BCS is sheer BS

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Tue Dec 09, 2003 1:59 am

>>>The playoff system work well for lower divisions but the problem with the BCS and PK´s and Abner plans it´s the same damn type of attitude we have for kids teeball every thing has to be fair.<<<
 
 John:
 
 It has nothing to do with fairness. It has everything to do with relevance and a true method of determining the champion.
 
 I would have no problem if the "tournament" came down to a one- or two-game playoff after the bowls. At least then the winners of the four BCS bowls could compete for the title on the field in a true playoff, not in some bogus game determined by sportswriters and computers.
 
 Oh, and what´s wrong with fairness? I hated when 16 of the 21 NHL teams made the playoffs. But I also think giving just two of the 117 teams playing Division I-A football a chance in the postseason to win the national championship is just a wee bit harsh.
 
 And we thought baseball´s playoff qualification requirements were severe before the league championship series started, with four of 28 teams making the postseason. That´s a 7-1 shot of making the postseason before the season starts. Well, Division I football teams have a 58.5-1 chance of making the postseason before the season starts.
 
 Don´t call the rest of the bowls the "postseason." They´re not. They´re glorified exhibition games or early spring scrimmages. They mean absolutely nothing.
 
 Take care,
 PK [ This message was edited by: pk500 on 08-12-2003 22:01 ]

JRod · Post by **JRod** » Tue Dec 09, 2003 6:20 am

No you are right there are too many bowls. Where there´s the Spokane Tire and Axel Bowl we know we´ve gone too far.
 
 It´s kinda like baseball and the NBA there´s really too many teams than the league can support. There´s too many bowls than a football audience can support. I mean even die hard fans know that winning the San Francisco Bowl means nothing. But then again it´s all about money and they aren´t going anywhere.
 
 I think relevance in NCAA football isn´t the same as in NCAA basketball. Out of 300+ teams the top 10 are pretty much of the same calibur. And on any given day the #1 team could lose. Whereas a little common sense in NCAA football would go a long way.
 
 It´s like we have zero thinking policy for the National Championship. So we have to create a formula to be fair. Common sense knows that an 11-0 Mac team isn´t the same as a Pac-10 team that wins 11. Yes I would love to see a smaller school win the national championship or even play in a more pretigous BCS bowl but the talent level isn´t there. The only way smaller conferences are going to be more competitive is if NCAA enforced recruiting caps on the big schools. But we all know that´s not going to happen.
 
 The old bowl system with fewer bowls would be the best with the #1 of the Coaches Poll and the #1 of the AP Poll vie for the title if it´s still undecided after all the bowls. It seems we are creating a whole new system just to deal with the real problem at hand, getting one and unquestionable national championship. Just like the old polls, the BCS works fine when there is a clear #1 but when you muddy the water no system is going to adequatly measure this. So instead of just saying #1 of either polls play each other we now have the BCS. And should OU lose, LSU win barely and USC rolls the BCS will undergo even more scrutiny. But at the end of the day it´s still about finding the best way to get one national champion and the only way to do that is play all the bowls and if there should be team that vie for #1, have a playoff.

Bill_Abner · Post by **Bill_Abner** » Tue Dec 09, 2003 3:58 pm

Miami(OH) would give any team in the country a game. Of course a playoff would show that...but hey..

Leebo33 · Post by **Leebo33** » Tue Dec 09, 2003 4:13 pm

People said TCU could give anyone a ball game as well. I´m sure they are a good team, but how much money would you put on a Miami of Ohio/Michigan matchup?

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Tue Dec 09, 2003 4:21 pm

So I guess it´s best to let college football share the same championship mechanism as ice skating?
 
 There´s a reason why EVERY other major team sport, college or pro, uses a playoff system. It´s the best way to determine a champion. End of story. Would people watch the NFL if sportswriters and coaches voted for the champion?
 
