Case for BCS system over Tourney Topic

kmasonbx
Posts: 847 (0)
Hall of Famer
210
Prospect
I know football season is long over and far from starting but looking at this season's NCAA tourney got me thinking, season's like this make me happy football has the BCS system. Here's the reason in college football at the end of the season there is almost always very little case to be made against the team that is the BCS national champion. When was the last time a team won the title and you were thinking they weren't the best team? Also how often is the title game a game you really wanted to see? Who actually wanted to see UNC vs. Michigan State? I'm pretty sure most people predicted the outcome that happened. We have been fortunate the last few seasons, since the team that has won the title has probably been the best team.

This season that may not be the case, all season long there were 3 teams who proved they were a level above everybody, Syracuse, Kentucky and Kansas, now 2 of those teams have been upset. If you polled the majority of college basketball fans and asked them what game they most wanted to see a game involving the combination of the 3 would've dominated the answers, and under the BCS system the likely national championship would've been Kansas vs. Kentucky, a game everybody would've been excited for. Now imagine we get a national championship this season of Butler vs. Baylor, how many people would be excited for that game? Or how about Kentucky vs. Tennessee for the 4th time? Or maybe Baylor vs. K State for the 3rd time? What if Baylor wins the national championship, will you really think the best team in the nation won the title?

Now I'm not saying the BCS system is better than the NCAA tourney, I love the NCAA tourney but I don't think the BCS system is as bad as people make it out to be. We are guaranteed a national title between 2 teams that haven't played each other and are arguable the 2 best in the nation. The 2 weeks leading to the national title in basketball is probably the best 2 weeks of sports of the year for me, but sometimes we get anticlimatic national title games, and I'm not talking about the results. Like I said who was excited for UNC vs. Michigan State or UCONN vs. Georgia Tech or Maryland vs. Indiana?

Ever since the BCS system was put into place the national title game in football has been an anticipated game. I think if a tournament was put into place it could take off the shine of the national title game because on average the 2 teams won't be as good as the teams that the BCS gets in the title game, and on top of that will do no better of a job deciding who the "true" national champion is.

Now you guys can fire away with how perfect the NCAA tourney is and how bad the BCS system is.
3/27/2010 12:41 PM
newmex
Posts: 67 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 37 43 67 2 11
Prospect
Every major sport at every level, pro or collegiate, has a tournament to decide the champion except NCAA D-1A football. What if they decided the Super Bowl this way? They don't because it's stupid. In a one-and-done tournament, upsets happen. Too bad. You should have won your game. That's why the teams are seeded. This why teams like Boise St., Cincinnati, Utah, etc., will never play for a National Championship. It's great if you want to see Alabama, Texas, USC, Florida every year. Borrrrinngggg!!!!
3/27/2010 12:54 PM
blackdog3377
Posts: 1691 (0)
Hall of Famer
190 2 1
Prospect
First obviously the top 3 teams were not a level above everybody else. There were questions about all 3 all season long. Syracuse and Kansas proved they werent a level up by losing fairly early in the tourney.

Second who cares if its an anticlimactic final? There were still tons of other exciting games in the tournament.

Also why is it only exciting if its one of the traditional power schools in the final? I hate the BCS final because its always the same teams every single year. If the same teams make the tourney final at least they showed they deserved it on the court with no questions.

There are also sometimes questions about whether the BCS champ is really the best team. Think back a couple years to when Auburn was undefeated but got snubbed from the title game or the year before when USC was also undefeated. There was certainly a lot of doubt in my mind that the BCS champs were really the best.
3/27/2010 1:07 PM
zhawks
Posts: 881 (0)
Hall of Famer
208 66 38
Pro
The key failure in your argument is when you said this "We are guaranteed a national title between 2 teams that haven't played each other and are arguable the 2 best in the nation"

Why do you want a title between two teams that are only arguably the best two in the nation ? Why not have it between the best two that proved they belonged there by winning 2-3 games against other top competition?
3/27/2010 1:11 PM
dcy0827
Posts: 798 (0)
Hall of Famer
727
Pro
Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 3/27/2010The key failure in your argument is when you said this "We are guaranteed a national title between 2 teams that haven't played each other and are arguable the 2 best in the nation"

Why do you want a title between two teams that are only arguably the best two in the nation ? Why not have it between the best two that proved they belonged there by winning 2-3 games against other top competition


I usually agree with you almost 100% of the time Mason, but I think Zhawks has a very valid point here.

