BCS Rejects Playoff proposal

Count me in the "plus one is a horrible idea" camp. I think a playoff would be great if we could make it work, but folks, it's not going to happen. The only thing the presidents will approve is some hybrid of the current system.

The NCAA will do what it does best - make a bad system even worse by making a superficial change based on something they think will look good in the newpapers.
 
they shot it down because a four team playoff is ******* stupid and would never work. imagine this scenario.

USC 11-1
Texas 11-1
Georgia 11 -1
Ohio State 12 - 0
Michigan 11 - 1 (loss to tOSU)
West Virginia 10 - 2
Clemson 11 - 1

So in this scenario, who gets in? it would likely be USC, tOSU, Texas, and Georgia.

Let's say the ACC is left out. They would be FREAKING out. It would come down to who has the strongest conference. When you do that, the SEC is guaranteed based on reputation. You get into the whole argument about who has the toughest schedule. It is completely subjective.... again....just like the BCS/polls are now.

That is why 8 team is the correct solution. The 6 conference winners get in. For sure. No matter what the record. Then you have a spot for an at large to appease the mid majors. Then you leave one spot for ND or another at large BCS team. Sure you would have some arguing on who that last at large team is... in this case maybe Michigan, maybe WV. But I would much rather have THAT argument than one about which conference is supposedly tougher to go 11 - 1 in.

You win your conference? You're in. You didn't? Well, if you didn't win your conference how could you say you are the best team in the land? You can't.

no brainer.
 
It is clear there are going to have to be baby steps to a D-I playoff. Too much protecting of turf going on.

Can the playoff be completed within the bowl structure? Sure. Does it comport with the actual reasons for bowls (to bring tourists who spend money in the winter)? Not really.

The non-playoff high D-I football schools don't want to lose the bowls. (They won't, any more than the NCAA tournament was able to kill off the NIT. [They could damage it, but not kill it, and now the NCAA owns it.])

Starchild: The last estimate I read was that the BCS schools keep 89 percent of the BCS money. That's a powerful incentive to maintain the status quo, even though the money that will flow to everyone in a legitimate playoff field (at least eight, probably 16) almost surely would dwarf what they have now.
 
The real problem with the LSU/OU/USC debacle is that the selecting teams for the MNC under the current system is all about perception, and if the media/coaches select the two best teams as conscensus #1/#2, there is no need for a complicated BCS formula. It was designed for one purpose, and that was to settle which 2 teams would be playing for all the marbles if the polls couldn't decide it. In that year, all the polls agreed that OU wasn't in the top 2, yet they applied the 'tie-breaking' formula anyway. It never should have been applied in that particular situation, and then LSU and USC would have played and the winner would have been percieved to have been the best team. No one outside of Oklahoma believed OU deserved to be there, so there wouldn't have been any controversy when they were left out.

An yes, put me in the corner with those who have proposed that the reason the bowl system still exists is because half of the teams get to end their season on a high note for recruiting and pride etc. I'm not saying it is right, but it is one of the arguments. The Bowl season is an exhibition tournament, not a championship tournament where the winner is the only one left standing. That's why JoePa refused to play Texas in the Cotton Bowl so many years ago. He had nothing to gain by playing another heavyweight contender in an exhibition game (but that didn't give him the right to piss and moan when the perception was that Texas was the better team after all the games were played). Somehow, it's evolved into a cluge of a championship tournament and the round peg isn't fitting the square hole.
 
I would think that any playoff system would be better than what we have. I prefer 16 teams, but whatever. 4 teams would be better than the status quo.
 
What is laughable is that these commissioners can't see the forest from the trees. An 8(or heaven forbid 16) team playoff taking the 6 conference champs and two at large spots would make so much more money than the current system. 4 teams isn't accomplishing anything.
 
I'd actually rather it not take the 6 conference champions, but unfortunately that will never happen. KSU's win over 2003 was fun to watch, but there's no way the Wildcats belonged in playoff for it. Didn't an 8-4 Florida State team make the BCS over some 1 or 2 loss teams a few years ago?

As for the "If you didn't win your conference, how could you possibly be the best in the country" argument, the problem is that only works if the conference champion is always the best team in the conference, which it isn't. For one, you don't always play a round robin, and in addition, conference championships completely ignore about 1/3rd of the season. For example, in 2001 Colorado was probably not as good as Texas, Nebraska, or Oklahoma if you look at their entire season.

In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
We already have evidence that starting the polls earlier makes no difference. The Harris poll wasn't any different than the ones that started in August.
 
Yeah, I don't think any of the 6 conference will ever vote for a playoff that doesn't hand it's champion a playoff bid no matter what their record is.
 
If the BCS went to a playoff the CCG's would be a waste of a game...especially if the teams have already played..hell they already are pretty useless imo...just play a full conference slate or play as many teams in your conference as you can...
 
Well, we can't play a full conference slate as we have 12 teams.

The conference championship game makes you earn a conference title by beating the best on a neutral field.

It's alot better than crowning multiple "champs" like in basketball. (see 2005, 2006, 2008)
 
Yes, I'm not sure how you can say OU deserved anything above KSU after getting drubbed 35-7. OU would still be fine, as they would have an at-large bid to fall on.

And this coming from a fan of a team that lost as a 17.5 point favorite in the big 12 title game. With a national title bid on the line. With a 15 point 4th quarter lead. In the only season ever we had a chance at a NC.

God f-ing damnit.

mad.gif
 
i hear what you are saying stat, but who cares what the record of the conference champion is (ie. FSU with a 8-4 record)? that is up to the conference to determine their champion. the best thing about that is you can play a damn good OOC schedule and it doesn't affect your ability to win it all. true 2001 CU was probably the third or fourth best team in the conference based on the entire season of work.... but when it counted (in the conference playoff) they won. they would deserve to go on and texas would not because they couldn't beat them. it is real simple. you play your way in.

comparing conferences is not apples to apples so why should the records be?
 
You also have to consider that the conferences could split up on a playoff system...with the Big 10 and Pac 10 separating out so they can have their Rose Bowl love fest.

I am for a playoff...but if you dont make it a large pool of contenders (8 or more imo), then you will have too many good teams left out. This would cause just as much griping.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top