Lots of people. Because they just want a playoff...they don't care if you meet all their specifications. They want it because they do.
Gar...
ksuwild
· 10 months ago
No, people want a playoff because they know it will work to decide a champion in College Football... and that if we had one that we would not constantly end seasons without knowing who the best team in CF is.
There may be people who just want change for the sake of change... but there are many more people who want change because the system we have is broken and needs to be fixed. So we can keep changing the BCS every year, tweak a rule here, add a rule there, but in the end it doesn't work.
Playoff's DO work whether you like it or not.
GAR BACK...
Ben Prather
· 10 months ago
I think Regan's contingent championship structure would be called a playoff by most people, as a playoff is usually used to refer to a single elimination tournament.
Technically the current system is a two team playoff.
The question is how big a playoff we should have, what should be the qualifications for it and who would manage it.
The current system says 2, the top 2 in the BCS standings and the BCS bowls.
A plus one advocate would say 4, the top 4 in the BCS standings (or top 2 after the bowls), the BCS bowls.
You would lean towards 16, all conference champions and 5 at large teams based on BCS standings, the NCAA.
An 8 team playoff usually either uses the top 8 in the BCS standings or the 6 BCS champions and two at large teams, run by the bowls with minor bowls being the quarter finals.
Reagan would prefer somewhere near 4, teams with 1 loss or less who won their conferece, the BCS bowls
I would also answer near 4 but include all undefeated teams and those above the first significant gap in the BCS standings run by a BCS with an expanded mandate.
ksuwild
· 10 months ago
Actually, I think 16 is too many.
I tend to think an 8 team playoff with 4 automatic bid slots is the best system for college football. It leaves enough room for all the crazy scenarios that can happen as well as the very best non BCS champions.
An 8 team playoff would allow the bowl system to continue with the rest of the 56 (64 minus 8 for the playoff) or so bowl eligible teams, and would be the same every year which also help the bowls to flourish.
4 is not enough, 16 is too many.
Ben Prather
· 10 months ago
I strongly agree that 16 is too many. 4 is usually enough, but some years have required as many as 5, and as many as 8 should be able to be handled.
In 2002 and 2005 2 were enough. In 2001 Miami might as well have been given the title after the regular season.
You raise a good point about the need to keep the number of participants in the system the same every yearso the rest of the bowls have a consistent draw from the remaining teams.
Returning the BCS bowls to New Year's Day and selectively using them as semifinals it is possible to maintain a total championship system/BCS bowl participation of 10 or 11, leaving 57 bowl spots ( 34 * 2 - 11 ) for the remaining teams.
This is more stable than the actual number of eligible teams which can range from 60 to 77, an observation that lead to the NCAA sending out a warning that their might not be enough teams to fill all available bowl slots this past summer.
Tom_Blogical
· 10 months ago
Amen.
U.of S.C.1978
· 10 months ago
I like the sound of it Ben. But...
1) Apply criteria agreed upon by all involved to determine the prestige levels for the conferences. (Elite, automatic qualifier or at large)
What criteria would you use to do this, keeping in mind that conferences would need to go up and down from season to season?
The BCS has already defined criteria it uses to evaluate conference that are reasonable. Though the actual results are not released, they have recently been emulated.
The proposed definitions using these values are: Elite >= 0.7500 ( an automatic BCS bowl berth and 2 premier bowls ) Automatic qualifier >= 0.5000 ( an automatic BCS bowl berth and 1 premier bowl ) At-large < 0.5000 ( 1 premier bowl berth )
Once earned, automatic BCS Bowl berths are only evaluated after your BCS bowl tie-in hosts the national championship game. Each year all conferences with an automatic qualification are evaluated to to determine elite status and all at-large conferences are evaluated to see if they warrant an automatic qualification.
The process for adding a new conference would be simple. Their premeir bowl would become a BCS bowl. Likewise, if a BCS bowl's tie-ins lose their automatic qualification status they would lose their BCS status when they next host the national championship game. This would encourage bowls to compete for tie ins with conferences that appraoch the threshold.