To me, the BCS is more about the almighty dollar. If you're not in one of the "big boy" conferences, you'll never get the chance to play for the championship. At least in the NCAA tourney, some of the smaller schools (who may be every bit as deserving as the big names) have a chance to go out and win a title, instead of getting frozen out like they are with the BCS.
3/27/2010 1:47 PM
dcy0827
Posts: 798 (0)
Hall of Famer
727
Pro
Quote: Originally Posted By kmasonbx on 3/27/2010
I know football season is long over and far from starting but looking at this season's NCAA tourney got me thinking, season's like this make me happy football has the BCS system. Here's the reason in college football at the end of the season there is almost always very little case to be made against the team that is the BCS national champion. When was the last time a teamwon the title and you were thinking they weren't the bestteam? Also how often is the title game a game you really wanted to see? Who actually wanted to see UNC vs. Michigan State? I'm pretty sure most people predicted the outcome that happened. We have been fortunate the last few seasons, since the team that has won the title has probably been the best team.

This season that may not be the case, all season long there were 3 teams who proved they were a level above everybody, Syracuse, Kentucky and Kansas, now 2 of those teams have been upset. If you polled the majority of college basketball fans and asked them what game they most wanted to see a game involving the combination of the 3 would've dominated the answers, and under the BCS system the likely national championship would've been Kansas vs. Kentucky, a game everybody would've been excited for. Now imagine we get a national championship this season of Butler vs. Baylor, how many people would be excited for that game? Or how about Kentucky vs. Tennessee for the 4th time? Or maybe Baylor vs. K State for the 3rd time? What if Baylor wins the national championship, will you really think the best team in the nation won the title?

Now I'm not saying the BCS system is better than the NCAA tourney, I love the NCAA tourney but I don't think the BCS system is as bad as people make it out to be. We are guaranteed a national title between 2 teams that haven't played each other and are arguable the 2 best in the nation. The 2 weeks leading to the national title in basketball is probably the best 2 weeks of sports of the year for me, but sometimes we get anticlimatic national title games, and I'm not talking about the results. Like I said who was excited for UNC vs. Michigan State or UCONN vs. Georgia Tech or Maryland vs. Indiana?

Ever since the BCS system was put into place the national title game in football has been an anticipated game. I think if a tournament was put into place it could take off the shine of the national title game because on average the 2 teams won't be as good as the teams that the BCS gets in the title game, and on top of that will do no better of a job deciding who the "true" national champion is.

Now you guys can fire away with how perfect the NCAA tourney is and how bad the BCS system is.



Actually, for me, that very scenario happened this past season. What if Colt McCoy doesn't get hurt early? I mean, a freshman had Texas within three points in the second half before the Longhorns fell apart. With a healthy McCoy, maybe Texas blows Alabama out of the stadium, who knows? Was Alabama the best team this season? Probably, but I wouldn't be confident enough to bet my house on that........

3/27/2010 1:51 PM
vandydave
Posts: 2124 (0)
Hall of Famer
28 1 1 843 273
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By dcy0827 on 3/27/2010
Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 3/27/2010
The key failure in your argument is when you said this "We are guaranteed a national title between 2 teams that haven't played each other and are arguable the 2 best in the nation"

Why do you want a title between two teams that are only arguably the best two in the nation ? Why not have it between the best two that proved they belonged there by winning 2-3 games against other top competition?



I usually agree with you almost 100% of the time Mason, but I think Zhawks has a very valid point here.

To me, the BCS is more about the almighty dollar. If you're not in one of the "big boy" conferences, you'll never get the chance to play for the championship. At least in the NCAA tourney, some of the smaller schools (who may be every bit as deserving as the big names) have a chance to go out and win a title, instead of getting frozen out like they are with the BCS.
the ncaa tournament is first and foremost about the almighty dollar, to think otherwise is simply naive.

no one is frozen out of either bcs or ncaa tournament, everyone has a chance to earn their way in through at large berths.
3/27/2010 2:27 PM
kmasonbx
Posts: 847 (0)
Hall of Famer
210
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 3/27/2010The key failure in your argument is when you said this "We are guaranteed a national title between 2 teams that haven't played each other and are arguable the 2 best in the nation"

