What specifically do you not like about the BCS that the Bowl Coalition had?
Edit: Should have said Bowl Alliance. Whatevs.
What specifically do you not like about the BCS that the Bowl Coalition had?
Edit: Should have said Bowl Alliance. Whatevs.
By old system, I believe he's referring to the days before the Alliance/Coalition. This is what I would like to see happen as well, not that it ever will.
I was born in '89 so other than B1G/Pac champions in the Rose Bowl and the B1G restricted to one bowl team per season I'm really not too familiar with the old system and how it was much different.
Since everyone is throwing their solutions out there, I like the BCS system with a four team playoff. The complaint always comes from number three, and number five's complaint wouldn't be nearly as valid, because I can't think of a time with a #5 ranked team that was undefeated.
Before the early '90s (I forget the exact year), it went like this:
Rose = Big Ten vs. Pac-10
Sugar = SEC vs. at-large
Orange = Big XIII vs. at-large
Cotton = SWC vs. at-large
Fiesta = at-large vs. at-large
Then they formed the Coalition, where all the conferences except the Big Ten and Pac-10 agreed to pool their champs if they were #1 or #2. It was renamed the "Alliance" after a few years. In 1998 the BCS was formed, with all the power conferences participating, and the Cotton was downgraded after the demise of the SWC.
5 undefeateds going into the bowl game. I guess you are technically correct. #5 wasn't undefeated, thanks to the BCS formula.
That was an anomoly. We won't see many years with that many 0 loss teams. However, we will see years with a bunch of 1 loss teams in contention. Look at 2008.
Who's your four to play for the Championship? The BCS ranking wouldn't put one of the two undefeateds in the 4 team playoff and even would shut one out of an 8 team play off.
I think the BCS does a good job. I also think that if Utah or Boise do not have the SOS to get into the top four, they're not deserving. I'd much rather keep the status-quo than go to a big playoff, but a play in game for the championship seems like a reasonable alternative that keeps the system alive but quiets most of the complaints.
Picking four teams would not be much of an improvement over picking two. I think you have to go 8 and reward the BCS conference winners, with a stipulation that any team with more than 3 losses is disqualified. If an undefeated team is not one of this six, they take up an at large. If no undefeateds, you defer to the next two highest in the BCS poll.
There has been controversy in the BCS final ranking almost every year of it's existence. The only time when the BCS final ranking has "gotten it right" is when there were only two undefeateds remaining and, even then, there is a reasonable argument that there could be a "better" team to fill one of the slots based on who the teams played.
Sure, there is no perfect scenario, as the best team doesn't always win on the field. With that said, the best teams in the FCS and D-II do always seem to make the deepest runs and no one really argues about the qualifications of the champ.
Teams that deserve a chance are shut out every year. Back to 2008. Utah was ranked 5th. Make whatever argument you want, but they beat Alabama handedly. They proved that they were at least worthy of the opportunity to let it be decided on the field.
I am a fan of tradition... so New Years day, traditional bowl match-ups, no computer polls, the importance of the big bowls... Since the BCS has come along the 4 non-championship games have lost a lot of importance and meaning and spreading out the games has really hurt on field performance of the later games. There is way too much time between the conference championship games and the national title game. Plus New Years day used to be one of the best sports days of the year and now is shell of what it used to be.
I haven't been alive long enough to remember those days, but I am a fan of the computer polls. No matter what name/coach you put in, they'll objectively spit out the same answer. I realize they have flaws, but less than human "experts" IMO.
As to the NYD, I think that ship's sailed...TV schedules and what not.
Computer polls evaluate everyone by the same criteria, but that doesn't necessarily make them objective. They reflect the personal bias of whomever created them. Some value margin of victory, for instance, and some don't (or cap it at 21 points or whatever).
If a poll uses a 21-pojnt cap, a team that scores a last-minute TD to win by 23 will get credit for a "large" victory, while a team that pulls its starters and gives up a last-minute TD to win by 20 can get downgraded, as the computer, which is fed raw data, cannot understand the circumstances of the two games.
Thanks for the other answer above.
Obviously computers reflect the bias of whoever wrote the programs, but it's still more objective, IMO than some random writer. If Michigan and Boise State are both competing for a chance to play OSU in the championship bowl (modified 2006) the writers would likely pick M, even though there might be evidence that Boise is the better team.
I like that they're locked in before the season starts, while a human can change their mind at any time.
You also can't argue that Kansas is better than VCU, can you? That's the whole point of actually playing the game.
