Reason #55 why big-time college football is a joke

[PromoTheRobot]

Major teams avoid Broncos like the plaugue.

 

BCS college football is an insider's game that freezes out any school that threatens the heirarchy. First it's Utah, now Boise State offers to play anyone anywhere with no return game required. The response? Crickets.

 

No playoff, make up your own cupcake schedule, avoid any real competition, and they want you to believe it's a REAL national championship.

 

PTR

[justnzane]

Major teams avoid Broncos like the plaugue.

 

BCS college football is an insider's game that freezes out any school that threatens the heirarchy. First it's Utah, now Boise State offers to play anyone anywhere with no return game required. The response? Crickets.

 

No playoff, make up your own cupcake schedule, avoid any real competition, and they want you to believe it's a REAL national championship.

 

PTR

there are mid major teams that are better than almost all of the bull **** BCS conferences. Anyone who doesn't beleive that D-IA should move to a playoff system is the back pockets of these bowl committees.

[Cynical]

there are mid major teams that are better than almost all of the bull **** BCS conferences. Anyone who doesn't beleive that D-IA should move to a playoff system is the back pockets of these bowl committees.

 

Feel free to explain how the playoff system would work.

In your explanation, please include:

 

How many teams would make the playoffs.

What is the criteria used to determine which team makes the playoffs (especially tie breakers)

How long would the playoffs last.

Anything else that you might feel might enhance your position.

[Beerball]

Feel free to explain how the playoff system would work.

In your explanation, please include:

 

How many teams would make the playoffs.

What is the criteria used to determine which team makes the playoffs (especially tie breakers)

How long would the playoffs last.

Anything else that you might feel might enhance your position.

You make it seem like rocket surgery. Playoff systems work for all other levels of NCAA football, basketball, hockey, baseball, softball....what makes you think D1 football would be any different?

[justnzane]

Feel free to explain how the playoff system would work.

In your explanation, please include:

 

How many teams would make the playoffs.

What is the criteria used to determine which team makes the playoffs (especially tie breakers)

How long would the playoffs last.

Anything else that you might feel might enhance your position.

simple top 24 teams, top 8 get a bye week 1, 5 week playoff. Each conference gets their champion a bid, the rest are subject to an at large process similar to the college basketball tournament.

 

clearly no team not ranked in the top 15 won't be excluded from the tourney, and you have a decisive champion. Also, this benefits future NFL players as they get more exposure and experience against top talents. In addition, you could bigger upsets as national champs than some computerized rankings will ever deem. In addition, you will have as many playoff games as bowl games that currently exist.

 

so yeah, I clearly believe the bowl system is archaic outdated and only benefits corporate america, and the teams that qualify for one of the big 5 games.

[/dev/null]

simple top 24 teams, top 8 get a bye week 1, 5 week playoff. Each conference gets their champion a bid, the rest are subject to an at large process similar to the college basketball tournament.

 

clearly no team not ranked in the top 15 won't be excluded from the tourney, and you have a decisive champion. Also, this benefits future NFL players as they get more exposure and experience against top talents. In addition, you could bigger upsets as national champs than some computerized rankings will ever deem. In addition, you will have as many playoff games as bowl games that currently exist.

 

so yeah, I clearly believe the bowl system is archaic outdated and only benefits corporate america, and the teams that qualify for one of the big 5 games.

 

And who decides the top 24 teams?

 

"Corporate America"?

Or maybe Obama should decide

[PromoTheRobot]

Feel free to explain how the playoff system would work.

In your explanation, please include:

 

How many teams would make the playoffs.

What is the criteria used to determine which team makes the playoffs (especially tie breakers)

How long would the playoffs last.

Anything else that you might feel might enhance your position.

 

 

And who decides the top 24 teams?

 

"Corporate America"?

Or maybe Obama should decide

 

Here's how I would do it: Have a playoff of the 11 FCS conference champions + one at-large. Top 4 seeds would get a bye. Seeds 5-12 would play week one, and so on. You want to be national champion? Win your conference. Make the regular season mean more than just the beauty contest it is now.

 

PTR

[justnzane]

And who decides the top 24 teams?

 

"Corporate America"?

Or maybe Obama should decide

11 conference champions, and 13 at large that can be picked by a selection committee. This gives a little leeway to use computerized rankings for seedings and the at large qualifiers. Sadly, i think Obama and the gov't would do a better job than the BCS.

[Acantha]

11 conference champions, and 13 at large that can be picked by a selection committee. This gives a little leeway to use computerized rankings for seedings and the at large qualifiers. Sadly, i think Obama and the gov't would do a better job than the BCS.

24 now??? Holy crap. By the time anything changes in college football, people will be calling for the 64 team playoff basketball has.

 

I say we just scrap the season and have a 120 team playoff. They could pick the top 8 teams from div II to round off the bracket. How could that fail?

[Cynical]

Here's how I would do it: Have a playoff of the 11 FCS conference champions + one at-large. Top 4 seeds would get a bye. Seeds 5-12 would play week one, and so on. You want to be national champion? Win your conference. Make the regular season mean more than just the beauty contest it is now.

