KD in CA Posted November 8, 2009 Posted November 8, 2009 And here we are, crying for the system to be "fixed" yet again. Since it's never been 'fixed' in the first place, but only rearranged to ensure the same group of schools are on the inside of the deal, I can't really sympathize with your argument. A 16 team playoff is easy and obvious. 11 conference champs + 5 at large based on polls. No more than 2 from any conference. And no, a dispute about who's #16 vs. #17 is not in anyway the same thing as an undefeated #3 team getting left out of the current championship, so 'there will always be disputes' is not a valid reason to ignore the problem. If 16 teams is too many, than simple rules could easily construct a fair 8 team playoff: --any undefeated team (assuming min. # of wins v. D-1) gets a bid --max of one school per conference --otherwise based on polls; no special priority for 'BCS' conference.
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted November 9, 2009 Posted November 9, 2009 i read this story... and it makes me hate BCS.
Acantha Posted November 9, 2009 Posted November 9, 2009 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. I understood what you were saying, and I was agreeing with it. The BCS is obviously trash, but there will always be something to complain about. I'm all for an 8 or 16 team playoff, but there will always be the 9th and 17 team that cause people to hate the system. I think the only way to get around these arguments is to start from scratch and realign all of the conferences to match an ideal playoff system. For example, create 8 conferences with 16 teams each, separated into 2 divisions. Every conference has a championship game and sends a team to an 8 game playoff. I'm not saying that's a good idea or something I want to see happen. I just think that trying to make a playoff system that still uses so many components of the current system (polls, at large bids, etc...) will only end in more demand for something better.
Lv-Bills Posted November 9, 2009 Posted November 9, 2009 Since it's never been 'fixed' in the first place, but only rearranged to ensure the same group of schools are on the inside of the deal, I can't really sympathize with your argument. A 16 team playoff is easy and obvious. 11 conference champs + 5 at large based on polls. No more than 2 from any conference. And no, a dispute about who's #16 vs. #17 is not in anyway the same thing as an undefeated #3 team getting left out of the current championship, so 'there will always be disputes' is not a valid reason to ignore the problem. If 16 teams is too many, than simple rules could easily construct a fair 8 team playoff: --any undefeated team (assuming min. # of wins v. D-1) gets a bid --max of one school per conference --otherwise based on polls; no special priority for 'BCS' conference. LMAO. Exactly. Because this was so hard to put together. 16 isn't too many. 16 teams will play a game they would have played in a bowl game anyway. 8 winners play one extra game. 4 play 2. 2 play 3. Now, seeing that this could be done in 5 minutes, why can't the NCAA do it? Unreal.
Gordio Posted November 9, 2009 Posted November 9, 2009 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. I have said it before but I will say it again. Simple. You have 11 Div 1a conferences. Each champion from the division makes the playoff. You keep the current BCS rankings to seed each team. You obviously due to popularity/tv contracts need to throw Notre Dame a bone so I fthey are in the top 25 of the bcs rankings at teh end of the year they are in the playoff also. You then include 4 wildcard teams so you have a total of 16 teams. These 4 teams will be the top 4 rated bcs teams that are left after you got a champion from each conference. You seed the teams 1-16 based on BCS rankings with 2 caveets. If the champion of the conference is not in the BCS rankings(say the winner from the sun belt) you then take those teams & rank them based on their conference ranking. So example, Troy wins the sun belt, UB wins the Mac, the sun belt is ranked higher then the mac so Troy would have a higher seed then UB. Here is the one interesting twist I would make. 1st round would be 16 teams/8 games played on the higher seed on campus site the 2nd week of December. However, even though some wild card teams will be seeded higher then some conference champs, the conference champ automatically hosts the 1st round game. 2nd round would be Jan 1st, 8 teams left play in the 4 BCS Bowl games. 