Ok I'm sorry arguing VCU is better than Kasnas is insane. A great team will beat a mediocre one 90% of the time. The fact that this time the 10% won doesn't mean VCU is better. The ridiculousness of the argument can be shown by imagining teams that play more than once. After the first Indiana game would you have said that Indiana is inarguably better than Michigan? After the second one were we inarguably better? VCU was better today. Maybe they were better this week. They weren't better this year.
If I draw a black marble from a bag of 1 black marble and 9 red ones, there were still more red marbles in the bag to start with.
And to the OP, I totally agree. In hockey four seeds are now 9-11 against one seeds in the past several years. To suggest a single elmination tournament really selects the best team is silly. For all their problems, computers do a better job. I'd be fine with a four, six or eight team tournament, but any larger and its mostly luck and who is hot when.
would you also say that the tournament committee did the right thing by including VCU?
i would still say that despite what happens in the tournament, Colorado among others was more deserving to make the field. Arguing that VCU's run validates this ignores the fact that colorado could have made the same run and would have been more likely to prior to the start of the tournament based on the strength of its resume.
Do you remember the Pats-Giants Super Bowl? Which was the better team? Which team won? I'll give you a hint. They aren't the same team.
Just because a team beats another team doesn't make them the better team. It just means they were better on that day.
No, I still have the same opinion that I had before the tournament. A team that has a bad loss like Youngstown State (Butler) or Georgia State (VCU) should have no chance to win a title in a 13 game season. College football should force teams to play better games out of conference against other top teams, instead of including 8 or 16 (which would be absolutely horrible) teams that may have lost two or three games. With such a small sample size, a plus-one is the only way to have the regular season mean anything whatsoever.
The main reason to have a playoff is that playoffs own.
Also, a team that wins a tournament will have a pretty impressive resume against top teams simply by virtue of winning a bunch of playoff games.
The main reason to have a playoff is that playoffs own.
As a staunch anti-playoff Luddite, I wish I could get more people to admit this. It's long been my contention that most people just want a playoff because they love brackets. Honestly, so many of the playoff arguments are so easily taken apart that they just come off as confirmation-bias kind of reasons where people search for a reason why a playoff would be better to justify their desire for a bracket. I don't know why. Bracket-love is one of the strongest reasons in favor.
is the very reason why there should be college football playoffs in Division I-A.
The reason why there are not playoffs is the money that is linked to schools and the current bowl system. It is clear to me that the "Tat Five" of OSU was not suspended for the Sugar Bowl last year due to the lobbying and influence of Sugar Bowl officials. The Big 10 and NCAA were influenced by this and did nothing, while technically ineligible players were allowed to play. The current Fiesta Bowl investigation is just another example of how the bowls have corrupted things. What do AD's and administrators think and beleive when March madness comes and goes each spring?
They know what they need to do but are getting their wallets filled to much to change things.
especially in BB. The winner is crowned the NC but really they should get the "Hottest team" award. I really liked the old bowl system. I called it back when it was first rumored. The BCS does not satisfy the critics. Every year someone will complain they were not chosen.
In BB I had to hear Dickhead Vitale cry that the tournament is a travesty because Alabama was left out and Georgia was in and 'Bama beat Georgia twice this year. The committee members should be "ashamed" to exclude Alabama.
But Dickhead did not offer any solutions as to who should be left out if Alabama is put in. Dickhead makes his money by making silly, meaningless statements that are full of platitudes. So the football critics will do the same, even if there is a plus one game. No one will be happy.
While the spectator in me wants a playoff, I cannot in good conscience say it'sa good idea. There are two reasons for this.
1) As UM, a quintisential big, visible school, we are the school that reaps the advantages of the current system we have. We will always have an edge even over the smaller schools, and thus we benefit from not having to play and potentially be upset by such a school. As a UM fan first, the current system plays to our advantages.
2) I like the fact that the regular season counts for something. Every game is important if you want to make it to the NC game, or a BCS bowl. Having a base of the regular season really does seperate the better teams. Football is different than basketball, and it is much harder for smaller schools to actually be very good. If there was a playoff, it would have to be small, so that the teams that performed the best in the regular season don't have the chance at getting upset in the first round by some no-name team who sucks. Yes, such a senario would be wonderful to watch and be kind of awesome, but I can't really say that is a good way to actually find the best team in the country.
How advantageous was the current system for Michigan in 2006?
Michigan in 2006 probably didn't belong in the national championship game, considering after our loss to OSU we were thumped pretty well by USC [and OSU was thrashed by Florida].
