I kinda sorta agree with kmasonbx above. And yet, I'd rather have a 8 or 16 team playoff to determine the champion. It may not decide who the best team is but that is only 1 factor in being the champion. Often in college basketball the champion isn't the best team for the year.

16 is too low. lets make it 32!!

Quote: Originally Posted By kmasonbx on 12/07/2009. As much crap as this system gets I like it because it's different and games in week 2 actually matter unlike in any playoff system. ......... In this system you are judged on your entire season and the teams that are deemed the 2 best play for the title.

In the current system, though, you better get your loss early. A late-season loss drops you too far in the human polls. The computer polls are a more even-handed about it. That's why the BCS devalued the computers a few years ago..they wanted voters to decide the top 2 teams.

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 12/06/2009
The worst part about all of this is that the BCS goes and hides the two non-BCS teams in the same game so they aren't given a chance to show how good they are against the Big Boys. TCU is the best team in the Nation and I was really hoping they wouldn't be idiots about this and put TCU v Florida.

This put me over the top with the BCS. I was already ****** last season as Utah had a better resume than Florida and got hosed. The SEC has this perceived strength and while in most years this may be true it certainly was not the last two outside of the two on top. Who did either Florida or Alabama play this year? Nobody. I screamed this all last season and UF barely won and Bama lost to Utah.

This crap puts me over the top. If they matched TCU and Boise against any of those other teams they would have a chance to win. You telling me they dont easily beat Iowa, Oregon, Cincy and have a shot at all the others. The system is screwed because now teams wont/dont play each other out of conference like they used to because everyone is playing to get to their conference championship undefeated.

Here is the perfect system which would allow the bowls to remain in tact and have a playoff.

Have 8 team playoff not based on rankings or computer system to an extent:

1) Require every conference to play a conference championship game to be eligible;

2) Remove 1 nonconference game from each teams schedule (since there is no reason for all the cupcake games against DII teams anyhow);

3) Winner of the Big 6 conference championships each get a spot in (no controversy due to polls you win/youre in).

4) Top 2 non BCS teams get in also but must win their conference championship. If they lose next highest get in instead.

5) Play first round of the games in the Rose, Orange, Fiesta, Sugar and Cotton Bowl (Rotate each year as is already done) the week after the conference championship games. Play the next rounds game in the same manner but during the week they are currently played. Championship game played in the bowl that didnt host a first round game that particular year one week later. The net result is two teams playing two extra games and two playing 1 extra game season ends 7 days later;

6) Continue playing all the other bowl games. No one cares about them now aside from the schools that are involved, people still wont care about them then, but atleast you dont ruin the bowl game "tradition".

Quote: Originally Posted By kmasonbx on 12/07/2009TCU and Boise playing make sense, imagine if the 3 undefeated teams not in the championship all won and than you have 4 undefeated teams at the end of the season. So whats your point they have a system that clearly doesnt work, so to cover your *** set a matchup that noone (or the minority) wants to see? At least this way you're only guaranteeing 2 undefeated teams and at least a little less controversy. As much crap as this system gets I like it because it's different and games in week 2 actually matter unlike in any playoff system. (You can make the arguement both ways here. One, why don't they matter? If Boise or TCU or any non BCS school loses in week two they are done. At the same token any BCS school loses in week two and it has zero impact on their season as winning out can still get them to the title game. Sheesh sometimes if things fall right you can lose twice and still get in ie LSU). Maybe it doesn't decide a true national championship but in an odd way I think it may do a better job than single elimination playoffs deciding a champion. Anybody can win in a 1 game scenario (ah, anybody can also win a 1 game scenario in a BCS title game, playing multiple games in a playoff gives you a larger sample size and greater chance of getting it right). that doesn't prove you are the better team. In this system you are judged on your entire season and the teams that are deemed the 2 best play for the title. (No two teams from the 6 "best" conferences who also happened to lose games at the right time get a chance to play for a fraud title.)

What do you work for the BCS, this is same garbage they spew.

Quote: Originally Posted By jenningss on 12/07/2009I kinda sorta agree with kmasonbx above. And yet, I'd rather have a 8 or 16 team playoff to determine the champion. It may not decide who the best team is but that is only 1 factor in being the champion. Often in college basketball the champion isn't the best team for the year.

In most sports the best team isnt always the champion. If they wanted the best team over the course of a regular season, American sports would be like soccer, play the regular season and whoever is on top of the standings at the end of the year would be crowned champion. Aside from the money aspect involved the idea behind a playoff system is that top teams are often times relatively evenly matched so, after deciphering who those teams are let them battle it out on the field/ice whatever.

