BCS discussing wide range of possible modifications

[Bear Pand]

I also don't understand the huge fascination with CBB.

It probably does the worst job of crowning the actual best team as champs. Huge 64 team bracket with single elimination games.

MLB/NBA/NHL all play series which helps ensure best team advances. NFL has single elimination but it awards byes and it doesn't go out of it's way to put bad teams in. CFB, BCS is obviously far from perfect but I'd still say the BCS winner is more likely to be the true best team than whoever wins MM.

I guess it just comes down to how much value people place on excitement cause CBB is probably the most exciting.

 

[ZoneBlitz]

I also don't understand the huge fascination with CBB.

It probably does the worst job of crowning the actual best team as champs. Huge 64 team bracket with single elimination games.

MLB/NBA/NHL all play series which helps ensure best team advances. NFL has single elimination but it awards byes and it doesn't go out of it's way to put bad teams in. CFB, BCS is obviously far from perfect but I'd still say the BCS winner is more likely to be the true best team than whoever wins MM.

I guess it just comes down to how much value people place on excitement cause CBB is probably the most exciting.

I dont even find CBB exciting, theres no bigger disappointment to me than a 5th seed playing an 8th seed, because the top 1-2-3-4 seeds were upset.

 

[shag773]

I also don't understand the huge fascination with CBB.

It probably does the worst job of crowning the actual best team as champs. Huge 64 team bracket with single elimination games.

If you don't like the 64 team format, that's fine. But don't say something ridiculous like that. If you think the current BCS format is better the tourney, you're nuts.

MLB/NBA/NHL all play series which helps ensure best team advances

Is that so? So last year we had the Patriots vs the Falcons in the SB, the Phillies vs the Yankees in the WS, Miami vs San Antonio in the NBA Finals, and Washington vs Vancouver in the Stanley Cup finals?

NFL has single elimination but it awards byes and it doesn't go out of it's way to put bad teams in.

*cough* Seahawks *cough*

CFB, BCS is obviously far from perfect but I'd still say the BCS winner is more likely to be the true best team than whoever wins MM.

Of course! Because the playoffs in the 4 major sports always insure the best team is in the championship game :noidea:

I guess it just comes down to how much value people place on excitement cause CBB is probably the most exciting.

Call me crazy, but I enjoy an exciting playoff format.

I dont even find CBB exciting, theres no bigger disappointment to me than a 5th seed playing an 8th seed, because the top 1-2-3-4 seeds were upset.

You would be in the minority bro.

 

[ZoneBlitz]

Shag did you learn to multi-quote from FirstTimer? Just kidding, your posts are respectable unlike any of his.

 

[Bear Pand]

If you don't like the 64 team format, that's fine. But don't say something ridiculous like that. If you think the current BCS format is better the tourney, you're nuts.

Is that so? So last year we had the Patriots vs the Falcons in the SB, the Phillies vs the Yankees in the WS, Miami vs San Antonio in the NBA Finals, and Washington vs Vancouver in the Stanley Cup finals?

*cough* Seahawks *cough*

Of course! Because the playoffs in the 4 major sports always insure the best team is in the championship game :noidea:

Call me crazy, but I enjoy an exciting playoff format.

You would be in the minority bro.

I didn't say the BCS was better than MM, I said it probably gets it closer on average if the end goal is to crown the best team as champion. For example I think it's much more likely that Oregon-Auburn were the two best teams last season compared to Butler-UConn.

I don't even know what you're talking about with the Phillies/Yankees/Miami/San Antonio etc. First we have no way of knowing for certain those teams were the best. Second I never said the best teams always get to the championship, just that the best teams probably get there more often compared to college basketball.

Seahawks are an exception, we all saw it thanks for pointing it out though.

Of course! Because the playoffs in the 4 major sports always insure the best team is in the championship game :noidea:

Again I didn't say this. You for some reason have things confused and think I'm saying those other leagues always get it right.