It was pretty clear that neither us nor Ohio State deserved the championship.
However, I'm not arguing that Michigan should have been in the championship game. My point was that the system was not advantageous to Michigan, given that we were jumped in polls while sitting idle.
All that said, wouldn't it have been better if OSU and USC had played in the Rose Bowl as Big Ten and Pac Ten champions, and Florida played Michigan as SEC Champion and at large, and the winner of those two games had played for the National Championship (even if theoretically it would have been USC and Florida).
It seems like almost every year after the bowl games in hind sight I say: "man, those two teams who didn't play each other really looked like the best, I wish there was a plus one format"
It's not like we were beaten out by a one-loss mid-major team, but rather a one-loss team from the SEC. Obviously we didn't get the nod, bit this specific instance does nothing to show that we don't still have an advantage over mid-major teams in the BCS.
Do we really need to cite specific instances to show that we have an advantage over mid-majors in the BCS? I thought that was understood. My point was about the current system as a whole, which the poster was supporting compared to a playoff format.
And Kansas should have just played OSU for the championship in basketball. The NCAA tournament for mens basketball flat out sucks! Good god man
If your goal is to chose the best team over the course of the year, that would do a far better job than VCU playing Butler in the semifinials. If you really think VCU is a better basketball team than Kansas, you have probably run afoul of the flow chart somewhere. This might be more fun, but it certainly doesn't crown the best team champion.
However there is no way 68 teams would make the playoff in CFB. It would be at most 8 teams in a football format.
It may start at 8 teams, but it won't end there.
Correct. 100% of people who think they can have a football playoff that limits itself to a certain number of teams are wrong. The I-AA playoffs just expanded from 16 to 20, didn't they?
The point isn't to find the "best" team, though. The point of a playoff is to crown a champion. Take baseball for example... the baseball regular season does a pretty good job figuring out which team is the best (at least in each league respectively) because each team plays so many games. So why have a playoff?
It's interesting, for one thing. There is also something to be said about playing best when it matters more.
Because of the limited (and not so long ago non-existent) play between Leagues. The best way to go is playoffs with 7 game series, to offset who you played. Barring injury it usually determines the best team. That's not really realistic in football, though.
Baseball's just a funny game in general. There is so much variance from game-to-game that even a seven-game series often results fluky outcomes, like the Marlins winning two World Series.
It was better, IMO, when only four teams made it. Still probably has the truest champion of all the majors due to its relative exclusivity when it comes to playoff births.
we made sure all our kids were born in regular season or off season. No playoff births. But seriously, I'm 100% with you. 2 divisions per league, none of this wild card stuff. You know it's gone too far when a sport has divisions but it no longer makes sense to show division standings since the top half of the teams in the whole conference make it to the 2nd season (yes, I'm talking to you, NHL).
To bring this back to football, Div I has 120 FBS programs and 35 current bowl games for 70 teams (58% make it to the post season of a sort). There were not enough eligible teams for all these bowls last season until the last Saturday of the season (72 ended up being eligible). Now, a much smaller group make it to the BCS bowls or would make it to any comparable playoff system. But the combination of the current BCS and the proliferation of cheesy 2nd rate bowl games has certainly diluted the experience, especially the Jan. 1 experience. And while we're ranting, in my vision of the future, all restaurants are not Taco Bell and I'd rather not have all football games being carried on ESPN....
Some would argue that the team that should be crowned champion should be the "best" team, so, in effect, they become one in the same.
Of all of the professional sports, I think baseball does it the best by the sheer fact they limit the playoffs to the top 4 teams in each league. Generally, the wild card in Baseball would have won one of the divisions if it were there. So the regular season still matters in baseball but I do agree there are too many regular season games...but that's the way it is. Plus with a seven game format, that tends to weed out the drawing 1 out of ten balls from the jar. Football is a pretty close second because again, the Wild Cards would likely win one of the divisions if they were to play.
I think a football playoff would go much differently though. it seems like in basketball, if you've got a couple of decent players, you can overcome some of the inherent advantages of the more powerful programs.
The goal is to crown a champion and if it is the best team going into the tournament or not, I could care less. Giving teams a chance to prove themselves is what the tourney is all about. I think football would be just fine if it did something similar, even if it is much smaller.
VCU may not be the better team on paper or over the course of the year but they were today and that is all that really matters.
The goal is to crown a champion and if it is the best team going into the tournament or not, I could care less.