Each conference and each bowl would be free to make whatever tie-ins and ordering they feel are in their best interest. With a championship system that anyone can qualify for by going undefeated in place and a structure to evaluate the conferences on a regular basis, the BCS bowls would be free of the qualification scrutiny that accompanies being tied to the national championship system (read can select whoever they want).
Specifically, the Big 12 could change their BCS tie-in to the Cotton Bowl at their own perogative. The Cotton Bowl would then replace the Fiesta Bowl as a BCS bowl.
The Fiesta Bowl originally formed in 1971 to guarantee the WAC champion a bowl game. This would be a great venue to pit the champions of the rival MWC and WAC conferences that emerged from the 1971 WAC. This would put the Fiesta Bowl first among premier bowls in line for BCS status, depending only on either of these two conferences crossing the automatic qualification threshold.
14 (2) PLAYOFF SYSTEM.—The term ‘‘playoff sys- 15 tem’’ means a system by which the national cham- 16 pionship game of the NCAA Division I Football 17 Bowl Subdivision is the final game of a single elimi- 18 nation post-season playoff system for which all 19 NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision con- 20 ferences and unaffiliated NCAA Division I Football 21 Bowl Subdivision teams are eligible.
Aside from the circular definition (the turm "playoff system" should be replaced with "tournament"), wouldn't a single elimination tournament of two teams, for which all teams are eligible for by ranking in the top 2 satisfy this? Just saying...
Our idea of using some criteria to select qualified teams and make a single elimination tournament for the teams that warrant consideration would meet most peoples concept of a playoff.
By turning the BCS from a loose affiliation of interested parties into a governing body for the bowl system all of the goals listed above can be accomplished.
NMLSooner
· 10 months ago
I think your plan is better than what we have now. You know I like a 16-team "tournament" best. I just think it's to complicated. People will think they are being cheated even if they are not. I don't think I understand all the intricacies to what your talking about, and I'm actually interested in understanding it. This would create bad controversy, because of the lack of understanding and changing variables. If you had a year with 6 teams, and then someone's team gets left out the next year because only five meet the criteria, and they are sixth. No amount of explaining is going to take away the discontent.
Ben Prather
· 10 months ago
Try explaining that to last year's New England Patriots...
Like I said, I am obsessing about it a little. I have worked out a lot of issues that have been brought up about other playoff proposals I have encountered. As it is still a work in progress it might even have contradictions in the various parts from changes that have not been dealt with completely.
The fact that using a gap instead of a specific ranking value intrinsically increases consensus at the cutoff value is its great strength. Once the teams are selected the system sets up a generic single elimination tournament with the participants.
The details are to reduce logistical issues, address philosophical concerns and explain the part current parties would play in the system.
The changing structure could cause confusion and discontent. A bigger potential for complaint than who gets in is that there could be two closely ranked teams and one gets a bye while the other gets a game against a good team. If three teams at the top of the standings are close and no other team is undefeated this is almost guaranteed. Since 1998 this wold have happened 2 times (5 if you include games against undefeated teams not at the top of the standings.)
NMLSooner
· 10 months ago
"Try explaining that to last year's New England Patriots..." I don't think the New England Patriots think anything should change about the way the NFL finds their champion. I don't think there would be any explaining to do.
4cornerz
· 10 months ago
The BCS is the best thing for college football. I have to admit I hate this current BCS system, but the debate during the season and controversy at the end of the season makes NCAA Div 1 an exciting time. Just go back down memory lane about 15 plus years ago our college bowl system sucked. Just look at the Automatic tie ins Big 8 champ Orange Bowl vs at Large, SEC Champ Sugar Bowl vs at Large, SWC Champ Cotton vs At Large, Fiesta Bowl At Large vs At Large. BCS is not the greatest but we came a long way. Yes the system always need tweaking but, at the end of the year we have #1 vs #2.
NMLSooner
· 10 months ago
I'd take that old bowl system over the current BCS system any day of the week.
I'm a Republican, but I think Mr. Barton needs to grow up!!! This is ridiculous. Essentially, his TX Longhorns didn't get into the NC game. Therefore, he is so bitter; the time needed to enact serious legislation to do something constructive, such as boost this nation's economy, must now be spent refuting the merits (few as they are) of the BCS & FORCING a play-off system. In how many languages can one say, "Just Plain Stupid!"? Congress has NO business what-so-ever getting involved with how a collegiate sport determines its champion. If anyone should get involved, it should be the NCAA, and they don't have enough sack to belly up to the bar.
