Quesiton about FBS/BCS

midatlantech said:
This will never happen and I will personally pull my support of Tech if DRad approved it. If you go to multigames then the only fair method is to use conference champions. Other than the Big East, it's friggin difficult to be a conference champion.

I find it interesting that the biggest complainer of the BCS recently is Mack Brown of Texas. He's pissed that he's not in the title game. But he's not in the title game because he did not win his conference. If he's pissed, go take it up with the friggin Big 12.

Any multiple game scenario that does not ONLY include the conference champions will never be passed IMO. Prior to the bowls, the ACC was the Top ranked conference. The voters and computers, both biased, do not choose an ACC team in the Top 6, to use your example. But there is just not enough significant data points to say that Texas Tech, ranked #6, was better than Virginia Tech, ranked #20. The polls are so slanted toward the biggest repeat BCS schools (see loser Ohio State), that using the Top 6 will become just a bigger farce than it is today.

The ONLY answer is to take conference champions ONLY. If you want to expand past that, then fine, but the 11 conference champions must come first.
Click to expand...

i can see the logic here, but i think 11 or more teams is TOO MANY!!!
 
kirbee said:
That is only partially true. You also have computer rankings, most of which are based on secret algorithms. There is no way to verify them because those that publish them (Sagarin) will not let anyone look inside. Who knows what kind of biases are built into them, just like the human polls. Utah had the largest spread of anyone in the top 10. Clearly something is going on there.
Click to expand...


It is more than partially true. The opinion polls have overwhelmed the BCS formula. The whole idea of including computer rankings was to remove the opinion bias. But they tweaked it to the point that voters can force whatever matchup they want. Computers only matter if the polls disagree. and they don't at the top anymore.

FTR, Sagarin Predictor (the accurate one that isn't used by the BCS to be PC) would put Florida against USC at #1 and #2. The BCS (ELO-Chess) Sagarin ranking would put Oklahoma against Texas.
 
I say we do one of two things:

1. Get rid of the BCS and go back to the way things used to be with multiple national champs.

2. Go to a playoff system.

The BCS has actually been a regression from where we used to be because it claims to crown "THE" national champion. It has already failed in doing this and will continue to fail to do this. At least prior to the BCS there was some interest in the Rose, Orange, Sugar, and Cotton Bowls (now Fiesta is bigger than Cotton, so it would be Fiesta nowadays) because those bowls all had teams eligible of getting #1 votes at the end of the season. With the BCS all attention is pulled toward the BCS National Championship game and the other bowls (including the big 4) have been cheapened because they are just undercard matches for the big fight that actually matters.
 
midatlantech said:
This will never happen and I will personally pull my support of Tech if DRad approved it. If you go to multigames then the only fair method is to use conference champions. Other than the Big East, it's friggin difficult to be a conference champion.

I find it interesting that the biggest complainer of the BCS recently is Mack Brown of Texas. He's pissed that he's not in the title game. But he's not in the title game because he did not win his conference. If he's pissed, go take it up with the friggin Big 12.

Any multiple game scenario that does not ONLY include the conference champions will never be passed IMO. Prior to the bowls, the ACC was the Top ranked conference. The voters and computers, both biased, do not choose an ACC team in the Top 6, to use your example. But there is just not enough significant data points to say that Texas Tech, ranked #6, was better than Virginia Tech, ranked #20. The polls are so slanted toward the biggest repeat BCS schools (see loser Ohio State), that using the Top 6 will become just a bigger farce than it is today.

The ONLY answer is to take conference champions ONLY. If you want to expand past that, then fine, but the 11 conference champions must come first.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with a playoff being restricted to purely conference champions because all conferences aren't made equal. I know I said earlier in this thread that if you go undefeated in a Div 1-A conference you deserve to be the national champ (or play against the other unbeaten(s) if there are more than one). However, I also believe that conferences like the MAC and Sun Belt don't even belong in Div 1-A. I stick by my query of why these teams are even in this subdivision when 90% they can't consistently compete with the stronger conferences, and even if one of them did run the table, it wouldn't really mean much (Ball St. would have gone to the GMAC bowl if they went undefeated. Someone check me on that.)