Then why does everyone profess to care so much about deserving teams being left out? If the point is to crown a tournament champion, you could do just as well with 64 teams chosen randomly out of a hat.
Now that would be an interesting Selection Sunday.
So the regular season does not matter?
Where did I say the tounament sucked? I am enjoying the tournament. But entertainment isn't what is in question. What is the best way to crown a champion. You know who is the best team in the counrty. All I am pointing out is that a playoff system isn't the be all end all that some make it out to be.
This would be a lot more common than people realize. Also, since playoff spots will most likely get filled by conference champions, get ready for early season non-con games to become more of an exhibition than they already are. Any team with an honest shot of winning their conference is not going to risk injury to a star player or players in meaningless non-con games. Get ready for NFL-style pre-season games where starters play a couple series and then watch the rest from the sideline.
And then it would just be more wins they would have to vacate soon. Booyah!
This is why I don't want a football playoff. I want the BEST team to win the title. Not just A team to win the title. The people who run the tournament even admit the best team does not always win. When you have to put in as much as you do to win at football don't you want the best team to always win?
The problem with this is that if you are in the top 10 in the pre-season poll you have a huge advantage ovet teams that start outside of the top 15. If you start at #3 and take L you can work your way back up. If you start #23 and take a L your done. Also a L in week 9 is a bigger deal then a L in week 3.
But this problem could be easily solved by not releasing the first polls until, like after week 4 or 5. This is something I am actually in favor because rankings would be based on an actual tangible product, and not expectations about that product.
Love that idea, love that avatar, but it's never going to happen.
That's really not true - your point that you don't have a fair shot if you're ranked too low in the preseason. Auburn was #22 in the preseason, Stanford was unranked. They finished 1 and 4, respectively, and Auburn played for the national title. Had Stanford won their game against Oregon, no doubt they would have been in the national title against Auburn. In the current system, unless you aren't in a major conference, if you have a national title worthy season, you'll be in the champ game. In week 12, no one remembers what you were pre-season.
Last year OK State wasn't even close to ranked pre-season, but by week 11 they were top-10, and had they beaten OU at the end of the season, would have been in the BCS. Bottom line, about halfway through the season, the pollsters and the computers look at who you're beaten and who you've lost to compared to everyone else. No one cares about the preseason rankings then. The only time it really matters is when there are more than 2 BCS conference undefeated teams, but that happens very rarely.
to add onto that-
If you're consistently winning and want to get in the national championship game, it's your own fault for not switching to a major conference.
Ignoring the sporting issues a 16 team tournament would mean two teams play four posteason games, three more than under the current system. Given what we know about the effects of football on health, especially brain health, that's not something we can do in good concience to kids who aren't even getting paid for it.
Do you think the regular-season should be shortened back to 11 games? That's a rule change that affects everyone, not just a couple teams.
It works fine in the sub-division as well as D-2 and D-3
Which only plays 9, 10 games in the regular season. Try getting them to cut back to nine games in I-A football. Ain't happening. If you're gonna say "it works in D-III" then you have to include the whole model, not just the parts you like.
You'd also need the hits to be between slower, 100 pound smaller people. That's part of the reason no-one is disabled from HS football. But, I think we probably should go back to 11 games instead of 12.
Your argument is actually an argument against the sport as a whole. I doubt you could get one brain trauma specialist on the planet to say football is safe enough for 12 games plus a bowl, but then it falls off the cliff at game 14. The more recent science is saying the trauma is there from practice 1 and the more it is looked at by medical science, the scarier the game looks.
I appreciate you at least not bringing up the favorite "caring about the kids" argument of Presidents at BCS schools: that it would cost the players class time. Somehow we never hear that one from say Duke's President when he is carting his basketball team across the country for 4 or 5 days each week in late March/early April.
I don't want a gigantic football playoff field, but we should be clear: this year in basketball is an outlier. Usually, the Final Four is dominated by #1 and #2 seeds.
The #1 ranked team in at least one of the AP, UPI, or USA Today polls entering the tournament has not won it since 2001 (Duke). Only 8 teams entering the tournament #1 have won it all since 1975 when the tournament expanded to 32 teams.
You're arguing about something else. In basketball, with almost 350 teams, the top four teams in the country are virtually indistinguishable. The final regular-season #1 is usually a team that won its conference tournament, but not all coaches put much value on them. Some don't mind losing early in their conference tourney to gain additional rest, even if it costs them the #1 ranking.