YO! Barton!! Ya wanna do some good? Enact legislation which will help to stabilize gasoline prices. You might get elected President. (Jerk!!!)
hrposon
· 10 months ago
In computer science talk: "Garbage in, garbage out." In BCS speak, "Corruption in, Garage out"
Zac
· 10 months ago
In layman's terms FUBAR'ed again!
HamnEggs28
· 10 months ago
. I like the idea of utilizing the bowls to strengthen the BCS. Unfortunately, it does smack of a Playoff system and that seems to be taboo for the present. However, if a Playoff system is agreed upon or not, I do believe the current system can be improved by placing a lot more importance on "Strength of Schedule". The BCS can do so by:
1) making a rule that requires that for a team to be eligible for the BCS Championship Game, the team must play two of their non-conference games against teams ranked in the Top 25 outside their conference in the year that game is scheduled. The timing of the scheduling and ranking of the team would be easily verifiable and would account for schedules being set years in advance. This would upgrade most schedules, would level the playing field among the perennial powers, would reduce the number of undefeated teams from non-BCS conferences and give us all a better comparison of a team's strength.
2) eliminating the Human Polls and rely on the computers to calculate the rankings of the teams. Humans are way to prone to be swayed by publicity stunts, media hype and emotion, plus humans cannot possibly know the details of the multitude of games that need to be evaluated.
3) designing the computer formulas to truly recognize Strength of Schedule. Wins and loses should be valued according to the strength of the teams. For example, the computers should reward a loss against a very strong team more than a win versus a "cup cake". A win against a very strong team is heavily rewarded, while a loss against a weak team is heavily penalized. The power teams would definitely have an incentive to schedule more difficult teams if they want to qualify for the NC.
Ben Prather
· 10 months ago
It is a "championship system," not a playoff...
That is for a very specific reason. I would define the difference to be the fact that this does not have a set number of games in advance, like the NFL between 1933 and 1967.
Your proposal would make the situation worse for teams like Utah, who could never schedule enough teams to compensate for their conference alignment.
HamnEggs28
· 10 months ago
My suggestion would require that all schools, Utah included, play 2 non-conference games against Top 25 teams outside their conference. If Utah's conference is so weak that they cannot compensate for it, then they should either find a new conference or accept the fact that they will not make the NC. That is the whole point,strength of schedule should be a determining factor in who goes to the NC.
Kevin @ Fanblogs
· 10 months ago
You do realize that your suggestion isn't remotely possible, right? Unless you intend for the top 25 to be arranged a few years in advance and that those teams would play 30+ games a season.
HamnEggs28
· 10 months ago
Most schools play 4 non-conference games. Among the Top 25, that equates to 100 opportunities to schedule a game. Its likely that all schools would not schedule 2 games and they simply would not be eligible to play in the NC game. That would not prevent them from playing in other bowls. The real powerhouses, perhaps 10-15 schools, would make sure they were playing the strongest schedule possible, which is what they should be doing anyway, but the current system does not encourage them to do so.
HamnEggs28
· 10 months ago
Tommy_Trojan
· 10 months ago
Must be the strong and silent type. Welcome aboard. I'm sure that your input will be well accepted by all.
Zac
· 10 months ago
I would like to see the bowl system completely break its ties with specific conferences and go to a lottery type system. March Madness has its selection Sunday. Professional sports have their lotteries. Why not College Football & the Bowl System?
What ever system (BCS, BS, or CBS) is used to determine the Top-2, that's separate from the rest of the bowls. Determine the criteria for specific bowls to chose and in what turn. At the end of the regular season the least prestigious bowls select 1st. Eventually, toward the end of the selection ceremony, there will be 4 teams and 2 bowls left. The most prestigious bowl will pick the runner-up's from the 4 teams remaining, which leaves the last 2 as the NC contenders (Already pre-selected, except no one would know it, yet.). If done right, this could be kinda cool...IF done right.