3rd round would be played on a rotating basis between the the 5th Bowl game that I would add(likely the Cotton Bowl & dallas billion dollar new home) in a double header the following week. & the championship would be played the week later once rotating sites between the five bcs bowls. You could say this way would make the 2nd tier bowls meaningless but lets face it, they are pretty meaningless already. By doing this you keep the tradition of the bowls alive, no non bcs conference team could argue they did not have a chance & no team could really have legit arguement about being left out of the wild card drawing since the BCS committee could simple say, you should of won your conference. BY my way thisa is how it would look this year. 1.) Florida, 2.) Texas, 3.) Alabama(wild card), 4.)TCU, 5.) Cinci, 6.)Boise St, 7.)Georgia Tech, 8.)LSU(wild card),9.)USC(wild card), 10.)Iowa, 11.) Ohio St(wild card), 12.)pittsburgh(wildcard) 13.)Oregon, 14.)Houston(conf usa), 15.)Troy(sunbelt), 16.)Ohio(MAC) this is how the 1st round would look. Ohio @ Florida Troy @ Texas Alabama @ Houston Oregon @ TCU Pitts @ Cincy Ohio St @ Boise ST Iowa @ Georgia Tech USC @ LSU After the first round you could either reseed or use a bracket system like the NCAA does. I would probably suggest a bracket that way fans of teams will know exactly if their team wins their 1st round game what bcs bowl game their team will be going to Jan 1st. That way there is more time to make travell arrangements & such even if it is by just a week or two. Look at these matchups, give me one college fan that would not be in their glory watching this unfold on a saturday afternoon. Ohio St going to Boise, Oregon going to TCU, USC going to travel to death valley to play LSU in a saturday night game. A higher seeded Alabama, possibly getting knocked off by a Houston that gets homefield because Alabama was a wild card. This would be amazing & it would be a tv revenue winfall for college football.
Gordio Posted November 9, 2009 Posted November 9, 2009 One more thing, if this ever did happen, the first round playoffs on the 2nd saturday of December would be my new favorite sports day of the year. Here are my favorite sports days of the year in order as we speak: 1.) 1st friday of the opening round of the NCAA Tournament. I have a big party at my house, get a keg, boys start showing up around 10:30am. We pretty much drink/eat/grill out all day. I get the March madness ticket so we get to watch every game. 2.) Opening saturday(labor day weekend of college football). Once again big time party at my house. Pretty much ditto to the NCAA Tourney party, weather is much warmer & we are all starved for some football at that point. 3.) New years Day Bowls - This time the party is over my friends house. 4.) Bills home opener 5.) Championship week for the NCAA Basketball. Something about watching championship week unfold. Great entertainment, especially in the smaller conferences where if a team does not win, it goes home. I love March Madness.
Indy Dave Posted November 9, 2009 Posted November 9, 2009 why can't the NCAA do it? The NCAA does not run Division I football and therefore can't set up a playoff system. Oh, and the basketball tournament is 65 teams, not 64. Just wanted to make that small correction.
justnzane Posted November 10, 2009 Posted November 10, 2009 The NCAA does not run Division I football and therefore can't set up a playoff system. Oh, and the basketball tournament is 65 teams, not 64. Just wanted to make that small correction. who does then?
bills_fan Posted November 10, 2009 Posted November 10, 2009 Since it's never been 'fixed' in the first place, but only rearranged to ensure the same group of schools are on the inside of the deal, I can't really sympathize with your argument. A 16 team playoff is easy and obvious. 11 conference champs + 5 at large based on polls. No more than 2 from any conference. And no, a dispute about who's #16 vs. #17 is not in anyway the same thing as an undefeated #3 team getting left out of the current championship, so 'there will always be disputes' is not a valid reason to ignore the problem. If 16 teams is too many, than simple rules could easily construct a fair 8 team playoff: --any undefeated team (assuming min. # of wins v. D-1) gets a bid --max of one school per conference --otherwise based on polls; no special priority for 'BCS' conference. Exactly. 16 teams, 4 weeks to play out. Drop the # of regular season games from down to 11 max plus one for the title game. I would not limit to 2 per conference (some conference could have 3 in certain seasons), but all 11 conference champs make the field. The 5 at large teams are decided upon by a committee, much like the NCAA basketball selection committee. The basketball committee usually gets it pretty much spot-on. The committee uses the polls, the level of competition faced etc. to decide the at-large teams. The committee would actually watch all of the at-large candidates and review their resumes to see if they get in the dance. Any debate between the 5th at large and the team dubbed number 6 would likely be inconsequential. You can use the bowl game sites for the games, that way you perserve some of the bowl system. Any team not making the field is free to play any bowl game it can get invited to. It would be a sick tournament...with massive potential. Just look at this... 1.) Florida, 2.) Texas, 3.) Alabama(wild card), 4.)TCU, 5.) Cinci, 6.)Boise St, 7.)Georgia Tech, 8.)LSU(wild card),9.)USC(wild card), 10.)Iowa, 11.) Ohio St(wild card), 12.)pittsburgh(wildcard) 13.)Oregon, 14.)Houston(conf usa), 15.)Troy(sunbelt), 16.)Ohio(MAC) this is how the 1st round would look. Ohio @ Florida Troy @ Texas Alabama @ Houston Oregon @ TCU Pitts @ Cincy Ohio St @ Boise ST Iowa @ Georgia Tech USC @ LSU Here's the 2nd round... 9 USC vs. 1 Fla 10 Iowa vs. 2 Texas 4 TCU vs. 12 Pitt 3 Ala vs. 6 Boise Someone else take the next round...