There is generally a pretty significant difference between the #1 and #2 seeds and the rest of the field - which is why so many people were upset that we drew a #8 seed.. The Final Four is normally dominated by #1 and #2 seeds.
I think college football is different because the field would necessarily be smaller, you can't have teams playing twice a week, or in the case of VCU, playing twice in just over 36 hours. That the field would have to be limited to 16 teams (absolute maximum) makes it more feasible.
But I agree in that it does diminish the regular season when you have a tournament like this. Don't get me wrong, the BBall tournament is entertaining but you can't really argue VCU or Butler were amongst the top teams this year. Yes they've won their regions and beaten some good teams doing so but in a single-elimination format anything can happen. Put Kansas and VCU in a best-of-7 series and I don't think VCU's coming out on top.
But the BBall tourney doesn't affect whether or not college football should have one only because a football tournament won't be nearly as big and allow teams that were fairly mediocre through the season in. I also think the gap between the elite and middle-of-the-road football teams is more noticeable then what you have in basketball. FWIW, I don't have a problem with the current football system but would not be opposed to a playoff, and a 68-team single-elimination tournament while exciting, is a pretty poor way to determine a national champion.
It proves that the polls (seedings in this case) are just an educated guess. A playoff will eliminate that.
Yes there will still be controversy over who gets in, just like there is now for the Tournament. But I'd rather be arguing over opinions about who is really the 16th team than who is the number 1 team.
If a playoff is inevitable, I would support a Plus One.
In my system, you would scrap the current system and go back to pre-Alliance/Coalition days with the old conference tie-ins. All major bowl games would be played on New Year's Day, where they belong, while all lesser games would be played prior to NYD (where they belong, as well). None of this crap where the Poulan Weedeater Bowl is played on Jan. 7.
After all the major bowl games have been played on NYD, I would institute a BCS-style ranking system to select the top two teams. These rankings would take into account the bowl results. The top two teams would then play in a Plus One game -- possibly in the open week between the NFL conference championship games and the Super Bowl.
Best of all worlds in my book. Preserves the importance regular season while restoring the glory of NYD, plus it at least begins to appease the playoff crowd.
It would be way better than what we have now, but still totally inadequate economically. The only way it would work is if you could negotiate bigger pay outs from the greedy bowls and an overhaul of their corrupt little cash cows, to make it economically viable for the participating schools. It currently isn't and the payouts of the bowls as a whole are pittance v. what a playoff run through December could fetch.
The reason the old bowl system is scrapped is because of money. It wasn't bringing in enough to cover costs and athletic departments were suffering. The reason that New Years Day is a shadow of what it used to be is TV. Would TV still pay the needed money if you had 5 or 6 games competing on the same day for viewership? They forced New Years Day's demise in the first place.
I think if you had a plus 1, you'd put some (not a lot) umphh back in the bowls. I doubt the TV folks would do them all on one day and pay big money for them. The thing would still be dancing around the issue of what the fans really want and what the TV people and sponsors would pay serious cash for. That's a playoff. Why do that when everyone can make serious money? Enough money to restore full operation of non-revenue sports across the board and not have to dip into the general funds at these schools.
Was there any real arguments in the seeding? All this tournament proves to me is that there weren't any dominant teams this year. There's a reason these runs are so special, because they rarely happen.
As far as I'm concerned the football playoffs start in August and that's why the entire season is so exciting and unique.
The playoffs never really start for most teams in Divison 1-A then. Teams like Boise every year, Utah in 09, TCU for most of the last decade. 2007 2 loss LSU politics it's way in to the BCS title game. Did those two games count? Autburn's undefeated season in 2004?
The games would count way more for everybody with a playoff. Your argument is a tired one from the BCS defender talking points. No offense, but every game doesn't even come close to counting now. The system discourages big conference teams from playing quality competition. The games count for nothing for most of September as the big schools duck interesting matchups in favor of the cupcake circuit. Bad for football, bad for the fans.
I too am an oldtimer (M 74,78) and would like to see a return of the traditional bowl games being played on January 1. Not only did it make that the single best day of the entire sports year, but there were on occasions MULTIPLE national championship games played on the same day.
I remember a #1 Texas losing early in the day in the Cotton Bowl which magnified the importance of the Rose Bowl that followed. When the Big 10 chumped it up (as was usually the case) then the Orange and Sugar Bowls became very important. The excitement would build throughout the day which is all we can ask for.
The current system devalues the bowl games and the long wait between Jan 1 and the MNC game waters down the interest. We will never return to the "good old days" (too many dollars involved) but the current system simply isn't that good.