 

PTR

 

simple top 24 teams, top 8 get a bye week 1, 5 week playoff. Each conference gets their champion a bid, the rest are subject to an at large process similar to the college basketball tournament.

 

clearly no team not ranked in the top 15 won't be excluded from the tourney, and you have a decisive champion. Also, this benefits future NFL players as they get more exposure and experience against top talents. In addition, you could bigger upsets as national champs than some computerized rankings will ever deem. In addition, you will have as many playoff games as bowl games that currently exist.

 

so yeah, I clearly believe the bowl system is archaic outdated and only benefits corporate america, and the teams that qualify for one of the big 5 games.

 

Here are two examples of what I was looking for. I wasn't looking for the plans to build an ICBM, just the basics of a football playoff system, and how it would be implemented.

 

The big thing I noticed that was common to both of these scenarios is the use of the 'bye'. And the 'bye' will create it's own set of flaws. Teams who did not get a bye will have to play and win extra game to be the NC.

 

Under the present BCS, the argument and debate is about who should have a shot at the NC. With a bye setup, the argument and debate will center around who should get the 'bye'. I can already see future criticism of how "Boise St." was screwed because they are forced to play the extra game (thus increasing their chances of being eliminated), while "Penn St." was given the bye. Whispers of "favoritism" will still exist.

 

Just for the record, I am not bashing the playoff system because I favor the present system, nor would I be opposed to some kind of playoff system. It is the realization that the implementation of a playoff system is nothing more than trading one flawed system for another flawed system.

 

I find it intriguing people think a playoff system will fix all the problems and flaws of the present system. A playoff will not cure/fix everything, as it will create it's own set of problems that I can already imagine in the future people claiming 'need to be fixed'.

[justnzane]

24 now??? Holy crap. By the time anything changes in college football, people will be calling for the 64 team playoff basketball has.

 

I say we just scrap the season and have a 120 team playoff. They could pick the top 8 teams from div II to round off the bracket. How could that fail?

in D-I basketball there ~330 schools eligible so roughly 1 in 5 teams makes the tourney.

 

In D-IA, there are 120 teams, so exactly 1 in 5 makes it.

 

Not Rocket Surgery.

 

FWIW, After the 120 teams there is FCS aka D-IAA with another 100+ schools before you get down to D-II.

[Ramius]

Here are two examples of what I was looking for. I wasn't looking for the plans to build an ICBM, just the basics of a football playoff system, and how it would be implemented.

 

The big thing I noticed that was common to both of these scenarios is the use of the 'bye'. And the 'bye' will create it's own set of flaws. Teams who did not get a bye will have to play and win extra game to be the NC.

 

Under the present BCS, the argument and debate is about who should have a shot at the NC. With a bye setup, the argument and debate will center around who should get the 'bye'. I can already see future criticism of how "Boise St." was screwed because they are forced to play the extra game (thus increasing their chances of being eliminated), while "Penn St." was given the bye. Whispers of "favoritism" will still exist.

 

Just for the record, I am not bashing the playoff system because I favor the present system, nor would I be opposed to some kind of playoff system. It is the realization that the implementation of a playoff system is nothing more than trading one flawed system for another flawed system.

 

I find it intriguing people think a playoff system will fix all the problems and flaws of the present system. A playoff will not cure/fix everything, as it will create it's own set of problems that I can already imagine in the future people claiming 'need to be fixed'.

 

The current system is a joke. You're looking at the distinct possibility of multiple unbeaten teams being having no shot at the title, including a BCS team in Cincy.

 

I'd prefer a 16 team playoff with 11 conference champs and 5 at large wildcards. But you want the simplest playoff? 8 teams. The 6 BCS conference champs and 2 at-large spots. Sure, there may be some whining by the #9 team and what not, but in my system, you hold your fate in your own hands. Win your conference and you get a playoff spot. Plus, you have a lot less to whine about when you are a 2 loss team as opposed to an unbeaten or a 1-loss team playing the best football in the country and being left out.

 

This also eliminates a lot of the bias in college football, such as the asinine notion that the SEC should automatically get a national championship bid, because they are the "toughest" () conference in football.

[Acantha]

in D-I basketball there ~330 schools eligible so roughly 1 in 5 teams makes the tourney.

 

In D-IA, there are 120 teams, so exactly 1 in 5 makes it.

 

Not Rocket Surgery.

 

FWIW, After the 120 teams there is FCS aka D-IAA with another 100+ schools before you get down to D-II.

Okay, just so we're all together on this, you've now officially gone off the deep end, yeah?

[The Senator]

24 now??? Holy crap. By the time anything changes in college football, people will be calling for the 64 team playoff basketball has.

Actually, a 64-team playoff makes a lot of sense - that way, instead of arguing who's #1, the argument is more likely to center on why someone's the #54 seed, instead of #32, or something like that.

 

In fact, it has already been suggested by the Mad Scientist himself...

 

Mike Leach

[Acantha]

Actually, a 64-team playoff makes a lot of sense - that way, instead of arguing who's #1, the argument is more likely to center on why someone's the #54 seed, instead of #32, or something like that.

 

In fact, it has already been suggested by the Mad Scientist himself...