Why do you want a title between two teams that are only arguably the best two in the nation ? Why not have it between the best two that proved they belonged there by winning 2-3 games against other top competition
How can you possibly make the argument that a single elimination tournament does a better job of getting the 2 best teams into the national title?
3/27/2010 2:49 PM
tmacfan12
Posts: 336 (0)
Hall of Famer
355 4 2
Prospect
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
3/27/2010 2:51 PM
kmasonbx
Posts: 847 (0)
Hall of Famer
210
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By blackdog3377 on 3/27/2010
First obviously the top 3 teams were not a level above everybody else. There were questions about all 3 all season long. Syracuse and Kansas proved they werent a level up by losing fairly early in the tourney.

The fact they were upset means absolutely nothing about them being a level above everybody else. Upsets happen even ir you are a level above the other teams they can still beat you in a 1 game situation. The Lakers went 15-1 in the 2001 NBA playoffs that 1 was the first game of the Finals, and then went on to crush the Sixers in the next 4 games. In a single elimination tournament only that 1st game game matters, so the Sixers would've been champs under that scenario.

My main point that people seem to miss is that the NCAA tournament does not do a good job of crowning a true champion, there is no argument that anybody can make that somehow a single elimination tournament accurately decides the best team. I mean even if there is a 99% chance a team wins, there is still a 1% chance they lose and sometimes that 1% happens the first time. If Kansas played Northern Iowa in a 7 game series they would win 4-1 or 4-2 but in a 1 game series Northern Iowa has a chance. It's the same reason why people run slowdown tempo in this game, the fewer the possesions the better chance the worse team has of winning.

And yea dcy, I agree about McCoy getting hurt but that's something that's out of anybodies control. Injuries are something you can't plan for, however if McCoy stays healthy whoever wins that game we are easily saying whoever won that game was the best team especially after watching Cincy get blasted and Boise beating TCU. But as I said before if Baylor beats Butler for the national title, will anybody really think the best team in the nation won the title?
3/27/2010 2:56 PM
kmasonbx
Posts: 847 (0)
Hall of Famer
210
Prospect
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
3/27/2010 2:58 PM
coach_billyg
Posts: 2072 (0)
Hall of Famer
92
Pro
i fail to see how making the finals of a single elimination tournament comes close to proving you are one of the best 2 teams. if every time a team beat another team, that meant they were better, you would have countless logical inconsistencies.

similarly, i fail to see how having the "best" resume or runner up over an 11 season game season proves you are one of the best 2 teams. it often comes down to a computer ranking to decide who is 2 and who is 3 because its too close for humans to call.
3/27/2010 2:58 PM
kmasonbx
Posts: 847 (0)
Hall of Famer
210
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By coach_billyg on 3/27/2010i fail to see how making the finals of a single elimination tournament comes close to proving you are one of the best 2 teams. if every time a team beat another team, that meant they were better, you would have countless logical inconsistencies.

similarly, i fail to see how having the "best" resume or runner up over an 11 season game season proves you are one of the best 2 teams. it often comes down to a computer ranking to decide who is 2 and who is 3 because its too close for humans to call.
This is exactly my thinking. Both systems are flawed, but somehow people think the BCS is a terrible system but the NCAA tournament does a great job of deciding a true champion. The difference between the 2 is in the BCS we get a guaranteed championship between two teams that 9 times out of 10 the majority of people agree are the 2 best while in the NCAA tournament we often get a game between the best team and the 15th best team. However the leadup to that best vs. 15th best is some of the most entertaining basketball you see all year.
3/27/2010 3:01 PM
coach_billyg
Posts: 2072 (0)
Hall of Famer
92
Pro
i think you really overstate how often people agree on those 2 teams being the best in the country. there are plenty of times when there are 3 or 4 great teams, and the margins are simply too close to call based on a measly 11 games.

my vote would be to let 4 teams compete, seeded, for the top spot. sometimes there is a 5th or 6th who has an argument for being a top 2 team in the country, but i think that is the exception rather than the rule. and if the #1 team drops one game, then they usually fall to what, about #5? i think anyone below where #1 would be after a loss has very little argument that they should have a chance at the championship.
3/27/2010 3:13 PM
jbob23
Posts: 155 (0)
Hall of Famer
3 215 30 4
Prospect
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
3/27/2010 3:17 PM
12345 Next ▸
Case for BCS system over Tourney Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.