 

[ThomasTomasz]

All I want to add to the discussion here is that anything that happens should also reduce the number of bowl games. I am a Navy fan, but no way in hell should they be able to sign a contract that guarantees them a bowl game if they win "X" number of games.

No team should be able to do that. But there is a greater chance of things changing with the BCS/adding a playoff than eliminating bowl games. $$$$ talks.

 

[FirstTimer]

Whats wrong with the Seahawks getting in the NFL playoffs? That was just a once in a decade fluke, if you invited every conference champ in college football you'd have about 5 Seattle Seahawks every single year.

:lolwut:

yeah I'm sure there are 5 sub .500 conference champs each year who would get a home playoff game under this scenario.

WUT?!

 

[ZoneBlitz]

:lolwut:

yeah I'm sure there are 5 sub .500 conference champs each year who would get a home playoff game under this scenario.

WUT?!

Oh look the trolling tard is back. I never said they would host a playoff game, you fuckin idiot, i meant teams that arent deserving would be in the playoffs, like the Seahawks. Do you ever understand anything?

 

[FirstTimer]

Oh look the trolling tard is back. I never said they would host a playoff game, you fuckin idiot, i meant teams that arent deserving would be in the playoffs, like the Seahawks. Do you ever understand anything?

Well let's see the Seahawks last year were 7-9 and hosted a playoff game.

You said: "Whats wrong with the Seahawks getting in the NFL playoffs? That was just a once in a decade fluke, if you invited every conference champ in college football you'd have about 5 Seattle Seahawks every single year."

Also, were the Seahawks deserving or not? You asked "What was wrong" with having them there.


Fail.

 

[ZoneBlitz]

Well let's see the Seahawks last year were 7-9 and hosted a playoff game.

You said: "Whats wrong with the Seahawks getting in the NFL playoffs? That was just a once in a decade fluke, if you invited every conference champ in college football you'd have about 5 Seattle Seahawks every single year."


Fail.

Ill take that as a "no" to my question. Now that you're back why dont you tell us more about how 2011 Arkansas State should be in the playoffs because 2008 Utah beat Alabama...fuckin tard.

 

[FirstTimer]

Ill take that as a "no" to my question.

I understood what you said fine.

You're a moron.

Now that you're back why dont you tell us more about how 2011 Arkansas State should be in the playoffs because 2008 Utah beat Alabama...fuckin tard.

Have you figured out your fuck up yet?

Daddy's waiting son.

 

[ZoneBlitz]

Have you figured out your fuck up yet?

Daddy's waiting son.

I see your denial troll, i see it.

:seeyou: :seeyou: :seeyou: :seeyou:

 

[FirstTimer]

I see your denial troll, i see it.

:seeyou: :seeyou: :seeyou: :seeyou:

Not so much......

 

[shag773]

I didn't say the BCS was better than MM, I said it probably gets it closer on average if the end goal is to crown the best team as champion. For example I think it's much more likely that Oregon-Auburn were the two best teams last season compared to Butler-UConn.

If you want to crown the best team as champion, then why play a championship game at all? LSU is the best team in the country. Hand them the trophy.

I'm not following your logic.

I don't even know what you're talking about with the Phillies/Yankees/Miami/San Antonio etc. First we have no way of knowing for certain those teams were the best.

You can't be serious. You just posted that the formats for these four major sports ensure the best teams always advance. If that was the case, the Phillies and Yankees, which were the concensus top 2 MLB teams last yearand lost in the divisional series, would have been in the WS.

So do you still think the MLB playoff format ensures the best two teams meet in the World Series?

Second I never said the best teams always get to the championship, just that the best teams probably get there more often compared to college basketball.

So if you just want the best teams playing in the championship, then why change the BCS at all? Keep it as is..

Again I didn't say this. You for some reason have things confused and think I'm saying those other leagues always get it right.

MLB/NBA/NHL all play series which helps ensure best team advances.

What did I get confused? You didn't say this?