It's a shame that the "kids" of today like justingoblue never got to experience the glory of NYD as you so wonderfully described it, dearborn. There was no better sports viewing day in the entire year.
And it died because of money. Hell the Big Ten had a chance to preserve the traditional Rose Bowl but dropped that for a bigger pay day. That's how little the conference thought of the nostalgia of that day. The economic pressures killed New Years Day and the same will move the BCS toward a playoff or more preferably, destroy the BCS and put the NCAA in charge of real playoff.
I've always argued that the NCAA Tournament, despite how fun it is, does a poor job of determining the best team in the country. Duke, Kansas, OSU and Pitt are all better than any team in the Final Four - hell, Michigan is better than half of the Final Four. It's fun, but the Champion of the tourney is rarely the best team in college basketball.
However, in football it would be different. In football, the better team wins the game more often than in basketball. Basketball is a flukier game than football, so VCU over Kansas type upsets wouldn't happen in football nearly as often. Also, you'd have far fewer teams, so a VCU type team wouldn't have the chance to knock off Kansas. Since it would likely only be 8 teams, a "big" upset would be the equivalent of Oklahoma or Arkansas beating Auburn this past year, which I'm OK with. If this past year, Oklahoma beat Auburn, then Stanford, then Oregon to win the championship, they would deserve the crown. They would have needed a very good season to get there, and beating 3 of the top 8 teams in the country to finish. That's a championship season.
I'm in favor of a limited playoff, but I'm under no illusions that it will happen. If a playoff is adopted, it will almost certainly have 16 teams, if not more. There's too much money at stake for it to be otherwise.
16 would still be OK. In the final pre-bowl poll, the #16 team was Alabama. If Auburn lost to Alabama in the first round of the tournament, they shouldn't be in the champ game just like if they would have lost to Alabama at the end of the regular season.
4 weeks of tournament would be long, but 16 still wouldn't be too big. Anything bigger is too much for football.
four games is too many. With the nature of football, injuries would begin too pile up. It would be a tournament of attrition and not of who is a better team.
That is part of the game. Injuries happen the whole year. Ask any NFL team.
Of course they are a part of the game. If you have a system that can elliminate the chances for injury is that not prefrable.
That's a great point that often gets overlooked. A single elimination tournament format is way more fair for football than basketball. Yet basketball wouldn't dream of doing it like football does.
College football and college basketball are vastly different sports. For one, we see more and more basketball players leave after their freshman season. Even when guys were going pro right out of high school, there were basketball teams a hell of a lot better than any team from this season. Think of that 2005 title game. Both the Illinois and North Carolina teams from that year would destroy Ohio State and Kansas from this year, imo. There's more parity than ever.
Football does not have the same situation. You have a chance to get at least three years of playing time from every player and I don't think anyone can say that Auburn or Oregon wouldn't have destroyed middle of the road teams from this past season like Michigan or a host of other schools (look what happened to Michigan State vs. Alabama), where as a middle of the road basketball team like us nearly beat three number one seeds in one season.
Football's solution is a four team playoff like someone else said. Or if there happen to be two undefeated teams left when all of the bowl games are played, just have them play eachother. You wouldn't even have to use the option every season.
Cal was 5-7. A bit better team catches them in a tournament, and they could be upset.
If your goal is to simply reward the best team, then there is no way that there should be more than an 8 team playoff in basketball and probably no more than 4 in football. But rewarding the best team is not the point. The point is entertainment for the fans, fun/exposure for the players, and money for others. All of these would are maximized by larger playoff tournaments. If rewarding the best team is the point of the whole season and playoffs, why do they even let three quarters of the teams play at all if they might prevent the best team from making the playoffs/MNC game, without really having a chance to make it themselves?
Competion is the point of sports. You play games to see who is the better team is. If you want entertainment go watch the WWE.
This year is an aberration. In the last twenty years, 15 ones, 2 twos, 2 threes, and 1 four have won the tournament. In other words, 75 percent of the time, one of the four top seeded teams won the tournament.
The season counts for seedings and whether or not you even get in. This system isn't perfect, but the champion is still determined in the arena of competition and not on the computer.
Remember, too, that a two, three, or four could still win the tournament. March Madness is great and the bowl system is an outdated POS that only exists to gratify the egos and fortify the wallets of the people running the them.
