bowl if the bowl season was extended out a bit. We can all see why sending a champ or the runner up to a bowl afterward would seem pointless and cause problems if either lost.
I really liked the plan and I probably don't do it justice truncating it so severely but like I said I couldn't find the link. Many think this would make the bowl season worthless but I would say it only strips the upper most vaule out and leaves the rest. It ruins those top 4 bowls. That leaves 30-32 or so at the same level of value in my book. I still would watch most bowls like I do now. Most bowls will survive with some of the crappier ones dying out maybe.
The main point is to stop talking about an 8 or 16 team playoff that involves bowls, either way it is less money for them they figure (and therefore will always oppose any change) so lets do it in such a way that we give the most money to the schools we can.
What you are saying is that we can have a playoff BEFORE the bowls?
Nice...
It's more a playoff BESIDE the bowls, mostly in the same timeframe.
Teams like Utah,USC,PSU.UT,Bama & TTech would still have a shot at it.
We would still have controversy and everyone could argue about who's #8 instead of who's #2
Hookem-Horns
BTW I also believe that either all conferences have CCG games or they be eliminated
The Idea of all conferences having the same number of teams also makes sense
10 conferences-12 teams each
Hookem-Horns
Go Owls
Go Frogs
Great concept- I'd just arange it a little different- I think the fans would love a Bama vs UT game
Why can't we have a playoff like they have in NASCAR?
Oh wait...
Turning Left at High Speed is NOT a sport.... :)
Lou Holtz coached at Arkansas & Notre Dame and played against Texas many times, I really admire our old anniversaries Jackie Sherril,Barry Switzer,Ken Hatfeild,Gene Stallings,Frank Broyles , Grant Taft and Paul Bryant and now we get to face Mike Leach,Bob Stoops,Art Briles,Gary Pinkle,, Mike Gundy,Mark Mangino,Bobby Petrino,David Bailiff and Jim Tressle.
Hookem-Horns
The 4 team playoff would be played the same weekend as the conference championships.
This gives teams like Boise State and Utah a chance to play for a championship, not just a consolation prize.
You may not like us AU fans much but trust me we have thought about this for years.... :)
I agree that even a play-off system won't solve all that is unfair with college football, but I do believe it would make it better. Not perfect, but better.
How screwed up the system is (or how great it is, depending on who is talking) and coaching changes make for great discussion and news points.
Besides... I love poking holes in people's crazy playoff ideas.
I do think Regan and I are converging on a very workable system.
- It would extend too far into January, distract from finals, or shorten the regular season.
- It would make the regular season mean less, as teams late in the season could have a spot secured.
- The debate about whether the #16 team is truely better than the #17 team, or even the #20 team, is even more convoluted than the debate about whether #2 is better than #3.
I believe the regular season would mean less argument is often overstated. The only thing that would change is that a loss would not be the end for some, and not for others. And considering hosting a 1st round game would generate millions, I think teams would play hard to the end to secure that, and unlike the NFL, there would not be any "divisions clinched" with 2 weeks left.
Also, don't you think there would be more debate and calls for fairness if instead of deciding between which at-large team is more deserving of the last #12 seed or whether it should have been Memphis, North Carolina, or UCLA that plays Kansas in the "NCAA Basketball Championship Bowl". Also most basketball teams miss more class time in the first month of the season than football players miss all year.
The championship games are sheduled to be the week before final exams. By making this the first round of a playoff, the second and third rounds would trample on the Final exams for fall semester. This is why the first Bowls are scheduled for Dec 20th, after exams.
A loss would still be the end for Utah or Boise State, so that argument is invalid, but your natural response is that for those teams they would have a chance at the title they did not have before.
Suppose Troy or Utah State manage to get into the top 8. Should a team like Georgia be forced to travel to a stadium with a capacity under 30K? Soimething must be in place to ensure that stadiums are used that can handle the capacity such a game would draw.
Alabama, Oklahoama, Texas and Florida had top 8 spots secured regardless of the outcome of the championship game. With a loss the final week of the regular season they would not have been out of the playoffs and would still have a good chance at hosting a first round game with a win in the championship game.
NCAA Basketball makes the regular season almost meaningless for the championship game. By allowing 65 teams they allow 1/4 of the entire field to have a chance. This is made worse by guaranteeing spots to the conference champions, opening the playoff to the entire field.
