For all the BCS haters out there..

[FirstTimer]

I'd also like to see things like preseason polls eliminated

That'd be nice but I think it's naive to think writers and pollsters won't have a preconceived notion of who the best teams in the country are before the season starts. Honestly, nothing would stop them from doing their polls in private week after week until the polls are made public/published.

[FirstTimer]

Just winning the Mac or the Sun Belt does not mean you have earned the right to play for the national championship.

.

Ok. But at the same time does not even winning your own conference earn you the right to play for the NC? Using this year as a possible example you could have a team in LSU that doesn't even play in the conference championship game being in a playoff for the NC. No matter the playoff system or whatever I don't think there is any way in hell a team that doesn't win their conference should be playing for the NC.

[Senser81]

Please.

1 seeds have a 100% winrate against 16 seeds.
2 seeds have a 96% winrate against 15 seeds.

Those are complete wastes of games. LOL at anyone getting pumped up about Oregon vs FIU or Northern Illinois vs Auburn.

I used to think like you, but at this point I don't really care how many teams they let into a football playoff, as long as they have a playoff instead of a bowl system. You say that #1 Oregon vs. #16 FIU is a complete waste of a game...I agree...but I also say the Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl matching up Troy vs. Temple is also a complete waste of a game. At least the #1 vs. #16 game has something at stake.

[Hasselbeck]

Yeah I think an 8 team system with no automatic bids would be the best compromise for everyone.

I'd also like to see things like preseason polls eliminated, and more transparency with the whole polling system so human voters can't get away with dicking over small schools as easily.

Agree 110%

[mgoblue2290]

Ok. But at the same time does not even winning your own conference earn you the right to play for the NC? Using this year as a possible example you could have a team in LSU that doesn't even play in the conference championship game being in a playoff for the NC. No matter the playoff system or whatever I don't think there is any way in hell a team that doesn't win their conference should be playing for the NC.

Yeah I'd say LSU has a right to play to in a playoff game. Some conferences are way stronger than others so you'd be excluding some of the best teams using conference champions as a way to determine who gets in. I mean say one year one side of the conference is really weak and a 8-4 team is in the conference championship game playing an 11-1 or 12-0 team, the 8-4 team wins. Does that mean they're suddenly one of the best 8 or 16 teams in the country and deserve a playoff spot? I don't think so.

I'd also think you'd have a hard time getting the SEC on board telling them only 1 of their teams deserves a spot in the playoff because it isn't true. The opposite thing is true for smaller conference schools too who are going 9-3 or 10-2 and winning their conference. They don't deserve to be in the playoff at all. Now if they go 12-0 then yeah, they'll probably get in because of their ranking.

Both sides will have to compromise in order for this to happen. Which is I think keeping the BCS to determine seeds and an 8 team playoff works. This way you're getting the best 8 teams, or close enough to the best 8 teams in a playoff.

[FedEx227]

Nine at large bids is way too many. There are not 9 teams who didn't win their conference who deserve to play in the post season.

Just take the top 8 BCS teams every year, and shove them into a bracket. It's too fucking easy.

I'm even okay with 4 BCS teams every year, but I can support 8. Nothing more though.

[FirstTimer]

Yeah I'd say LSU has a right to play to in a playoff game.

That makes zero sense if you are trying to "fix" a system where one of the main complaints and sticking points was this:

BCS bashers cite the Oklahoma and Nebraska teams that couldn't win the Big12 but played for NC's as glaring reasons as to why the BCS doesn't work.....then they turn around and actually support/propose a system for choosing a NC that automatically puts in teams that don't win their conference

Some conferences are way stronger than others

That doesn't matter in a case like LSU, Oklahoma, Nebraska etc. It avoids the point that no matter how strong the conference is if you can't claim to be the best team in your own conference...let alone division as would be the case with LSU..then you have no right to attempt to call yourself the best team in college football in general.

so you'd be excluding some of the best teams using conference champions as a way to determine who gets in.