I think that any playoff system should reward conference champions, but still give VERY AND SELECT FEW non conference champions a chance to compete for the title. I would have had no problems with a USC being in the playoffs if Oregon State had indeed won the Pac-10. Oregon State would have simply gotten the benefit of being Pac-10 champ such as a bye, home-field advantage for at least one game, etc. I realize that there will be controversy in who gets those last spots, but 1.) No matter what happens, there will be controversy, count on it. 2.) A 9-3 or 10-2 team getting left out of the playoffs doesn't have as strong of a case as an 11-1 or 12-0 team being left out of a nat'l title game, especially when the participants are both 11-1 themselves.
 
GTSaxophone said:
I think that any playoff system should reward conference champions, but still give VERY AND SELECT FEW non conference champions a chance to compete for the title. I would have had no problems with a USC being in the playoffs if Oregon State had indeed won the Pac-10. Oregon State would have simply gotten the benefit of being Pac-10 champ such as a bye, home-field advantage for at least one game, etc. I realize that there will be controversy in who gets those last spots, but 1.) No matter what happens, there will be controversy, count on it. 2.) A 9-3 or 10-2 team getting left out of the playoffs doesn't have as strong of a case as an 11-1 or 12-0 team being left out of a nat'l title game, especially when the participants are both 11-1 themselves.
Click to expand...

If you go beyond conference champ, you become very subjective and include too many teams to make a college football playoff feasible. 8 teams after a play-in is the max you can go w/o extending too long or ruining the bowls... IMHO.

IMO, it is a good line to draw to say if you can't win your conference, you aren't national champ.
 
stinger78 said:
If you go beyond conference champ, you become very subjective and include too many teams to make a college football playoff feasible. 8 teams after a play-in is the max you can go w/o extending too long or ruining the bowls... IMHO.

IMO, it is a good line to draw to say if you can't win your conference, you aren't national champ.
Click to expand...

The problem with that is that you would be putting in someone like Ball State over Texas. Especially considering the controversial way the Big 12 was decided, that's asking for just as much stigma as we have with the BCS. Also, keep in mind the conferences without a conf. championship game, namely the Big 10. It is theoretically possible that two teams from that conference finish with identical conference records without ever playing each other (unbalanced schedule, everyone doesn't play everyone every year.) In this situation, both schools are Co-Big 10 champions, and both would then have a legit claim to the playoff berth from the Big 10.

Again, I say that you have to include one or two "at-large" teams to be able to work around peculiar situations such as that, or others that may arise. However, those spots should be few and precious so that only the most deserving teams that have been left out have an actual claim. I'm can't argue that it wouldn't be subjective, because it would.
 
GTSaxophone said:
I don't agree with a playoff being restricted to purely conference champions because all conferences aren't made equal. I know I said earlier in this thread that if you go undefeated in a Div 1-A conference you deserve to be the national champ (or play against the other unbeaten(s) if there are more than one). However, I also believe that conferences like the MAC and Sun Belt don't even belong in Div 1-A. I stick by my query of why these teams are even in this subdivision when 90% they can't consistently compete with the stronger conferences, and even if one of them did run the table, it wouldn't really mean much (Ball St. would have gone to the GMAC bowl if they went undefeated. Someone check me on that.)

I think that any playoff system should reward conference champions, but still give VERY AND SELECT FEW non conference champions a chance to compete for the title. I would have had no problems with a USC being in the playoffs if Oregon State had indeed won the Pac-10. Oregon State would have simply gotten the benefit of being Pac-10 champ such as a bye, home-field advantage for at least one game, etc. I realize that there will be controversy in who gets those last spots, but 1.) No matter what happens, there will be controversy, count on it. 2.) A 9-3 or 10-2 team getting left out of the playoffs doesn't have as strong of a case as an 11-1 or 12-0 team being left out of a nat'l title game, especially when the participants are both 11-1 themselves.
Click to expand...

Yes, actually my preferred plan is to require a conference champion to have played a conference championship game. This puts the Big 10 and the Pac 10 on equal footing with the rest AND it knocks out a whole lot more questionable entries.

As soon as a playoff occurs, there will be hoopin and hollerin over what conference is not included. Take the Top 6 conferences and their champion is seeded according to conference strength, nothing else. (Schedules become very important so that the season doesn't become a waste.)

There will be great pressure for the last two seeds so have a four team playoff for the minors but force them to have it the first and second week of December. Or if you want the best 8 team playoff, screw them. They have a chance via the conference strength. Leave it at that and take the Top 2 BCS teams left.
 