NCAA Basketball regular seasons should be shortened and not started until late december. These games are near meaningless anyways.
I don't think it is fair to not allow a chance for teams to get in. I'm not sure what you mean but I don't think we create a national champion by repeatedly saying over and over how wonderful the BCS schools are and then crowning one of them every year. Maybe they are awesome but I want them to have to prove it in a playoff. I wouldn't want to give Boise or Utah a shot this year unless all BCS teams posted 4-5 losses because that is how many I would expect them to take in a real conference (except the big east and I can't do anything about that so let's not bring it up). We aren't asking for 1/4 the field. We are asking for the top 13 percent just over 1/10th the field a field that in the next few years will widen out even more expect 4-5 more teams in the next 3-4 years.
The semi finals should be at neutral site. Allowing the #1 team to play in their host bowl and the current NCG to function as the other semi final works quite well for 5-8 teams.
If we want a playoffs it would be best to scrap the existing regular season. Instead, make it a 14 week 12 game double elimination playoff from the start of the season.
Two loses and you are out of the title hunt.
The season is broken into three groupd of 3 games seperated by two weeks with a pre-arranged rivalry game and a bye week and ending with a third rivalry game.
The first three game segment can be pre arranged as well, allowing conferences to guarantee 6 conference gamas. Also, the system can be designed to favor pairings of teams from the same conference to get each team the appropriate number of conference games.
After the first three games are played, all teams with only one loss are put in a sepreate pool to assign the second round of three games. The pre arranged game and bye week allow teams two weeks to make travel plans. All other teams are assigned to regional games.
After the second round of three games the final three games are scheduled. Again two weeks are set aside for a rivalry game and a bye week while travel arrangements can be made. Again teams with one or no losses would be seperated into a national pool and the rest of the teams assigned to regional games.
This would force the top teams to play each other and allow smaller schools to play more regional games. A design prinicle could be to schedule 2 conference games in each round of 3 and to use 2 of the rivalry games to make a total of 8 conference games per year. This would allow conference championship to continue to be held after the season.
With the increased difficulty of the schedules of the top teams their would be far fewer 1 loss and undefeated teams than we currently have, if their would be any at all. We would also have a much better idead of the merits of each team as the top teams would have all played against other top teams.
Bowl games could then be scheduled and a tournament of all teams with one loss or less arranged to guarantee only one team is left standing.
Personally I would rather no cuts at all and only cite a possible need as compromises to the various red herrings the pro-BCS crowd tosses out at every turn. Let the season stretch until the first weekend in February and we will be the better for it. The arguments concerning when finals are and such are also bogus as some schools don't even use two semester (opting for tri-mesters) formats and are possibly 4 weeks into the WINTER tri-mester by the time the january bowl game rolls around. There is no reason at all not to have it go on longer except that student athletes argument concerning thier health, hence the thought that we might need to shorten the season. We already have some sports that last longer btw.
Ben's proposal (Prather, I don't refer to myself in the third person) is simply an idea to get the fairest possible detractors (on the grounds of thinking another team is more deserving of a national title) or arguments that someone else should have been there. It also helps to quell those of you that consistantly say that the regular season would have no meaning as every week there would now be important compelling games that no one could argue didn't have meaning (whereas we pretty much have 12 useless games a year) for most teams. 55% of which, undefeated would probably still not have a shot at the title, even more if the big schools had two undefeated representatives -by big schools I refer to FSU, Michigan, Miami, Florida, Auburn, Ohio State, Notre Dame, Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, USC- NO OTHER TEAM WOULD MAKE IT TO A NC GAME NONE NADA ZERO they had 12 useless games that year and possibly one all of them but the "great stories" of these "proven winners" going to the national championship game would ensure the corrupt BCS never let them in. I personally enjoy the regular season as is and don't mind if we leave it alone at all, it is compelling for me and will remain so either way.
The other issue that I'm kinda surprised that no one has even dipped their toe into is that of conference realignments.
The introduction of the BCS ushered in a new era of conference realignments. Is there any reason to believe that this miracle playoff system would not bring about a similar shuffling of the deck chairs??
They can't be forced to re-align, but if you go outside the box to give them exterior reasons to re-align, it's possible.
The BCS caused the recent re-alignment. Re-alignment is an effect to the system, not a factor in creating a new system.
I'm not shooting down any Conference Re-Alignment proposals on sight, but just be aware that they would require a bit of mastermind/manipulation of "the powers that be" to pull off; no one can just "make them do it".