Don't care. Win your conference or don't bitch.

I mean say one year one side of the conference is really weak and a 8-4 team is in the conference championship game playing an 11-1 or 12-0 team, the 8-4 team wins. Does that mean they're suddenly one of the best 8 or 16 teams in the country and deserve a playoff spot? I don't think so.

If the 11-0 or 12-1 team have a problem with it they had a chance to settle it on the field...and failed.

The entire point/objective of a playoff is people want the champion decided on the field by the players/teams. Having ANY rankings or polls or whatever the hell else they decide to use to come up with teams for a playoff is just another fucked up solution and shoots the initial objective square in the head. Sure people can bitch and moan about the 8-4 team getting in but in the end at least the game/team was decided on the field by the players and teams. I'd rather be dealing with that outcome than dealing with some arbitrary ranking and computer deciding who gets in. In the end that's all that matters and is the most important aspect of any playoff system.

I'd also think you'd have a hard time getting the SEC on board telling them only 1 of their teams deserves a spot in the playoff because it isn't true.

Fuck them. The system isn't about making the SEC, Big10, Big12, Pac10, BigEast, ACC or any other conference that feels they have the best conference that year..or regularly happy and letting them have more than one team in. The point is to determine a nation champion The SEC can send whatever other teams they want to to whatever other bowls they want. They get one rep in the NC conversation. Again...if you can't win your conference then you should have no say in the NC picture.

The opposite thing is true for smaller conference schools too who are going 9-3 or 10-2 and winning their conference.

Why not? Give them a shot. If they lose, they lose. If not good for them. At least it's decided on the field and not by old crusty sports writers, coaches, or a computer.

Both sides will have to compromise in order for this to happen. Which is I think keeping the BCS to determine seeds and an 8 team playoff works. This way you're getting the best 8 teams, or close enough to the best 8 teams in a playoff.

Fuck it. Do the teams objectivly or just go back to the way it was before the BCS. Enough of this using broken systems to come up with more broken systems to come up with more broken systems. Everyone thinks the BCS is fucked and broken so why the hell would anyone want to use that admittingly broken system to determine teams for a new system?

[Rayman]

Pick up this week's SI.

Really great article by Dan Wetzel and another author on how the BCS is actually costing schools money and it makes som great arguments against it.

I guess Wetzel also has a book out too called: Death to the BCS. I'm going to pick it up.

I have the book. If you remember, I was pimping it to some of you a month and a half ago.

It's amazing what a joke the whole cartel thing is.

[FirstTimer]

I have the book. If you remember, I was pimping it to some of you a month and a half ago.

It's amazing what a joke the whole cartel thing is.

I don't.

Proof or STFU

[Rayman]

I don't.

Proof or STFU

It was in the chatbox...

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

I always thought the best method was an 8-team playoff using the BCS rankings (or whatever)...

First round games are at the traditional BCS bowl game sites, set up just like they would be using conference affiliations - Big Ten and Pac10 in the Rose, Big XII and at-large in Fiesta, SEC and Big East in Sugar, ACC and at-large in the Orange)

Second round games can be played at neutral sites.

Final game can be played at a neutral site.

The at-large spots leave spots open for the Boise's, TCU's, or Utah if they are qualified or the traditional one-loss non-conference winner.

Then, you add simple two more games for the championship teams to determine the winner (this will be off-set by scheduling more creampuffs, as the power conferences do anyway).

[NAHSTE]

Ok. But at the same time does not even winning your own conference earn you the right to play for the NC? Using this year as a possible example you could have a team in LSU that doesn't even play in the conference championship game being in a playoff for the NC. No matter the playoff system or whatever I don't think there is any way in hell a team that doesn't win their conference should be playing for the NC.

LSU won't be in the conference championship game because it plays in the same division as Auburn. South Carolina could lose to Clemson next week, then beat Auburn the following week and be the official "SEC Champion" with 4 losses.