How many times in baseball, football, hockey does the team with the best regular season record actually win the championship? There are so many factors which go into having the best regular season record (injuries, focus, schedule...etc.) that it doesnt nec. mean you are the best, it does however typically suggest you are among the best. Having a playoff allows a clear champion to be crowned from the pool of teams which demonstrated they are among the best.

Quote: Originally Posted By mmt0315 on 12/07/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 12/06/2009
The worst part about all of this is that the BCS goes and hides the two non-BCS teams in the same game so they aren't given a chance to show how good they are against the Big Boys. TCU is the best team in the Nation and I was really hoping they wouldn't be idiots about this and put TCU v Florida.

This put me over the top with the BCS. I was already ****** last season as Utah had a better resume than Florida and got hosed. The SEC has this perceived strength and while in most years this may be true it certainly was not the last two outside of the two on top. Who did either Florida or Alabama play this year? Nobody. I screamed this all last season and UF barely won and Bama lost to Utah.

This crap puts me over the top. If they matched TCU and Boise against any of those other teams they would have a chance to win. You telling me they dont easily beat Iowa, Oregon, Cincy and have a shot at all the others. The system is screwed because now teams wont/dont play each other out of conference like they used to because everyone is playing to get to their conference championship undefeated.

Here is the perfect system which would allow the bowls to remain in tact and have a playoff.

Have 8 team playoff not based on rankings or computer system to an extent:

1) Require every conference to play a conference championship game to be eligible;

2) Remove 1 nonconference game from each teams schedule (since there is no reason for all the cupcake games against DII teams anyhow);

3) Winner of the Big 6 conference championships each get a spot in (no controversy due to polls you win/youre in).

4) Top 2 non BCS teams get in also but must win their conference championship. If they lose next highest get in instead.

5) Play first round of the games in the Rose, Orange, Fiesta, Sugar and Cotton Bowl (Rotate each year as is already done) the week after the conference championship games. Play the next rounds game in the same manner but during the week they are currently played. Championship game played in the bowl that didnt host a first round game that particular year one week later. The net result is two teams playing two extra games and two playing 1 extra game season ends 7 days later;

6) Continue playing all the other bowl games. No one cares about them now aside from the schools that are involved, people still wont care about them then, but atleast you dont ruin the bowl game "tradition".

I agree with you almost 100%, but how do you judge who the top two non-BCS teams are without using some sort of ranking system? I know the BCS is flawed but I think it could be used to judge teams for at large bids.

Also I don't think conferences would need to play a Championship game I understand exactly where you are coming from but the big thought against playoffs is always they add too many games to the schedule (well that and the money, somehow all these extra games the NCAA doesn't think will vastly increase money made?).

1) You'd obviously still use a ranking system as there is one used in every college sport. My point was it wouldnt be taken into account for the Big 6 but would for the other spots, other bowls, and final season rankings;

2) This system would only add 1 or 2 games for very few games and eliminating 1 from the non conference would help;

3) I read a very interesting article regarding the BCS and the money. The article contended that its not about money brought in because obviously more would come in; rather how the money is distributed. The article was saying how the BCS is controlled by the Big 6 and they currently control the distribution of the money whereas a playoff might change that.

If you are going to have a playoff, will you mandate that each team can also play only 6 home games and that BCS eligible teams will no longer be allowed to play Div 1-AA teams or whatever they call that division now? Those will never change as it is about money.

Quote: Originally Posted By mmt0315 on 12/07/2009
1) You'd obviously still use a ranking system as there is one used in every college sport. My point was it wouldnt be taken into account for the Big 6 but would for the other spots, other bowls, and final season rankings;

2) This system would only add 1 or 2 games for very few games and eliminating 1 from the non conference would help;

3) I read a very interesting article regarding the BCS and the money. The article contended that its not about money brought in because obviously more would come in; rather how the money is distributed. The article was saying how the BCS is controlled by the Big 6 and they currently control the distribution of the money whereas a playoff might change that.

Sounds like a good read.

Ok I assumed that is what you meant about rankings. I would be ok with using that for seeding or whatever. I guess my main thought is the BCS ranking system isn't going away, too much money involved, so let's find a way where the BCS can still be somewhat involved (I know it is flawed, but so is any ranking system).

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

Quote: Originally Posted By wisefella99 on 12/07/2009
If you are going to have a playoff, will you mandate that each team can also play only 6 home games and that BCS eligible teams will no longer be allowed to play Div 1-AA teams or whatever they call that division now? Those will never change as it is about money.

While ultimately those would be two-welcome additions to college football, I wouldnt make it dependant for three reasons;

1) College football doesn't (nor should it) have an exhibition season, and those games are often times an important tune up;

2) The small school usually gets between 500k and 1 mil for making that treck, which is their only shot at that type of payday and has an big impact on those schools;

3) Playing 8 home games or whatever some teams do AND/OR playing the DII teams won't have a significant impact on who gets into the playoff, as conference record determines who plays in the conference title game and the conference title game determines who gets into the playoff.