Rubes Posted November 10, 2009 Posted November 10, 2009 I understood what you were saying, and I was agreeing with it. The BCS is obviously trash, but there will always be something to complain about. I'm all for an 8 or 16 team playoff, but there will always be the 9th and 17 team that cause people to hate the system. Sure, there will always be something to complain about. Some basketball teams complain that they get left out of the 65-team tourney because they ended up being #66. But you know what? Nobody really pays much attention to those complaints, because there are plenty of opportunities to make the postseason, and they all knew what they needed to do to make it: win their conference. A 16-team tournament that includes the 11 conference winners is a solid, if imperfect, system, because it lets all D-I teams know that you can make the tournament and have a shot at being national champion if you do the one thing everyone already knows they need to do each year: win their conference. Don't win your conference? Too bad. But at least in the 16-team format there are 5 teams that get a second chance. Anyone who complains that they aren't one of those five teams just needs to shut up and win their conference. It's not rocket science, and it's not perfect, but it's exponentially better than the current BCS. We cannot allow perfection to be the enemy of the good here. Go Utes!
Indy Dave Posted November 10, 2009 Posted November 10, 2009 who does then? The NCAA oversees 88 collegiate championships. Division I football is not one of them, although it does oversee FCS (formerly I-AA), Division II and Division III championships...all of which have a playoff system in place. The BCS is a separate entity.
PromoTheRobot Posted November 10, 2009 Author Posted November 10, 2009 Memo to Gordio: The MAC winner will likely be Central Michigan or Temple, not ohio. PTR
Nanker Posted November 10, 2009 Posted November 10, 2009 Sure, there will always be something to complain about. Some basketball teams complain that they get left out of the 65-team tourney because they ended up being #66. But you know what? Nobody really pays much attention to those complaints, because there are plenty of opportunities to make the postseason, and they all knew what they needed to do to make it: win their conference. A 16-team tournament that includes the 11 conference winners is a solid, if imperfect, system, because it lets all D-I teams know that you can make the tournament and have a shot at being national champion if you do the one thing everyone already knows they need to do each year: win their conference. Don't win your conference? Too bad. But at least in the 16-team format there are 5 teams that get a second chance. Anyone who complains that they aren't one of those five teams just needs to shut up and win their conference. It's not rocket science, and it's not perfect, but it's exponentially better than the current BCS. We cannot allow perfection to be the enemy of the good here. Go Utes! Well, yea, but what about Noter Dame? You can't be serious. You can't have kallage football bowl games wiff-out NOTER FRIGGIN DAME being in one of them. Doesn't matter if they're 5-7 they've got a RIGHT to go to a bowl game every year - don'tchaknow?
Gordio Posted November 10, 2009 Posted November 10, 2009 Memo to Gordio: The MAC winner will likely be Central Michigan or Temple, not ohio. PTR Really? Ohio is 4-1 in conference with winnable games against UB(tonight) & N Illinois next week. Temple also has 2 winnable games against Akron & Kent. Then the day after Thanksgiving, Ohio plays Temple at home for the right to play Central Michigan. Granted they maybe beat by Central Michigan, but didn't everybody think UB was going to get beat by Ball St last year. I think they were a 13pts underdog.
Gordio Posted November 10, 2009 Posted November 10, 2009 Well, yea, but what about Noter Dame? You can't be serious. You can't have kallage football bowl games wiff-out NOTER FRIGGIN DAME being in one of them. Doesn't matter if they're 5-7 they've got a RIGHT to go to a bowl game every year - don'tchaknow? I already said ND qualifies if they are in the top 25 or top 20 of the bcs standings.