Does that make them more deserving of a national title shot than LSU? Under your proposal, 1-loss Auburn and 1-loss LSU would sit at home while 4-loss South Carolina got to play Oregon/Boise/TCU in a first-round game.

You can't penalize LSU for playing in the best division in the country (five ranked teams last I checked). If they were in the East, they'd be playing Auburn in Atlanta in two weeks.

[FirstTimer]

LSU won't be in the conference championship game because it plays in the same division as Auburn. South Carolina could lose to Clemson next week, then beat Auburn the following week and be the official "SEC Champion" with 4 losses.

Ok?

Does that make them more deserving of a national title shot than LSU?

Yes.

Under your proposal, 1-loss Auburn and 1-loss LSU would sit at home while 4-loss South Carolina got to play Oregon/Boise/TCU in a first-round game.

I know.

Then again LSU and Auburn could have fixed all this by handling their business on the field. If they didn't and are punished because of it then so be it. At least each team controls their own destiny so to speak.

Again, at least the onus is on the team for their inclusion or exclusion from the NC playoff. Not on a computer or fucking polls.

You can't penalize LSU for playing in the best division in the country (five ranked teams last I checked).

Watch me.

If they were in the East, they'd be playing Auburn in Atlanta in two weeks.

If they win all their games(beating Auburn) then they are playing in Atlanta. Novel concept huh?

[St. Francisco]

Nine at large bids is way too many. There are not 9 teams who didn't win their conference who deserve to play in the post season.

Just take the top 8 BCS teams every year, and shove them into a bracket. It's too fucking easy.

This has always been my idea too. Top eight teams in the BCS, no automatic bids. The cream of the crop ALWAYS float to the top of the BCS rankings. This is the fairest way. It's about taking the best teams in the country, and determining a champion. And this is the best way to do that. Put the opening round in the BCS bowls, add two second-round games, and the NC is the NC. Other bowl games happen as normal. This is the simplest solution.

I think it's hilarious all these BCS bashers cite the Oklahoma and Nebraska teams that couldn't win the Big12 but played for NC's as glaring reasons as to why the BCS doesn't work.....then they turn around and actually support/propose a system for choosing a NC that automatically puts in teams that don't win their conference. Yeah..no lapse in logic there.

For the record, that's not what I don't think it's fair. It's not fair because only two teams out of 120 (122 next year) get a shot to be crowned national champions. That's a system that will always be broken.

LSU won't be in the conference championship game because it plays in the same division as Auburn. South Carolina could lose to Clemson next week, then beat Auburn the following week and be the official "SEC Champion" with 4 losses.

Does that make them more deserving of a national title shot than LSU? Under your proposal, 1-loss Auburn and 1-loss LSU would sit at home while 4-loss South Carolina got to play Oregon/Boise/TCU in a first-round game.

You can't penalize LSU for playing in the best division in the country (five ranked teams last I checked). If they were in the East, they'd be playing Auburn in Atlanta in two weeks.

I feel obligated to let you know that you're wasting your time. First Timer is set in his opinion that a conference winner is ALWAYS better than a non-conference winner, because I think in his head he sees NCAA conferences like he sees NFL divisions, which are far more balanced. Nevermind the fact that everyone else thinks that letting a Sun Belt winner in over a one-loss LSU is almost as unfair as the current system...it doesn't matter to him.

[FirstTimer]

I feel obligated to let you know that you're wasting your time. First Timer is set in his opinion that a conference winner is ALWAYS better than a non-conference winner, because I think in his head he sees NCAA conferences like he sees NFL divisions which are far more balanced. Nevermind the fact that everyone else thinks that letting a Sun Belt winner in over a one-loss LSU is almost as unfair as the current system...it doesn't matter to him.

Dead wrong.

Ironically I support a conference champion only style because college football is nothing like the NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB, etc.