The football champion is not awarded by computers. You still have to win on the field. Both have flaws and that is why we shouldn't mess with what makes the regular season of college football the best of any sport. And why exactly is the bowl system an "outdated POS"? And are you really satisfied that 25 percent of the time the best teams not winning the tourny? You could argue that the BCS has a better rate of success than that.
But only two teams get the chance to win it on the field. Is that fair?
everyone has a chance every week to prove they belong.
Really? I think TCU would disagree.
They were not as impressive week in and week out as Auburn and Oregon.
Fine, then have them play Auburn and we'll find out. It's only one game.
Some would argue TCU was better. If they were a better team, how could they not even get a chance at a championship? Sure, by tougher schedules Auburn and Oregon had more impressive resumes...but you still can't ultimately say they were better than TCU, because teh sample size and variety of games played was not large enough to determine. Playoffs in college football make up that deficit, or at least try to. Limiting the playoff to two teams (what it is now) is only marginally better than crowning the #1 team after the regular season, and wouldn't that be a crappy way of determining a champion if 5 teams have teh same records. The solutions are either substantially more football games (impossible), or a playoff system that includes more deserving teams. Leving out a 2-loss team is a lot more justifiable than leaving out an undefeated team who lost style points based on how "good" their wins looked and how tough their schedule was.
Arguing the merits of playoffs between college basketball and college football are two completely different things. Completely different.
+1 for at least recognizing that there's already what amounts to a playoff or tournament in college football, however limited that it may be. I'm so tired of hearing people complain that college football's post-season championship should be "decided on the field."
Are you tired of hearing it currently isn't? Because it isn't. The current system is silly and does the complete opposite of basketball. It operates on assumptions that weight the entire thing towards a few schools in 6 major conferences. Rather than encouraging strength of schedule, it encourages teams to play weak competition in September than fall back on the same old assumptions that the Harris poll, the computers, and the coaches poll operate under: Major conference superiority.
Every game counts unless you are TCU, Boise State, Utah or any other school that doesn't run the system. These outsider schools can decide nothing the field. This dorky "BCS Bowl" name plate for the non-championship game is their lame consolation prize. Basically the whole thing screws the vast majority of fans who want a version of what basketball has.
A 16-team playoff would be the greatest sports event in America and would print money to a degree that it would save non-revenue sports in every Division 1-A school currently bleeding. Win/win for everyone but a few conferences and their commissioners who would rather control the smaller pie than go create a big one and share it like adults.
Well, I usu. agree with a lot of your takes, but on this one I couldn't disagree more. Not about the BCS itself -- I'd like to go back to pre-BCS days -- but about having a 16-team playoff (way too many) and it being decided on the field (it is).
I agree that you could call the current system a "2-team playoff," but you can't say that TCU's elimination from the title hunt last year was "decided on the field." They went undefeated and got snubbed.
That's what happens in tournaments. Teams get left out. I don't want to get bogged down in a battle of semantics, but it was clearly decided on the field. There was no vote involved.
It's a lot easier to justify a lower-seeded team being left out than #3 in the country with a same record as #1 and #2. Ultimately all the whining over whether VCU deserved the NCAA tourney or not in bb is moot, because we're talking about #68 here! But it highlights a point...no matter what, somebody's going to bitch about it not being good enough.
However, I think football can still do better. Much better. Four teams is substantially better than just two. Is it enough? Probably not. But its exponentially better than two. Some years some deserving teams will still be left out for sure...and that cannot be avoided...but it's not a reason to suggest what we have in college right now is "working good enough". Because it's not.
Aren't the AP and USA today polls, which are voted, a big factor in who gets to play in the BCS title game?
Aren't the AP and USA today polls, which are voted, a big factor in who gets to play in the BCS title game?
I wouldn't want to go back to the old format at all. I would have given my left nut and both my wife's ovaries to see Michigan play Nebraska back in 1997.
A Football Tournament would be easy as pie...
8 Conference Games
3 Non-Conference Regular Season games for ACC, Big 10, SEC, Pac-10/4 Non-Conf Regular Season games for Big East/Big 12
Conference Championship Game
Champions of ACC, Big 10, SEC, Pac-10, Big East, Big 12 gets auto bids.
2 at-large berths (can't go to same conference)
Use BCS ranking formula to seed teams 1-8.
Quarterfinals are the Cotton Bowl (TX), Gator Bowl (FL), Fiesta Bowl (AZ), Sugar Bowl (LA)
Semifinals are the Rose Bowl and Orange Bowl
BCS Championship Game rotates between various NFL stadiums.
Done and done.