 

[FirstTimer]

Before I make this post I just need to thank my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ

5-7 games series>>>>>>82 and 162 game seasons.

:lolwut:

 

[Bear Pand]

You can't be serious. You just posted that the formats for these four major sports ensure the best teams always advance. If that was the case, the Phillies and Yankees, which were the concensus top 2 MLB teams last yearand lost in the divisional series, would have been in the WS.

So do you still think the MLB playoff format ensures the best two teams meet in the World Series?

No I didn't. I guess you're the type of person who only sees things in black or white which means there's no point in me trying to have this argument with you. I said out of the major sports College Basketball probably does the worst job. I didn't suggest or imply that any of the other sports always get it right. None of the playoff formats are perfect, none of them always get it right, I just think they do a better job than CBB. And it's pretty much impossible to design and run a system that always gets it right.

So if you just want the best teams playing in the championship, then why change the BCS at all? Keep it as is..

There's too many teams and not enough games in the regular season. And too often there's situations where there's a ton of doubt about who the #2 team is between a handful of teams. A lot of years there's 3-4 teams with legit claims, so it makes sense to expand it and start including them.

What did I get confused? You didn't say this?

I said helps ensure.

 

[shag773]

No I didn't. I guess you're the type of person who only sees things in black or white which means there's no point in me trying to have this argument with you. I said out of the major sports College Basketball probably does the worst job. I didn't suggest or imply that any of the other sports always get it right. None of the playoff formats are perfect, none of them always get it right, I just think they do a better job than CBB. And it's pretty much impossible to design and run a system that always gets it right.

See, there it is. What do you mean by "getting it right"? Why does "getting it right" have to be defined by having the two teams YOU think are the best playing for a championship? You know what would be a perfect system for that? The BCS. Under your definition, they get it right every year.

 

[DoubleDeuce]

See, there it is. What do you mean by "getting it right"? Why does "getting it right" have to be defined by having the two teams YOU think are the best playing for a championship? You know what would be a perfect system for that? The BCS. Under your definition, they get it right every year.

He has constantly said that there are too many teams to choose from to just go 1v2 always.

Like 04, when USC, Auburn, and Utah all finished Bowl Season undefeated. Or last year with TCU and Auburn. Or 09 with Alabama and BSU. Or 08 where only Utah was undefeated, but UF won the BCS. Or 07 where there were a multitude of 2 loss teams (like LSU, UGA, and USC). Or almost every season the BCS has been in existence.

 

[Bear Pand]

See, there it is. What do you mean by "getting it right"? Why does "getting it right" have to be defined by having the two teams YOU think are the best playing for a championship? You know what would be a perfect system for that? The BCS. Under your definition, they get it right every year.

No. IMO the best system for this would be for every team to play every other team in a series. A series long enough to account for injuries, hot/cold streaks, luck etc. Then crown whatever team had the best record as champion. Has 0 to do with who I personally think is best.

OFC this is unrealistic, would take forever and doesn't make sense to even try to attempt. Which is why I'm fine with having a reg season followed by a playoff.

 

[shag773]

No. IMO the best system for this would be for every team to play every other team in a series. A series long enough to account for injuries, hot/cold streaks, luck etc. Then crown whatever team had the best record as champion. Has 0 to do with who I personally think is best.

OFC this is unrealistic, would take forever and doesn't make sense to even try to attempt. Which is why I'm fine with having a reg season followed by a playoff.

I think any system that makes you earn a championship on the court or on the field is an acceptable way to crown a champion. Which makes MM better than the BCS in my opinion.

This is the thing I really don't get about a lot of you guys. How can you say you want a system in place that helps ensure we have the 2 best teams in the championship game but in the next breath shit all over the BCS. You are talking out of both sides of your mouth.

I am in favor of a system that gives every single team in 1A football a chance to win a championship. Just like they do in every other sports organization in the world. If you don't, than why call them 1A football teams to begin with?