GTSaxophone said:
The problem with that is that you would be putting in someone like Ball State over Texas. Especially considering the controversial way the Big 12 was decided, that's asking for just as much stigma as we have with the BCS. Also, keep in mind the conferences without a conf. championship game, namely the Big 10. It is theoretically possible that two teams from that conference finish with identical conference records without ever playing each other (unbalanced schedule, everyone doesn't play everyone every year.) In this situation, both schools are Co-Big 10 champions, and both would then have a legit claim to the playoff berth from the Big 10.

Again, I say that you have to include one or two "at-large" teams to be able to work around peculiar situations such as that, or others that may arise. However, those spots should be few and precious so that only the most deserving teams that have been left out have an actual claim. I'm can't argue that it wouldn't be subjective, because it would.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with that. UT couldn't win their conference. You can't win your conference, you can't win the big trophy. Just my opinion, but I think it makes sense. Remember, Ball ST may not get past the play-in game in my scenario.
 
stinger78 said:
I have no problem with that. UT couldn't win their conference. You can't win your conference, you can't win the big trophy. Just my opinion, but I think it makes sense. Remember, Ball ST may not get past the play-in game in my scenario.
Click to expand...

The issue with Texas this year is that there was controversy in who got to the Championship game. Many ppl felt that Oklahoma should not have gone because they lost to Texas. That's what I'm getting at. This isn't a case of "they didn't win their conference", because they damn sure didn't do anything to lose the chance to even play for the conference title that Oklahoma didn't do (lose a game in conference, regardless of who it was. That's all that matters: How many times you lost in conference).

Again, I firmly believe that all conferences are not created equal, and that the schools outside of the BCS conferences that can and/or have shown that they can compete at the BCS level should be taken into the BCS conferences with the rest of the schools dropped down a subdivision, or placed in their own subdivision. Only if something like that happened, would I support a "Conference Champions only" playoff type.

Also, what about Notre Dame? I'm sure that the sentiment of most is "join a conference or shut up", but in reality, we know that's not likely to happen. They have too much money in their pockets, and too big of a stick up their ass for that to happen. Where would they come in?
 
GTSaxophone said:
Also, what about Notre Dame? I'm sure that the sentiment of most is "join a conference or shut up", but in reality, we know that's not likely to happen. They have too much money in their pockets, and too big of a stick up their ass for that to happen. Where would they come in?
Click to expand...
IIRC, they suggested they might join the ACC back before BC became our 12th team. But they had a caveat in that they didn't want to have to play a full ACC schedule. The ACC told them to go pound sand.

Likely they'd joing the Big Televen, but would want that same caveat. A pity, since they seem to play more teams from that conference than any other on any given year. It would make sense regionally as well.

Then put W.Ky. in the Sun Belt and Army & Navy in the Big East and we can wash our hands of the GDIs (in the FBS at least).
 
GTSaxophone said:
The issue with Texas this year is that there was controversy in who got to the Championship game. Many ppl felt that Oklahoma should not have gone because they lost to Texas. That's what I'm getting at. This isn't a case of "they didn't win their conference", because they damn sure didn't do anything to lose the chance to even play for the conference title that Oklahoma didn't do (lose a game in conference, regardless of who it was. That's all that matters: How many times you lost in conference).
Click to expand...
I don't have a problem with OU over TX simply because each conference chooses it's own champion however they agree to do it. Maybe it's a dumb solution in this case, but it's up to the conference to worry about it not the national media or BCS. This is similar to the old basketball issue when only one team could go to the tourney. The ACC at the time was one of the few with a post season tournament. UNC would complain every time they won the regular season but didn't win the tournament. It didn't matter. The ACC rule is clear on who the conference champion is. All TX had to do was beat TT and they knew it.
 
ncjacket said:
I don't have a problem with OU over TX simply because each conference chooses it's own champion however they agree to do it. Maybe it's a dumb solution in this case, but it's up to the conference to worry about it not the national media or BCS. This is similar to the old basketball issue when only one team could go to the tourney. The ACC at the time was one of the few with a post season tournament. UNC would complain every time they won the regular season but didn't win the tournament. It didn't matter. The ACC rule is clear on who the conference champion is. All TX had to do was beat TT and they knew it.
Click to expand...

The problem is that the conference DID come down to the BCS. The conference used the BCS ranking to determine who went, and essentially ignored the fact that Texas beat Oklahoma. Everyone is acting like Texas had their chance, and blew it when they lost to Texas Tech, but didn't Oklahoma have theirs and blow it when they lost to Texas? That's the issue that I'm taking here. I can't just say well Texas, you blew your chance, because Oklahoma did THE EXACT SAME THING TEXAS DID IN CONFERENCE. They both lost one game, but yet we give Texas the "too bad, so sad", and act as if Oklahoma did better in conference or something.
 