So your formula has M playing road games for the first two rounds? If you are going to rebuild the system you have to do better than that.
Nobody asked for any gumdrop-rainbow-land fantasy proposals, but it seems like every playoff discussion sooner or later becomes a magnet for everyone's special idea. And I will say this until the whole world believes it: You can't have a football playoff using the bowls on neutral sites. Aside from the fact that you have to get the bowls to agree with it, which they won't, the basketball quarterfinals (which is what's going on now) can't even fill a basketball arena. 12,000 people for the Florida-Butler game in New Orleans. Please explain to me how you think it's a good idea to change the Sugar Bowl from an event that attracts 74,000 people to one that attracts 12,000 people. Please explain why you think the Sugar Bowl would sign on for that.
It's like I said above about playoff fans: I think you want this playoff because you think it's a cool bracket, not because you really thought it through and settled on the best, most feasible idea.
in a 16 team playoff, the round of 16 and 8 and maybe even the semis would be at the higher seeded team's campus, like the nfl does it, and how college hockey used to do it. The championship would be at a neutral site. As for the bowl, you're right, they would not fit in the playoffs, they would still exist and still have games for the teams that didn't make the playoffs.
The bowls wouldn't go away, and still have good matchups, for the sake of discussion say, Wisconsin and MSU made the playoffs from the big ten and Stanford and Oregon made the playoffs from the pac ten. The rose bowl would then be OSU and Arizona, not a bad matchup. Now the bowls won't make as much money, but the playoffs would more than compensate for that.
Plus with your proposal, everybody would make way more money. Even the Big Ten and SEC Commissioners admit that system such as yours would create significantly more revenue (some estmates say conservatively $750 million per season in total revenue) then the current system does.
The bowls bank a bunch of money and pay all their chairman and organizers tons of money now, while they shake down participating schools for ticket purchases and sponsor fees. We do not need to worry about the bowls. They'll always be a market for college football in December with a bowl name attached. Maybe some will wither, but who cares about the Beef O' Brady's Bowl or whatever?
What the NCAA tournament does this year is what it does every year: makes fans of major college sports dream longingly about the possibilities for football. Money will drive us to a better system then we currently have. The only question is will be as awesome as what basketball has. Meaning: will it reasonably give every Division 1-A school a chance when fall practice opens?
But students can't take classes during a month long playoff! :(
But students have to "take finals", or "tradition" or some other shit...just put in a playoffs already.
Until Michigan gets back to winning the Big 10 again on a regular basis, I couldn't give a crap about which team wins the national championship.
What is stopping the non-bcs conferences from breaking away? Is the amount of hush money given to the little conferences significant?
I saw "College Football Playoffs?" and 87 replies and I thought "Finally!" then clicked then saw the post and was like "aw, damn" (sad face).
In response to the question, I would be opposed to a 64-team college football playoff, yes. Otherwise, a playoff that featured only the top 10, or 12, or 16 would not have the same problem cited in the post.
but I don't think i favor a play-off system any more, or at least i'm not as hot to see one as I once was. The recent Super Bowls change my mind rather than the NCAA B-ball tourny.
I don't really buy that Green Bay was the best team in the NFL this year. Nor do I think any team was better than the Patriots in 2007, etc...
Play-offs are an exciting product but I don't think they necessarily produce the best team in the end.
If we do go to a play-off system, I'd almost like to see a reguar season champion voted by the writters & coaches (they use to do that prior to the bowls, so some precedence there)
In the NBA, NHL and MLB where you have best of 5 and best of 7 formats, the vast majority of the time the best team is going to win out in the end. When you have a one and done format, anything can happen.
I have been praying for a playoff for years now. I don't think the NCAA will get their head out of their ass quick enough to do this before I die, but I wish they would. The "regular season won't count" people are delusional. If there are only 4-8 teams, you will still have to go undefeated or 1 loss to make it. Some years we have 4-5 undefeated teams. All the other arguments sound like Charlie Brown's parents to me. WA WA WHAH WHA Wa.
The tournament crowns a champ that wins every game, and settles the argument. Until they have it there will always be a paper tiger champ and tons of fans wondering what would have happened. Maybe the teams that are hot right at the right time win, and they aren't neccesarily THE best team. Who cares? You still have an outright winner and no wishy washy "this team turns on tv's" bullshit.
"you will still have to go undefeated or 1 loss to make it"
That's simply not true, as we've had a two loss team make it into the championship game in the current two-team playoff format. Please explain how you would need less losses with the inclusion of two to six more teams into the playoff.