For all the BCS haters out there..

[EmpireWF]

Anyone who reads that article and still supports the BCS is a raging lunatic.

 

[ram29jackson]

I don't like Dan Wetzel because every year he pimps his playoff system idea which IMO is worse than what we have now.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=dw-playoff112707

It's a 16 team field where every conference champ makes it, with 5 at large teams. I'm sorry but that's fucking terrible and I hope if/when a playoff system is implemented it's nothing like that. Let's face it, no one cares who wins the Sun Belt / MAC / CUSA. Putting those teams in the mix just makes for unnecessary games where players on legitimately good teams can possibly get injured. I'd love to see Newton go down with a knee injury in a playoff matchup against FIU.

a 1A conference is a 1A conference- or whatever stupid name you give them.
if you can beat them, you go do it. Dont whine about the talent level

 

[Hasselbeck]

I wish they'd do this. I hate the charade that every team has a shot, when clearly it's "Every BCS team or non-BCS team that was lucky enough to start with a high enough preseason ranking."

Agreed. In fact I don't even watch the NCAA basketball tournament until the Elite 8 starts.. because they're the only teams deserving to be there and with a shot to win it all.

What a load of bullshit.

Yeah Oregon would likely get by Troy.. just like Duke gets by Western Texas State in the 1/16 matchup every year. Still doesn't mean it's a bad system. It's fair.. and hell, maybe these low level conferences would actually start to get legit talent since players would go "I have a shot to win down in the Mountain West, WAC, Conf. USA, etc etc"

I don't see what's so bad about a 16 team playoff where every conference champ gets in plus 5 at large opponents.

 

[mgoblue2290]

I'd like 8 teams. Make up one poll of coaches and writers and the top 8 in that make it.

 

[Bear Pand]

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.

16 teams is way too many, especially if you're going to fill 3-4 of the spots with deadweight teams that have 0 chance of actually winning.

And lol at players going down to the Conference USA because they'd have a legit shot at winning. This doesn't happen in college basketball. It also doesn't happen in football at poor programs in BCS conferences. Ask me how I know.

 

[Hasselbeck]

I'd like 8 teams. Make up one poll of coaches and writers and the top 8 in that make it.

I think 8 is great too. Really I would take drawing 8 teams out of a giant hat over the BCS.

My "dream" playoff is 16 teams.. with the automatic qualifying conferences + the Mountain West getting an automatic bid into the postseason. The other 9 spots would be at large berths and if a WAC team (Boise State) or Conference USA, Sun Belt, etc happened to set the world on fire that year they'd get an at-large berth anyway.

Some may say 16 is too much, I disagree, but 8 should be the minimum. I think 4 is too few.. and this season you'd have a major clusterfuck filling 4 slots.

 

[NAHSTE]

I think 8 is great too. Really I would take drawing 8 teams out of a giant hat over the BCS.

My "dream" playoff is 16 teams.. with the automatic qualifying conferences + the Mountain West getting an automatic bid into the postseason. The other 9 spots would be at large berths and if a WAC team (Boise State) or Conference USA, Sun Belt, etc happened to set the world on fire that year they'd get an at-large berth anyway.

Some may say 16 is too much, I disagree, but 8 should be the minimum. I think 4 is too few.. and this season you'd have a major clusterfuck filling 4 slots.

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.

 

[FirstTimer]

With a provision for Notre Dame too? Otherwise, you've got to be the worst homer ever.

My idea would basically require/most likely mean college football would change pretty drastically to work.

I can't believe after all this time you still think that's the best idea..

It's the most fair and objective way. For what it's worth I hate at-large teams in the NCAA basketball tourney as well. Unless there is an objective way to choose every team then they shouldn't be in. This "at-large" bullshit is just that. If you can't even win your own conference there is no way in hell you deserve to have a shot at the NC.

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.

Is my system "perfect"? I don't know. But it's simple, easy, objective, fair, and cut and dried.

I'd rather go back to the old bowl system than use the BCS method. Both are ridiculous and fail to deliver a real champion. At least the old way had tradition.

I agree with this 1000%

If the Sun Belt or whoever else cant be invited to the party, then stop pretending they are playing on the same level. Let the Big 6 legues split from the others and be done with it. Otherwise, those teams deserve to be included.

Thanks

 

[mgoblue2290]

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 think this is a pretty solid approach that somewhat benefits everyone. The BCS still gets to use their system and be involved in the post-season while the fans get a playoff. Both sides will have to concede in some places and this works out pretty well for me. As long as teams like TCU and Boise are getting a fair shot at the title, then I'm happy. Just winning the Mac or the Sun Belt does not mean you have earned the right to play for the national championship.

I don't like Wetzel's 16 team idea at all though. Plus an extra 4 games is a little much to win the title. If conference championship games stick around, thats potentially a 17 game season for the two teams in the title. They'd likely be exhausted and wouldn't be putting their best product on the field. Do it like the NFL with a bye week before the NC game. If it is layed out correctly, the championship game could still be around the same time it is now.

 

[Bear Pand]

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.

 

[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...:shifty: