For all the BCS haters out there..

[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.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

FT, do you propose eliminating non conference games? Otherwise, the "champion or bust" method essentially means everyone would be playing 4 exhibition games.

That's retarded, but then again, 90% of the cfb games under the BCS system are essentially exhibition games anyway. So what really changes?

 

[Sportsbuck]

Uh... just gonna toss this out there in the midst of all this... but I hate the divisional set up in CFB as it relates to conference championship games.

Let the best two teams play... none of this Auburn v South Carolina shit, let Auburn and LSU duke it out.

 

[NAHSTE]

Uh... just gonna toss this out there in the midst of all this... but I hate the divisional set up in CFB as it relates to conference championship games.

Let the best two teams play... none of this Auburn v South Carolina shit, let Auburn and LSU duke it out.

Yeah, this is essentially my problem with FT's argument. If you don't want LSU to have a title shot, so be it, I have stated several times that we do not deserve to be in the discussion at the moment.

However, under FT's proposed model, South Carolina, the 4th or 5th best team in the SEC this year, would get a playoff berth over an 11-1 LSU, who would essentially be tied for the conference's best record.

Never mind that South Carolina would have finished in 4th place in the Wast this season ...

If we institute a "only conference champs" rule, then do away with the Conference Championship games, and good luck with that.

 

[FirstTimer]

FT, do you propose eliminating non conference games? Otherwise, the "champion or bust" method essentially means everyone would be playing 4 exhibition games.

I guess I don't "propose" it so much as non conference games would essentially be rendered meaningless under my proposed idea so they would most likely fade away naturally. It's not a demand or pre-req for the system but a likely by-product.


You'd likely see some teams play a few tune up games against FCS schools or college football may even adopt a preseason as well. Which I know some coaches have supported in recent years(Charlie Weis comes to mind)

For my plan to work you would have no independents(no provisions for Notre Dame..and that's fine with me. If you want to be in the NC picture...join a conference.) and you'd see teams play a few tune up games then jump right into conference play. A lot of things would have to change in order for it to happen.


This would make sense and also prevent the college season from becoming a 17 game season like some playoffs using the current conference/scheduling layout would entail. You would basically be looking at teams playing a 5-6 game conference schedule if the divisions are split and a lareger one if they aren't. If the conference results are all that matter than Ohio State playing Miami in September serves no real purpose.

 

[FirstTimer]

Yeah, this is essentially my problem with FT's argument. If you don't want LSU to have a title shot, so be it, I have stated several times that we do not deserve to be in the discussion at the moment.

However, under FT's proposed model, South Carolina, the 4th or 5th best team in the SEC this year, would get a playoff berth over an 11-1 LSU, who would essentially be tied for the conference's best record.

Never mind that South Carolina would have finished in 4th place in the Wast this season ...

If we institute a "only conference champs" rule, then do away with the Conference Championship games, and good luck with that.

Ok. Fine. Get rid of the divisions for all I care. Under my proposal non-conference games likely go away and that opens more spots for conference matchups so each team could play eachother.

My basic premise is let each conference determine their conference champion how they want with on the field results and then plug them into the playoff. My overall goal is objective results leading to the NC. Nothing else. I'm not locked into the divisions remaining the same or even existing at all.

 

[NAHSTE]

I guess I don't "propose" it so much as non conference games would essentially be rendered meaningless under my proposed idea so they would most likely fade away naturally.


You'd likely see some teams play a few tune up games against FCS schools or college football may even adopt a preseason as well. Which I know some coaches have supported in recent years(Charlie Weis comes to mind)

For my plan to work you would have no independents(no provisions for Notre Dame..and that's fine with me. If you want to be in the NC picture...join a conference.) and you'd see teams play a few tune up games then jump right into conference play. A lot of things would have to change in order for it to happen.


This would make sense and also prevent the college season from becoming a 17 game season like some playoffs using the current conference/scheduling layout would entail. You would basically be looking at teams playing a 5-6 game conference schedule if the divisions are split and a lareger one if they aren't. If the conference results are all that matter than Ohio State playing Miami in September serves no real purpose.

Again, good luck with all this happening. We're talking about a sport which unilaterally decided to add a 12th game to the regular season, just so the big boys could stage another home game and add revenue.

Good luck with these same greedy schools now agreeing to slash revenues and cut their guaranteed money-making non-conference games.

Also, you still have non-conference match-ups like Florida-FSU and Georgia-GT that need to be played every year.

Bottom line, is the conferences are not created equally so you cannot just say that every single one deserves an auto-bid. Just take the top 8 teams, whether it's by the BCS rankings, or a selection committee, and leave it at that.

The current system will not change drastically enough to support such a radical model. Best case scenario is we implement the simplest model which still guarantees a true champion.

That is the 8-team bracket, with no auto-bids for any conference. This keeps a semblance of the old system, lets conferences continue to stage their championship games and their dog and pony regular season games against cupcakes, and it also ensures that the mid-majors will not get left out of the cold.

 

[FirstTimer]

Again, good luck with all this happening.

Didn't say it would be easy.

Also, you still have non-conference match-ups like Florida-FSU and Georgia-GT that need to be played every year.