1Tomcat
· 10 months ago
What do a woman and a cow pattie have in common ? The older they get the easier they are to pick up. What to call a smart person on the A&M campus? a visitor Heard about the Aggie that moved to Oklahoma- raised the IQ level of both states
All Comments
Gar...
There may be people who just want change for the sake of change... but there are many more people who want change because the system we have is broken and needs to be fixed. So we can keep changing the BCS every year, tweak a rule here, add a rule there, but in the end it doesn't work.
Playoff's DO work whether you like it or not.
GAR BACK...
Technically the current system is a two team playoff.
The question is how big a playoff we should have, what should be the qualifications for it and who would manage it.
The current system says 2, the top 2 in the BCS standings and the BCS bowls.
A plus one advocate would say 4, the top 4 in the BCS standings (or top 2 after the bowls), the BCS bowls.
You would lean towards 16, all conference champions and 5 at large teams based on BCS standings, the NCAA.
An 8 team playoff usually either uses the top 8 in the BCS standings or the 6 BCS champions and two at large teams, run by the bowls with minor bowls being the quarter finals.
Reagan would prefer somewhere near 4, teams with 1 loss or less who won their conferece, the BCS bowls
I would also answer near 4 but include all undefeated teams and those above the first significant gap in the BCS standings run by a BCS with an expanded mandate.
I tend to think an 8 team playoff with 4 automatic bid slots is the best system for college football. It leaves enough room for all the crazy scenarios that can happen as well as the very best non BCS champions.
An 8 team playoff would allow the bowl system to continue with the rest of the 56 (64 minus 8 for the playoff) or so bowl eligible teams, and would be the same every year which also help the bowls to flourish.
4 is not enough, 16 is too many.
In 2002 and 2005 2 were enough. In 2001 Miami might as well have been given the title after the regular season.
You raise a good point about the need to keep the number of participants in the system the same every yearso the rest of the bowls have a consistent draw from the remaining teams.
Returning the BCS bowls to New Year's Day and selectively using them as semifinals it is possible to maintain a total championship system/BCS bowl participation of 10 or 11, leaving 57 bowl spots ( 34 * 2 - 11 ) for the remaining teams.
This is more stable than the actual number of eligible teams which can range from 60 to 77, an observation that lead to the NCAA sending out a warning that their might not be enough teams to fill all available bowl slots this past summer.
1) Apply criteria agreed upon by all involved to determine the prestige levels for the conferences. (Elite, automatic qualifier or at large)
What criteria would you use to do this, keeping in mind that conferences would need to go up and down from season to season?
The BCS has already defined criteria it uses to evaluate conference that are reasonable. Though the actual results are not released, they have recently been emulated.
The proposed definitions using these values are:
Elite >= 0.7500 ( an automatic BCS bowl berth and 2 premier bowls )
Automatic qualifier >= 0.5000 ( an automatic BCS bowl berth and 1 premier bowl )
At-large < 0.5000 ( 1 premier bowl berth )
Once earned, automatic BCS Bowl berths are only evaluated after your BCS bowl tie-in hosts the national championship game. Each year all conferences with an automatic qualification are evaluated to to determine elite status and all at-large conferences are evaluated to see if they warrant an automatic qualification.
The process for adding a new conference would be simple. Their premeir bowl would become a BCS bowl. Likewise, if a BCS bowl's tie-ins lose their automatic qualification status they would lose their BCS status when they next host the national championship game. This would encourage bowls to compete for tie ins with conferences that appraoch the threshold.
Each conference and each bowl would be free to make whatever tie-ins and ordering they feel are in their best interest. With a championship system that anyone can qualify for by going undefeated in place and a structure to evaluate the conferences on a regular basis, the BCS bowls would be free of the qualification scrutiny that accompanies being tied to the national championship system (read can select whoever they want).
Specifically, the Big 12 could change their BCS tie-in to the Cotton Bowl at their own perogative. The Cotton Bowl would then replace the Fiesta Bowl as a BCS bowl.