 

Mike Leach

Jesus. A 64 team football playoff is absolute non-sense. The BCS makes more sense.

 

Do you (or should I say does he) really think programs will be funded by meaningless games after a team is knocked out of the playoffs? Lets say TT gets knocked out in the first round (a real possibility). Do those TT faithful show up in droves for the rest of those games in enough numbers to keep their already slight recruiting budget (of which you've continuously brought up) to current levels?

 

Not to mention....what's the point? Hell, the talent between the 20-25th ranked teams doesn't even compare to the top 5 in any given year. The only point in having so many games is hoping for a fluke upset, and how far does that go to proving who the "best" team really is?

 

I think Cynical has pretty damn good point in this thread though. We might as well keep the BCS. It doesn't matter how you change the system, people are going to B word that their team got screwed.

[Cynical]

Actually, a 64-team playoff makes a lot of sense - that way, instead of arguing who's #1, the argument is more likely to center on why someone's the #54 seed, instead of #32, or something like that.

 

In fact, it has already been suggested by the Mad Scientist himself...

 

Mike Leach

 

Disagree. A 64 team playoff would take 6 weeks to play out.

And as someone else already said, there are 120 teams in Div 1A ball. That means more 50% of the teams would make the playoffs. Why bother having a regular season?

[Cynical]

Jesus. A 64 team football playoff is absolute non-sense. The BCS makes more sense.

 

Do you (or should I say does he) really think programs will be funded by meaningless games after a team is knocked out of the playoffs? Lets say TT gets knocked out in the first round (a real possibility). Do those TT faithful show up in droves for the rest of those games in enough numbers to keep their already slight recruiting budget (of which you've continuously brought up) to current levels?

 

Not to mention....what's the point? Hell, the talent between the 20-25th ranked teams doesn't even compare to the top 5 in any given year. The only point in having so many games is hoping for a fluke upset, and how far does that go to proving who the "best" team really is?

 

I think Cynical has pretty damn good point in this thread though. We might as well keep the BCS. It doesn't matter how you change the system, people are going to B word that their team got screwed.

 

Just so we are clear, I wasn't really arguing we should keep the BCS. I just wanted to point out the reality of the situation: There is no perfect system.

 

Right now, that's due to fact there are 11 conferences plus independents that play D1A ball. There is absolutely no way to divide/incorporate that number into a logical and fair playoff structure. Somebody will get "screwed". This will be followed by the cries of "favoritism", "flawed", and the inevitable "it needs to be fixed".

 

How do I know this will happen? Because it has already happened.

 

Before the "formal" BCS, there was the "informal" BCS.

And before the "informal" BCS, there was just the Bowl System and the numerous polls.

 

It was the Bowl System and the numerous polls that has caused the this nonsense in the first place.

People were just not happy debating the pros, cons, and weight of each poll in determining the "true" NC. We had to have an "absolute".

 

So they "fixed" it. And people were not happy with the result.

So they "fixed" it again. And guess what? People are not happy with the result.

 

And here we are, crying for the system to be "fixed" yet again.

[Cynical]

The current system is a joke. You're looking at the distinct possibility of multiple unbeaten teams being having no shot at the title, including a BCS team in Cincy.

 

I'd prefer a 16 team playoff with 11 conference champs and 5 at large wildcards. But you want the simplest playoff? 8 teams. The 6 BCS conference champs and 2 at-large spots. Sure, there may be some whining by the #9 team and what not, but in my system, you hold your fate in your own hands. Win your conference and you get a playoff spot. Plus, you have a lot less to whine about when you are a 2 loss team as opposed to an unbeaten or a 1-loss team playing the best football in the country and being left out.

 

If a playoff system does happen, I would lean towards a 16 team set up myself. That way it includes at least 1 team from each conference.

 

This also eliminates a lot of the bias in college football, such as the asinine notion that the SEC should automatically get a national championship bid, because they are the "toughest" () conference in football.

 

"Bias" would still exist, at least in the minds of ACC fans. I can already hear the howls of 'bias' when the SEC sends at least 2 teams every year into the playoffs, yet the ACC some how only gets to send 1. And if by chance the SEC qualifies 3 teams for the playoffs ...

[PromoTheRobot]

I'd rather have a flawed playoff than the charade the BCS is.

 

Personally winning your conference should be your ticket to the playoffs but I know that will never happen. As for teams feeling "screwed" by a bye (or lack of one), I doubt any school, except for the ones that benefit from the joke of BCS, would pass up the chance to play. Utah and Boise State have both earned a shot to be national champions. The BCS schools are pussies.

 

PTR

[The Senator]

Disagree. A 64 team playoff would take 6 weeks to play out.

And as someone else already said, there are 120 teams in Div 1A ball. That means more 50% of the teams would make the playoffs. Why bother having a regular season?

When you consider that the NHL plays an 82-game season to eliminate 14 of its 30 teams from the Stanley Cup playoffs, a 64-team NCAA Div 1A playoff is not as bizarre as it first seems...

 

Calls for college football playoff ring louder

 

Mike Leach Pushes for 'Mainstream' 64-Team College Football Playoff