They don't "need" to be played. People want them played because of the tradition. If tradition drove everything in the NCAA we wouldn't have the BCS to begin with.

Bottom line, is the conferences are not created equally

Tell that to the NCAA basketball tournament.

so you cannot just say that every single one deserves an auto-bid. Just take the top 8 teams, whether it's by the BCS rankings, or a selection committee, and leave it at that.

Have fun with that half assed broken ass system. Just another non-sensical band aid on a bullet wound.

At this point let's just either stop with all the half cocked ideas and go back to the way it was before the BCS or make some real strides.

The current system

I think the entire point is "fuck the current system because it sucks".

It not wanting to change or being adaptable isn't the point. The point is that it needs to go away.

 

[NAHSTE]

Didn't say it would be easy.They don't "need" to be played. People want them played because of the tradition. If tradition drove everything in the NCAA we wouldn't have the BCS to begin with.

So, since we kind of messed with tradition, let's just throw it ALL out the window? And we all know money drives everything in the NCAA, which means they would never reduce the amount of non-conference games.

Tell that to the NCAA basketball tournament.

You mean the same tournament that lets non-conference winners compete as at-large bids?

At this point let's just either stop with all the half cocked ideas and go back to the way it was before the BCS or make some real strides.

Do you mind telling me how a simple 8-team bracket is a half-cocked idea? It's the exact same thing as the NCAA basketball tournament, you just have it at a smaller scale. You could even have a selection committee if you must do away with the BCS poll, I don't give a shit. I just want eight teams to play in a tournament setting at the end of the year.

I think the entire point is "fuck the current system because it sucks".

No shit ... Hence, my advocating a playoff.

 

[FirstTimer]

So, since we kind of messed with tradition, let's just throw it ALL out the window? And we all know money drives everything in the NCAA, which means they would never reduce the amount of non-conference games.

Money NCAA would make on legit playoff system>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Money NCAA makes on Georgia playing Gtech in a game 99% of the country doesn't even realize is being played or gives a flying fuck about.

You mean the same tournament that lets non-conference winners compete as at-large bids?

bama: x 2.

1. Read my earlier post that mentions my feelings on at larges in the NCAA basketball tourny.

2. It's also the same tournament that gives EVERY conference tounry champ an automatic bid(treating them as equals)...which is what I was referencing here.

Do you mind telling me how a simple 8-team bracket is a half-cocked idea?

Because it doesn't fix the issue.

People said the polls sucked/were broke so they invented the BCS...which still used the polls.

People are saying the BCS sucks so they want to make a playoff...which still uses the BCS.

It's a clusterfuck of using two old "broken" systems and people expecting it not to be broken.

It's a half cocked half assed idea that wants to somehow use what people have hated about the NC picture for the last 20 years to make a new NC picture. Either blow up the system entirely or go back to the system that had the tradition.

No shit ... Hence, my advocating a playoff.

That in your idea would use the two main determining factors of the past two "failed" systems as the tools to choose the team..........

 

[NAHSTE]

That in your idea would use the two main determining factors of the past two "failed" systems as the tools to choose the team..........

I don't care how you choose the teams, I really don't, just as long as there are 8 teams playing in a tournament, I'm good.

 

[FirstTimer]

I don't care how you choose the teams, I really don't, just as long as there are 8 teams playing in a tournament, I'm good.

Why 8? Seems like an arbitrary number to stop at...?

 

[bucky]

Why 8? Seems like an arbitrary number to stop at...?

I'm all for a playoffs.

How about a 2 team playoff and have the polls determine the two teams?

Seriously, why stop at 8 teams? How many do you want? How many extra games do you want college kids to play? When there is a significant chance of getting hurt and ruining draft position (may not be AS important with a rookie cap).

This isn't basketball where you can play back to back games with little fear of injury.

 

[NAHSTE]

Why 8? Seems like an arbitrary number to stop at...?

Some years, 4 would be too few, and every year, 16 would be too many.

I'm for 8, because I think it'd be A. realistic within the current system and B. would still maintain the "every week is important" mantra that CFB fans so often trumpet.

 

[Bear Pand]

4 would be better than 8 IMO but a 4 team playoff system would never be implemented.

8 is a good number to stop at. No teams get byes, and 16 teams is way too many. You go with 16 and start putting in teams that finished third, maybe 4th in their conference. That's going too far.

 

[NAHSTE]

Ok. Fine. Get rid of the divisions for all I care. Under my proposal non-conference games likely go away and that opens more spots for conference matchups so each team could play eachother.

My basic premise is let each conference determine their conference champion how they want with on the field results and then plug them into the playoff. My overall goal is objective results leading to the NC. Nothing else. I'm not locked into the divisions remaining the same or even existing at all.

I just saw this part, can't say I disagree, if you could actually convince the conferences to drop their championship games. Those things are huge money-makers for some conferences (read: the SEC) and it would be very hard to get them to distance themselves from that.

But if every conference team had to play every conference team, and then we settled on taking only the champs of each conference, I'd be fine with it.

So long as there's not any bullshit like what we have with the Big Ten some years, where the top two teams haven't played.