GTSaxophone said:
The problem is that the conference DID come down to the BCS. The conference used the BCS ranking to determine who went, and essentially ignored the fact that Texas beat Oklahoma. Everyone is acting like Texas had their chance, and blew it when they lost to Texas Tech, but didn't Oklahoma have theirs and blow it when they lost to Texas? That's the issue that I'm taking here. I can't just say well Texas, you blew your chance, because Oklahoma did THE EXACT SAME THING TEXAS DID IN CONFERENCE. They both lost one game, but yet we give Texas the "too bad, so sad", and act as if Oklahoma did better in conference or something.
Click to expand...
My point is simply that Texas lost out UNDER THE RULES OF THE BIG 12. So yes, they did blow it. The conference could have flipped a coin if that is what their rules said (and somewhere down the list it's probably there) and it would have been the same.
 
ncjacket said:
My point is simply that Texas lost out UNDER THE RULES OF THE BIG 12. So yes, they did blow it. The conference could have flipped a coin if that is what their rules said (and somewhere down the list it's probably there) and it would have been the same.
Click to expand...

I have the feeling that this kind of discussion could go all day, because we've said the same thing in each post :laugher:

My bottom line point is that the rules of the Big 12 were crap in this situation. Texas didn't blow anything, their conference inadvertently favored Oklahoma for losing earlier in the season.
 
GTSaxophone said:
My bottom line point is that the rules of the Big 12 were crap in this situation. Texas didn't blow anything, their conference inadvertently favored Oklahoma for losing earlier in the season.
Click to expand...

Did the Big 11 ever change thier tie-break rule? I remember back in the 90's that Northwestern went to the Rose Bowl because it had been longer since it played in the Rose Bowl than the team they tied with (Wisc maybe). The two teams didn't meet in the regular season.
 
WracerX said:
Did the Big 11 ever change thier tie-break rule? I remember back in the 90's that Northwestern went to the Rose Bowl because it had been longer since it played in the Rose Bowl than the team they tied with (Wisc maybe). The two teams didn't meet in the regular season.
Click to expand...

No, which is why, when we go to a playoff system, each conference should be forced to have a playoff for an invitation. Effectively it extends the playoff and reduces controversy and keeps it at the conference level.
 
midatlantech said:
No, which is why, when we go to a playoff system, each conference should be forced to have a playoff for an invitation. Effectively it extends the playoff and reduces controversy and keeps it at the conference level.
Click to expand...

I personally favor a format similar to the Pac-10 where every school plays everyone. Of course, I have no real qualms with the conference championship format, but either would have to be uniformly established for every conference if a playoff format is adopted.
 
Why? I don't see the NCAA dictating to conferenes how they choose their champion. They never have and doubt they ever will. If the rule is that only conference champs go to a playoff, it's up to each league to name their winner. The FCS doens't even care about conferences btw. They seed teams and pick whoever the committee wants unless things have changed.
 
I like the idea someone suggested above of "superconferences" tied to a playoff system. Conferences as currently constituted are mostly random historical accidents: a little geographic rationality wouldn't hurt a bit.

And think of the fun we'd have speculating on their construction and membership.
 
ncjacket said:
Why? I don't see the NCAA dictating to conferenes how they choose their champion. They never have and doubt they ever will. If the rule is that only conference champs go to a playoff, it's up to each league to name their winner. The FCS doens't even care about conferences btw. They seed teams and pick whoever the committee wants unless things have changed.
Click to expand...

That is completely and totally flawed. If there is a format to determine the champion of college football that only takes in conference champions, then EVERYONE should have to go about the same method to become champion of their conference. The fact that teams don't even play everyone in their conference is bad enough. The fact that every conference isn't of equal calibur is bad enough.

Why should a team in the ACC or the SEC or the Big 12 have to play an extra game when the Big 10, Pac 10 and Big East don't? Why does the Pac 10 have to play everyone in conference when the Big 10 doesn't? These are the kinds of issues that would be left wide open if the merits for a conference championship are left up to individual conferences. By that logic, the Big 10 could decide that the winner of the Michigan-Ohio State game is the champion regardless of the rest of the conference schedule. A bit extreme, but I'm exaggerating to illustrate my point.

No one has to tell the conferences that they must adhere to a particular format, they can just tell them to all agree on one, and stick to it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top