 A college playoff to me doesn´t destroy the aura of college football one bit. 16 out of 117 teams is extremely selective. Under Bill´s idea, winning your conference would be huge. You might have different types of drama than you do now, but overall the excitement level would increase, I am sure of it.
 
 This year, if USC wins, no matter what happens with Oklahoma/LSU, there is no real national champion.

TheFormerBrett44 · Post by **TheFormerBrett44** » Tue Dec 09, 2003 4:35 pm

I think we all know there will never be a 16 team playoff. The best we can hope for is to have the winners of the top two bowls play each other for the National Championship. From what I understand all they are going to do is "tweak" the BCS this offseason.
 
 The ironic thing about this year however, is if USC beats Michigan there will most likely be a split championship.
 
 Still, I enjoy college football loads more than the NFL where practically every team is hovering above .500, don´t get me wrong, I love the NFL just think this whole parity thing is way overdone.
 
 Brett

RiverRat · Post by **RiverRat** » Tue Dec 09, 2003 5:04 pm

I said it before in a different post and I’ll say it again here …
 
 If I’m any normal football program (that is, one where improving from 7-5 to only 9-3 isn’t a fireable offense), I would much rather end my season with a conference championship or 2nd place finish and a season-ending win in a major bowl than a conference champion and a season-ending quarterfinal playoff loss. People have a lot more affinity for Orange Bowl champions than they do for semifinal losers. So why do we have to trash a system that provides a lot of teams with an attainable goal and a nice way to end the season so that the top four teams can play two extra games on national television and somehow prove beyond what shadow of doubt may have existed that they are #1?
 
 Is the BCS screwed up? Yes. But not because it can’t get #1 good enough. It’s screwed up because it’s screwed up the Rose Bowl twice in the last three years and put Miami and Florida State in the Orange Bowl. Are there to many bowls? Yes. So fix it, don’t kill it! Make 9 wins the standard for eligibility and not 6, and limit conference tie-ins to champions and runner-ups. 29 1-A teams had 9 or more wins this year. That makes for 15 bowls, which would be much better than the current system, and making a bowl would be an achievement. Then go back to voting in the two polls the way it used to be, and use a tiebreaker rule(s) if the polls diverge.
 
 But please, not another playoff. Why does every pretty good team in America who could have gone out on a winning note with hope for the future now have to lose just so that the national champion (who in most years would have been the national champion anyway), can be so a little more definitively, and hog up the TV/media attention/appearance money three more times in the process?
 
 I’ll bet you can name last year’s Rose Bowl champion a lot faster than you can name last year’s #5 team. That should make you stop and think.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Tue Dec 09, 2003 5:14 pm

>>>I would much rather end my season with a conference championship or 2nd place finish and a season-ending win in a major bowl than a conference champion and a season-ending quarterfinal playoff loss. People have a lot more affinity for Orange Bowl champions than they do for semifinal losers.<<<
 
 At least with a quarterfinal loss, you had a chance at the national title. With an Orange Bowl win, unless the Orange was the BCS title game, you had ZERO chance of a national title unless you have a debacle like this year.
 
 I would have no affinity whatsoever for my Orange Bowl champion if I believed deep in my heart that my team had a shot to win the national title in a true playoff. I´m sure most fans of powerhouse teams outside of the BCS title game feel the same way as me.
 
 Shame your aim is lower.
 
 Take care,
 PK [ This message was edited by: pk500 on 09-12-2003 13:15 ]

RiverRat · Post by **RiverRat** » Tue Dec 09, 2003 5:53 pm

Well, you and I will have to respectfully (I hope) disagree on this point.
 
 As I said, I am not in favor of implementing a system that gives the 10 or so perennial elite programs a little extra to play for if the cost is to wipe out the reward system for the rest of the crowd. And I’m sure that kids playing football in the Midwest (or pick any other region of the country) who dreamed of playing for State U. and going to the Rose Bowl (Orange / Sugar / Cotton / whatever) would be chagrined to learn that those aspirations were rather ordinary and forgettable unless they could win it all at the same time.
 