The Fiesta Bowl originally formed in 1971 to guarantee the WAC champion a bowl game. This would be a great venue to pit the champions of the rival MWC and WAC conferences that emerged from the 1971 WAC. This would put the Fiesta Bowl first among premier bowls in line for BCS status, depending only on either of these two conferences crossing the automatic qualification threshold.
14 (2) PLAYOFF SYSTEM.—The term ‘‘playoff sys-
15 tem’’ means a system by which the national cham-
16 pionship game of the NCAA Division I Football
17 Bowl Subdivision is the final game of a single elimi-
18 nation post-season playoff system for which all
19 NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision con-
20 ferences and unaffiliated NCAA Division I Football
21 Bowl Subdivision teams are eligible.
Aside from the circular definition (the turm "playoff system" should be replaced with "tournament"), wouldn't a single elimination tournament of two teams, for which all teams are eligible for by ranking in the top 2 satisfy this? Just saying...
Our idea of using some criteria to select qualified teams and make a single elimination tournament for the teams that warrant consideration would meet most peoples concept of a playoff.
By turning the BCS from a loose affiliation of interested parties into a governing body for the bowl system all of the goals listed above can be accomplished.
Like I said, I am obsessing about it a little. I have worked out a lot of issues that have been brought up about other playoff proposals I have encountered. As it is still a work in progress it might even have contradictions in the various parts from changes that have not been dealt with completely.
The fact that using a gap instead of a specific ranking value intrinsically increases consensus at the cutoff value is its great strength. Once the teams are selected the system sets up a generic single elimination tournament with the participants.
The details are to reduce logistical issues, address philosophical concerns and explain the part current parties would play in the system.
The changing structure could cause confusion and discontent. A bigger potential for complaint than who gets in is that there could be two closely ranked teams and one gets a bye while the other gets a game against a good team. If three teams at the top of the standings are close and no other team is undefeated this is almost guaranteed. Since 1998 this wold have happened 2 times (5 if you include games against undefeated teams not at the top of the standings.)
I don't think the New England Patriots think anything should change about the way the NFL finds their champion. I don't think there would be any explaining to do.
Handful of lawmakers protest Gators’ title, BCS
http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/28801964/
YO! Barton!! Ya wanna do some good? Enact legislation which will help to stabilize gasoline prices. You might get elected President. (Jerk!!!)
In BCS speak, "Corruption in, Garage out"
1) making a rule that requires that for a team to be eligible for the BCS Championship Game, the team must play two of their non-conference games against teams ranked in the Top 25 outside their conference in the year that game is scheduled. The timing of the scheduling and ranking of the team would be easily verifiable and would account for schedules being set years in advance. This would upgrade most schedules, would level the playing field among the perennial powers, would reduce the number of undefeated teams from non-BCS conferences and give us all a better comparison of a team's strength.
2) eliminating the Human Polls and rely on the computers to calculate the rankings of the teams. Humans are way to prone to be swayed by publicity stunts, media hype and emotion, plus humans cannot possibly know the details of the multitude of games that need to be evaluated.
3) designing the computer formulas to truly recognize Strength of Schedule. Wins and loses should be valued according to the strength of the teams. For example, the computers should reward a loss against a very strong team more than a win versus a "cup cake". A win against a very strong team is heavily rewarded, while a loss against a weak team is heavily penalized. The power teams would definitely have an incentive to schedule more difficult teams if they want to qualify for the NC.
That is for a very specific reason. I would define the difference to be the fact that this does not have a set number of games in advance, like the NFL between 1933 and 1967.
Your proposal would make the situation worse for teams like Utah, who could never schedule enough teams to compensate for their conference alignment.
What ever system (BCS, BS, or CBS) is used to determine the Top-2, that's separate from the rest of the bowls. Determine the criteria for specific bowls to chose and in what turn. At the end of the regular season the least prestigious bowls select 1st. Eventually, toward the end of the selection ceremony, there will be 4 teams and 2 bowls left. The most prestigious bowl will pick the runner-up's from the 4 teams remaining, which leaves the last 2 as the NC contenders (Already pre-selected, except no one would know it, yet.). If done right, this could be kinda cool...IF done right.
What to call a smart person on the A&M campus? a visitor
Heard about the Aggie that moved to Oklahoma- raised the IQ level of both states