You excluded a lot of really good programs some of which have won MNC games like Fla,LSU,TCU,Arkansas,Texas A&M,Alabama,UGA.
Conference realignment caused some schools to be in a better posistion like Louisville, Cincinatti and hurt others like TCU , Houston and SMU.
Some programs like USF are on the same level as alot of C-USA or MWC teams IMHO- but because their program belongs to a so-called BCS conference they are at an unfair advantage over other programs.
For example this year BE vs XII
OU over Cinn blow out
UConn over Baylor----real close
USF over KU
Colo over WV
BU #5 from XII south hung tough with UConn
Colo #4 from XII north beat WV
I know that every year is different but this year seems as though the MWC from top to bottom is about equal to or above the BE, but the BE is a BCS conference and the MWC and C-USA are not
I'll grant you, as I have so many others and so many other times, the MWC is better than the Big East. They have been since the last realignment. WVU had some nice years but everyone else was gag worthy. That said the bottom of the Big East (Syracuse) beat notre dame while the bottom of the MWC (San Diego State) didn't. The top of the MWC if better for sure. Probably pretty equal around the bottom and I think the middle is probably leaning toward the BE.
THE PERFECT SYSTEM:
The Regular Season:
> Every team plays every other team. 119 games. Everyone plays head-to-head - No more strength of schedule whining by anyone.
> Every game must take place at Neutral Sites so no outside factors interfere with the game. This also means either no fans in the stadiums, or an absolute 50-50 division of tickets enforced by Congressional mandate.
> Every Neutral Site must be in an indoor arena so that weather does not give a team an unfair advantage.
> So that teams can play each other in the fairest way possible, every player on each team will be cloned in order to make certain that injuries don't interfere in the fair and measured outcome.
> 9,000 cameras will monitor each game, so that every yard line will have every possible angle covered. (around the edges of the field will be 300 large camera poles, each 30 feet tall. There will be a pole placed upon each yard line on both sides of the field, 100x for both sidelines, and 50x for each end zone). Every play will be reviewed from every single angle to verify that all penalties are fairly seen and administered by the Congressionally-approved Officiating Staff before the next play is allowed to begin.
Games will take entire days to play, but since no fans will be permitted to attend the games, and the athletes themselves can be in class while their clones play the games, it matter how long it takes to get it right.
The Post-Season:
> Following the Regular Season of 7,140 College Football games, the 16 teams that have the best records will then have physical and psychological evaluations (administered by EA Sports, of course) for their players and coaches that will take into account all factors in each player so they can be constituted in terms of raw statistical data.
> From this raw statistical date, the top 2 of the previous 16 teams will be chosen so that complaings from teams with identical records will be resolved.
> These top 2 teams will play each other (as per the Regular Season rules) in the Generic Bowls in a "Best of Seven" Tournament, with six games to be played between the two teams. Since they would have already met once during the regular season, that game's result will serve as the result of "Game One", so as to pay lip service to those who believe the regular season should be important.
There. College Football - the way it was meant to be.
The reason games mean less in the regular season is not due to the tournement but the fact that so many games are played. Statistically everyone will lose a few, and with the improved connectivity even a ranking as bad as RPI can get close to a good value. The scheduling practices of college football make producing a meaningfull ranking a very complex problem, pushing our mathematical techniques to the limits.
The NFL is a bad comparison.
Here the teams are far fewer and the parity is significantly more level. The difference in schedule strength between teams is negligible. This is not the case for college football.
Eligibility:
1) All undefeated teams
2) All teams above the first gap of 0.06 in the BCS standings
(Possible add a requirement that a team won their conference)
Seed all eligible teams using the BCS standings
Structure:
1 team: Start over using the second gap of 0.06.
2 teams: Use current NCG.
3 teams: Add a neutral site playin game for #2 and #3.
4 teams: #1 team hosts the BCS bowl with conference tie ins. #2 hosts current NCG. Winners meet in a plus one.
5-8 teams: Play in games, hosted by the higher seeded teams, determine the final slots in the BCS bowls.
9+ teams: Star over but reduce the BCS cut off to 0.05, then 0.04, then the highest cutoff limiting the field to 8 or less -- reevaluate the need for a playoff.
(Hosting schools may be required to use a stadium of their choice meeting a size requirement)
Recent Years
The current BCS formula paradigm has only been in place since 2004.