 I´m a sucker for tradition, I admit it. But the current BCS lineup is the best it´s been in a long time. Would be even better if FSU/Miami wasn´t already played to death. Switch Miami and OU around and it would be almost perfect.

HipE · Post by **HipE** » Tue Dec 09, 2003 6:05 pm

"Miami(OH) would give any team in the country a game."
 
 Except the Iowa Hawkeyes <IMG SRC="images/forum/icons/icon_wink.gif">

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Tue Dec 09, 2003 6:18 pm

River:
 
 I´ll agree to disagree, and this will be my last reply.
 
 >>>And I’m sure that kids playing football in the Midwest (or pick any other region of the country) who dreamed of playing for State U. and going to the Rose Bowl (Orange / Sugar / Cotton / whatever)<<<
 
 But the BCS has shredded the traditional conference alliances to the big bowls. This is the first time since 2001 that the Pac-10 and Big 10 will meet in the Rose Bowl. So what have all the youngsters in the Midwest dreamed of the last two Januarys? Playing in the Cotton Bowl? Orange Bowl? Fiesta Bowl? Sugar Bowl?
 
 Your argument really doesn´t wash under the current system. So end the hypocrisy and form a playoff.
 
 Take care,
 PK [ This message was edited by: pk500 on 09-12-2003 14:19 ]

JRod · Post by **JRod** » Tue Dec 09, 2003 7:06 pm

RiverRat said it better than I could.
 
 I don´t understand this need to have a playoff system. It´s like we are all too stupid to figure out how to fix the bowl system.
 
 We all know what would fix the bowl system, a one game playoff should there be a tie in #1 in both polls.
 
 Why do we need a playoff system just to find out what we already know. Plus a playoff system doesn´t really allow the best team to be the national championship.
 
 In a playoff system one bad game and you are out. Under the old bowl/poll system atleast the pollsters can save you. What if an 11-0 team lost in the semi-final just because it had one bad game. It almost negates the whole season because 11-0 mean nothing except ranking in the the playoff system.
 
 Just eliminate the BCS go back to the traditional bowl structure but make avaiable smaller schools to play larger ones in some capacity in a bowl system. Eliminate some of the smaller bowls that mean nothing. And have a one-game playoff. Before the BCS this was the talk not a 16 game playoff structure.
 
 All a playoff structure means is you have to play well in the playoffs to be the national championship not the best team. A team could be #15 in the rankings yet have an outstanding playoff and that´s the best way to find #1.

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Tue Dec 09, 2003 7:16 pm

I guess, having gone to a D-II school, I don´t get the excitement over going to a Bowl that doesn´t mean anything. I mean, if you´re not playing to be the best, then I´m not sure what you´re playing for.
 
 And I would wager that, in most years, the top 2-4 teams would win an NCAA football playoff. That´s usually the way it works in most sports with playoffs. Most of the time the champion is not really a surprise. Even with the Marlins this year, they had the best record after the All-Star break. Under the college system, I guess the Yankees would have been voted champs. <IMG SRC="images/forum/icons/icon_razz.gif">

RiverRat · Post by **RiverRat** » Tue Dec 09, 2003 7:33 pm

If there were a playoff this year, my picks to win it would be Michigan first, and Kansas State second. These two teams are playing better than anybody else right now in my opinion.
 
 If I were to vote today in a poll for a national champion on the basis of who had the best year in college football, I honestly don´t know who I would vote for (slight lean toward USC), but it sure wouldn´t be Michigan or Kansas State.
 
 This is kind of the fundamental question. On which basis should the national champion be chosen?
 
 And as long as I´m rambling on, I´ll get my prediction out there right now. LSU will be consensus National Champion. [ This message was edited by: RiverRat on 09-12-2003 15:40 ]