Beerball Posted November 10, 2009 Posted November 10, 2009 Sure, there will always be something to complain about. Some basketball teams complain that they get left out of the 65-team tourney because they ended up being #66. But you know what? Nobody really pays much attention to those complaints, because there are plenty of opportunities to make the postseason, and they all knew what they needed to do to make it: win their conference. A 16-team tournament that includes the 11 conference winners is a solid, if imperfect, system, because it lets all D-I teams know that you can make the tournament and have a shot at being national champion if you do the one thing everyone already knows they need to do each year: win their conference. Don't win your conference? Too bad. But at least in the 16-team format there are 5 teams that get a second chance. Anyone who complains that they aren't one of those five teams just needs to shut up and win their conference. It's not rocket science, and it's not perfect, but it's exponentially better than the current BCS. We cannot allow perfection to be the enemy of the good here. Go Utes! Ding ding ding ding...give the man a kewpie doll. People will moan about seeding. People will moan about a team deserving to go. Meanwhile hoards of football fans will be engrossed in the action. It aint rocket surgery.
el Tigre Posted November 10, 2009 Posted November 10, 2009 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'. Great post. I agree with all of your points. There will never be a perfect system,there's just too many teams and scheduling limitations. Somebody will always have a legitimate complaint. I don't see why so many people feel the need to "fix" the system anyway. I love college football just the way it is. I know the current system is flawed,but it's also different and exciting from the first game to the last. If I were to change it,I think a plus-one may be the way to go.
Gordio Posted November 10, 2009 Posted November 10, 2009 Great post. I agree with all of your points. There will never be a perfect system,there's just too many teams and scheduling limitations. Somebody will always have a legitimate complaint. I don't see why so many people feel the need to "fix" the system anyway. I love college football just the way it is. I know the current system is flawed,but it's also different and exciting from the first game to the last. If I were to change it,I think a plus-one may be the way to go. People feel the need to fix it because it is not fair. Utah, last year should of been allowed to play for the National Championship. Taking Alabama to the woodshed in what was basically an away game only reinforced that point. To date, since the BCS Bowl coalition started there has been 4 non bcs teams to make BCS bowls & they are 3-1. TCU or Boise ST this year if they run the table should be allowed to be part of the mix for the NC. It is going to take a big upset for them to get invited to the NC. Call me crazy, but I really think TCU could play with any team in the country. Boise St I am not so sure about.
PromoTheRobot Posted November 10, 2009 Author Posted November 10, 2009 Great post. I agree with all of your points. There will never be a perfect system,there's just too many teams and scheduling limitations. Somebody will always have a legitimate complaint. I don't see why so many people feel the need to "fix" the system anyway. I love college football just the way it is. I know the current system is flawed,but it's also different and exciting from the first game to the last. If I were to change it,I think a plus-one may be the way to go. Spoken by a fan of a team on the inside. PTR
KD in CA Posted November 10, 2009 Posted November 10, 2009 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. Commonly used arguing tactic: Make the problem sound too enormous to be effectively fixed. We're not "building an ICBM", we're creating a plan for a simple football tournament. It's not difficult. 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. Feel free to critique the details of my playoff scenario posted above, which does not include any byes. You're hinging your argument on finding one flawed detail in one person's suggestion. 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. Faulty assumption. Why do you assume that a true playoff would have flaws? What flaws would those be? What are the major flaws you see that keep the I-AA football playoffs from being a better system than the current I-A arrangement? Great post. I agree with all of your points. There will never be a perfect system,there's just too many teams and scheduling limitations. Somebody will always have a legitimate complaint. I don't see why so many people feel the need to "fix" the system anyway. I love college football just the way it is. I know the current system is flawed,but it's also different and exciting from the first game to the last. If I were to change it,I think a plus-one may be the way to go. How does 'too many teams' make any difference if each conference champ gets a bid? And stop using the 'never be a perfect system' line as an excuse to ignore the fact that the current system sucks. College football will still be exciting every week if less than 10% of the teams are getting into a year end playoff. And in fact, it'll make the season much more exciting because the bowl games/playoffs will actually mean something. PTR is spot on. You SEC guys don't want to change a thing because right now your conference champ has to win 3 tough games to get an automatic bid to the NC game.
Recommended Posts