Although my plan labels it an 8 team playoff it essentially is a 14-16 team playoff.

Quote: Originally Posted By mmt0315 on 12/07/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By wisefella99 on 12/07/2009

If you are going to have a playoff, will you mandate that each team can also play only 6 home games and that BCS eligible teams will no longer be allowed to play Div 1-AA teams or whatever they call that division now? Those will never change as it is about money.

While ultimately those would be two-welcome additions to college football, I wouldnt make it dependant for three reasons;

1) College football doesn't (nor should it) have an exhibition season, and those games are often times an important tune up;

2) The small school usually gets between 500k and 1 mil for making that treck, which is their only shot at that type of payday and has an big impact on those schools;

3) Playing 8 home games or whatever some teams do AND/OR playing the DII teams won't have a significant impact on who gets into the playoff, as conference record determines who plays in the conference title game and the conference title game determines who gets into the playoff.

Although my plan labels it an 8 team playoff it essentially is a 14-16 team playoff.

Right, 12 Power 6 Teams and up to 4 (maybe more? based on if computer rankings or human rankings are used) non Power 6 teams. The Conference Championship games are like Play-in Games. I like the idea of forcing CC games now. I have always been with the using the sites of the BCS bowls and what not and continuing the rest of the bowls also.

Wouldn't the +1 system and an 8 team playoff create the exact same situation as the current BCS system? Style Points and heavy campaigning would launch teams into the top 8 - most often will be all BCS teams.

The public wants to see the non-power teams take on the traditional powers to prove themselves, but also don't want it in the current BCS system. If you do a mini-playoff (8 teams and under) it is a step in the right direction, but not big enough of one because it will still heavily rely on the current format.

A 16 team playoff would truly show who the best teams are because it would have teams rely heavily on depth further into the playoffs. The ranking systems would rely for teams for not just have "stlye points" but a legit SOS, so teams that schedule Southwestern Baptist Central of Northern Colorado Tech three times over will get severly punished. You could consider the idea of shortening the non-con, you can keep the current conference championship format or even make it so every single conference has one CC game you could find the highest quality 16 teams and do it that way.

Quote: Originally Posted By mmt0315 on 12/07/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By kmasonbx on 12/07/2009
TCU and Boise playing make sense, imagine if the 3 undefeated teams not in the championship all won and than you have 4 undefeated teams at the end of the season. So whats your point they have a system that clearly doesnt work, so to cover your *** set a matchup that noone (or the minority) wants to see? At least this way you're only guaranteeing 2 undefeated teams and at least a little less controversy. As much crap as this system gets I like it because it's different and games in week 2 actually matter unlike in any playoff system. (You can make the arguement both ways here. One, why don't they matter? If Boise or TCU or any non BCS school loses in week two they are done. At the same token any BCS school loses in week two and it has zero impact on their season as winning out can still get them to the title game. Sheesh sometimes if things fall right you can lose twice and still get in ie LSU). Maybe it doesn't decide a true national championship but in an odd way I think it may do a better job than single elimination playoffs deciding a champion. Anybody can win in a 1 game scenario (ah, anybody can also win a 1 game scenario in a BCS title game, playing multiple games in a playoff gives you a larger sample size and greater chance of getting it right). that doesn't prove you are the better team. In this system you are judged on your entire season and the teams that are deemed the 2 best play for the title. (No two teams from the 6 "best" conferences who also happened to lose games at the right time get a chance to play for a fraud title.)

What do you work for the BCS, this is same garbage they spew

I honestly can't see how anybody can think a single elimination playoff decides a "true" champion. It absolutely does not, and there is just no way anybody can convince me other wise. At the end of an NBA, MLB or NHL season there is no debate at all over who is the best team because teams had to win 7 game series' to decide. The % of the time the better team wins a 7 game series is huge. Like I said before, single elimination playoffs do not do a good job of deciding a true champion because anybody can win in a 1 game scenario.

Let's say UNC threw up a stinker in the Sweet 16 last season would that have changed the fact that they were actually the best team in college basketball? Definitely not. Do you really think the Arizona Cardinals and the Pittsburgh Steelers were the 2 best teams in the NFL last season? The season before that were the Giants really better than the Patriots? Now if you look at the sports that have series to decide things, there is no argument that can be made for any other team besides the team that won.

An 8 team playoff would solve nothing because at the end of the season there will almost always be some 1 loss non BCS school that looks really good who ends up ranked in the 9-12 slot and everyone will be saying it's a shame they didn't get a chance.