2008: Oklahoma, Forida, Texas, Utah, Boise State (Texas did not win conference)
Utah hosts Boise State for the chance to play Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl. Florida plays Texas in the current NCG. The winners would meet in a plus one.
Rose Bowl: USC vs Penn State
Sugar Bowl: Alabama vs Ohio State
Orange Bowl: Virginia Tech vs Cincinnati
2007: Ohio State, LSU, Hawaii
LSU and Hawaii would have played at a neutral site play in game to face Ohio State in the NCG.
Rose Bowl: USC vs Illinois
Fiesta Bowl: West Virginia vs Oklahoma
Sugar Bowl: Georgia vs (ASU or Boston College)
Orange Bowl: Virginia Tech ve Kansas
2006: Ohio State, Florida, Michigan, Boise State (Michigan did not win conference)
Ohio State would host Boise State in the Rose Bowl, Florida would play Michigan in the current NCG. The winners would meet in a plus one.
Fiesta Bowl:USC vs Oklahoma
Sugar Bowl: LSU vs Notre Dame
Orange Bowl: Wake Forest vs Louisville
2005: USC, Texas
Same as BCS, but format has changed.
NCG: USC vs Texas
Rose Bowl: Penn State vs Oregon
Fiesta Bowl: Ohio State vs Notre Dame
Sugar Bowl: Georgia vs West Virginia
Orange Bowl: FSU vs TCU(would have been an AQ under current rules)
2004: USC, Oklahoma, Auburn, Utah, Bosie State
Utah hosts Boise State for the chance to play USC in the Rose Bowl. Oklahoma would play Auburn in the current NCG. The winners would meet in a plus one.
Fiesta Bowl: Texas vs California
Sugar Bowl: Georgia vs Michigan
Orange Bowl: Virginia Tech vs Pittburgh
My Conference Championship criteria is based on the observation that 0-loss and 1-loss teams that would be considered for the NC Game most often are the Conference Champs. Ordinarily, it would be an inherent product of producing the "2 best teams". It is a "safety valve".
The CCG that the Big 12, ACC, and SEC play occasionally throws this one to the wind, however, as a team that can't win their division can somehow get a shot at the NC Game.
Essentially, the purpose of the whole process is to 'weed out' pretenders from contenders. In most conferences, it's easy, because all the teams play each other. In the 12-team conferences, though, it's a different bird.
The issue primarily devolves down to my core belief that teams need to "Win or Go Home." The core logic of the BCS was (until 2004), that if you win out, you're in the NC Game. If you have a loss, you throw your destiny to the Winds of Fate - you could still make it to the NCG, but you can't complain if you don't make it in, because it's your falut you didn't take care of business that one game when you needed to prove you were a team that could overcome any obstacle.
Lose twice, and you're out of the NCG, but there is still a lot to go out and play hard for.
Most practically, though, the Conf. Champ. Requirement exists to ensure that we never have a situation like we almost had in 2006, when we almost had an OHST-MICH rematch when MICH had their shot at the Buckeyes and LOST.
Not giving another team a chance at the undefeated Buckeyes would have been wrong, and this was proven in both post-season games involving the Big Ten teams.
[ The biggest critics to this Conf Champ Criteria (naturally) right now are Longhorn Fans. I will point out that the BCS is not what deserves your blame.
First, you blame the team for not stopping TXT on that last drive.
Second, you blame the Big 12 for how it structures it's tiebreakers. The SEC has a rule that has it that if the top 2 of the 3 teams are close in the BCS rankings, you drop the 3rd team and take the head-to-head winner of the top 2 teams.
Don't blame the BCS or the voters for changing the very way they vote specifically for benefitting your team. It's not cool... ]
That's the logic. The system Ben and I worked on allows for the CC Criteria to be used or not used. We await comments. :)
Also, "BOWLS SUCK" is your opinion. It is not a fact. What is a fact is that, like it or not, the Bowls have been around for over a century and are as much a part of college football as great upsets, tailgating, and fight songs written before 2002.
As far as getting people together to watch a game, there is a LOT more to do on Saturday than Sunday. Also, geography is an issue. The NFL is more popular where there are NFL-team-cities.
An ESPN poll conducted in 2006 had CFB more popular than the NFL by a 55% to 45%. 28 states had CFB fans in the majority to 20 NFL-majority states, with statistical ties in CA and CO. This was an unscientific (internet) poll, which is more likely that the margin is even wider because of all the older football fans who don't even bother with them.
In CFB, we don't want inferior teams to waste our time against contenders. We don't have enough Saturdays to allow it. We want the best vs. the best.
However, since you mentioned the NFL and NCAABB as being so superior to CFB, why bother posting?
There will be a Fiesta Bowl party at my house Cold Beer and beef & venison fajitas.
Nobody around here throws parties for NFL games- but alot throw parties for Bowl games
That said, I agree with Regan on one irrefutable count. The bowl system could not be extensively used. It would be difficult to expect 20,000 fans of a given team to attend one play-off game at one bowl, turn around and attend a 2nd bowl, before finally turning around to attend a 3rd. Only teams supported by schools with high student populations and exceptionally large fan bases would be capable of providing the 60,000-100,000 fans willing to travel to separate bowls featuring their team, provided their team advanced that far in a play-off.
It is for this reason; a play-off system should either begin at the conference level or be limited to no more than 16 teams, preferably 10. A Top-10 scenario would be just that: a play-off involving teams ranked only in the Top-10 at the end of the regular season (pre-bowls). It would consist of a "Preliminary" round, Quarter-Final, Semi-Final, and NC. The bottom 4 (7-10) would play-off at the site of the higher seed. The winners round out the Top-8. The Quarter-Final round could be done the same way. The winners round out the Top-4. If done this way, only 3 bowl games would be needed for the Semi-Final round and NC. Some of the losers of the earlier rounds could actually participate in bowls, if they wanted to. The point is, a format such as this would hardly tax the bowl system, nor would it tax the vast majority of fan-bases out there.
Then, there's Gator Hippy's format, which essentially was discussed between our two "Gentle Ben's" (FSU & Prather). The now 120 Div-1 teams would realign into ten 12-team conferences. Each would have a conference play-off. The winner then represents their conference in the system as Ben's described. The winners of the "Preliminary Round" round out the Top-8, and everything else falls into place as with the Top-10 system above. This system would have the added attraction of offering the possibility for a Cinderella. Consider VA Tech this year; consider FSU a few years back. Not to mention, every conference would be represented. BUT, some Top-10 teams would then be left out, and there's all that conference realigning.
A 3rd possibility would involve playing-off each conference's All Conference 1st, 2nd, and honorable-mention teams. This would be a lot more difficult to coordinate. The point is there are systems which should work, and when it's proven there's money to be made, the best one will be utilized (That is, the system which will result in the most money made, not necessarily the best system.). The other point is a 16 team system (an 8 game Preliminary Round - no byes) is as big as a play-off system should get. We don't want to begat the equivalent of March Madness, where-by as many as 67 teams make it to the dance and another 32 teams play in that "other" tournament. For now, we have what we have, and I suppose I can live with that...for now.
That's close...
With D-1 set up as it is NOW...
11 conference champs and 5 at large square off in four rounds...
At large determined by win percentage with opponents' win percentage used as a tie breaker (if a school is an independent then they rely on getting in on an at large bid)...
Seeding occurs in the same manner...
Higher seed plays at home, UNLESS an at large team is playing a conference champ...
Then game would be played at conference champs stadium regardless of seeding (as a reward for winning your conference you get some extra revenue)...
Title game played at nuetral location with higher seeded team wearing home colors...
FWIW - I would be all for a Division realignment where current BCS conferences were placed in their own division seperate from those outside the bubble currently thus reducing the number of teams in the field to 12 (6 confernece champs & 6 at large)...
It would be unpopular to sacrifice the atheletes themselve, but what are we going to do with all the clones when they lose eligibility?
LOL, JK dude...but you probably don't want to challenge me to an absurdity contest. :)
"Iah got yer flaymin' alter raaaiiiiiiiiiiiiight heyere....."
Yup...that would be a heck of a battle all right.... :)
I think most people on here would prefer a playoff, myself included......but there's not a thing wrong with bowl games...........bowl games IS college football...JMO
Most of us are looking forward to Bowl Season regardless of what we think of the BCS, Playoffs, or anything else. It's alright if you're not, just don't get your opinions confused with facts.
You may think the Bowls, Tradition, etc. "suck", but if that is the extent of your viewpoint, don't be surprised if you aren't able to convince anyone you're 'right'.
...just sayin'...