TCU should get a real national championship game vs. Auburn/Oregon

[JeremyHight]

Wisconsin was #5. And please don't give me the "Stanford didn't win their conference" excuse, because neither did Wisconsin, really.

To make the regular season stay important, I always say that conference champions only should be allowed into any playoff. By taking in a small amount of teams that are only conference champions, you keep regular season games being very important, while still prioritizing having a hard schedule.

If you let in Stanford, you are basically saying that Stanford losing to Oregon shouldn't matter at all. So a matchup between two top 4 teams in the regular season has nearly zero impact on the championship other than seeding. All that says to me is that if 2 top 4 teams can play eachother and it would have ZERO impact, there is something deeply flawed in that system.

I say make every conference play a pure round robin (everyone plays everyone else) if they are at 11 teams or less and have them play a conference championship if they are at 12 teams or more. That way, it is a true playoff based on the regular season results.

 

[mgoblue2290]

So what if a team absolutely dominates regular season conference play and goes 12-0 but they lose in the conference championship to a team thats say, 8-4 or 9-3 or something. So that 12-1 team is being excluded from the playoff because they lost one game, while another team who lost 3 or 4 games but happened to play in a weaker division of that conference is making the playoff, that doesn't seem fair to me. I realize you're going to say well that 3/4 loss team was better that day, but what about the teams who beat them? Aren't they technically better? The conference championship argument leaves the possibility for an undeserving team or two to sneak in.

For the most part if you're in the top 8, you're probably winning your conference and are deserving of a playoff spot. A playoff should be about the best teams playing each other, not exclusively conference winners. You can't honestly believe UConn would be more deserving than Stanford or Ohio State.

8 teams, keep the BCS formula if thats the compromise we have to make to determine seeding. Like someone said in another thread, I'd much rather argue about whose more deserving to be the 8 seed, than who should play in the national championship game.

 

[JeremyHight]

So what if a team absolutely dominates regular season conference play and goes 12-0 but they lose in the conference championship to a team thats say, 8-4 or 9-3 or something. So that 12-1 team is being excluded from the playoff because they lost one game, while another team who lost 3 or 4 games but happened to play in a weaker division of that conference is making the playoff, that doesn't seem fair to me.

That wouldn't happen in my scenario (unless it was an absolutely fluky year in which the top ten of the final BCS was filled with 3-4 loss teams).

I said the top 4 conference champions. So this year, it would be Auburn, Oregon, TCU, and Wisconsin (although they'd be forced to play a round robin or conference championship in my setup). If Auburn had lost to South Carolina, South Carolina wouldn't have gotten in automatically since they aren't among the top 4 conference champions. Instead, it would have gone to Oklahoma.

And for those of us with short memory, look up the history on teams who didn't win their conference in title games. Nebraska and Oklahoma come to mind and both lost.

 

[NAHSTE]

Won't be an issue in years moving forward with a B10 CC.

I know, and it's about time. But this year, Wisconsin was #5, not #4, and didn't win their conference outright.

If you let in Stanford, you are basically saying that Stanford losing to Oregon shouldn't matter at all.

And if you let in Wisconsin, you are basically saying that losing to Michigan State shouldn't matter at all.

 

[Fox1994]

Oh, it's logical.

Follow the money.

I think they could garner more interest, and so more money, with a playoff.

 

[FirstTimer]

And if you let in Wisconsin, you are basically saying that losing to Michigan State shouldn't matter at all.

No he's not. Wiscy losing to Mich State could have mattered had the polling come out differently. The game obviously matters because had Wiscy not lost to Mich State they would have been ranked higher than #5 and more than likely would have been in the 2 v 3 match up rather than the 1 v 4. Also, in all fairness to JHights plan the issue isn't with his idea so much as it was/is with the B10 not have a CCG. Starting next season that's not an issue so harping on the Wisconsin situation is kind of missing the point.

 

[PP]

I am fine with a 4 team playoff.. 8 is too many for me. 6 might work too where the top 2 teams in the standings get 1st round byes.

I think a 4 team playoff pretty much kills off most of the issues with the BCS anyways but I guess people will still find a way to argue that some team with 2 losses ranked 7th in the country should be the NC.

 

[Rayman]

I think they could garner more interest, and so more money, with a playoff.

More money for everyone involved, yes.

But the way the system works now, the vast (and that's an understatement) majority of the money being made goes only to certain people. I'll let you guess who they are.

Again, follow the money.

 

[JeremyHight]

And think about this for next season. The following conferences will have CCGs or play a pure round robin (everyone plays everyone else)...

ACC
SEC
Big Ten
MWC (I believe)
Big East
Big XII
Sun Belt (I believe)
Conference USA
WAC

So all of those conferences will have CLEAR conference champions, no split championships like the Big Ten has been handing out. As such, you will easily be able to see the top 4 conference champions and quickly seed them for a playoff.

* Why not let in teams who didn't win their conference? They can be good, too!

They most certainly can be solid teams, no one can doubt that. But it also makes their play in the regular season matter less. This year, Stanford lost to Oregon by 21 points. If they were let in, that 21 point loss in their only game against an opponent ranked in the top 25 wouldn't matter at all. They could have lost by 5 touchdowns, it wouldn't have mattered since they still get in the playoff. When 2 teams ranked in the top 4 play each other and the impact on the championship is absolutely nothing, then there is a clear problem.

* Why not let in 8, 16, 32, or more teams? March Madness is fun to watch!

The more teams you let in, the less the regular season matters and the less likely you will see big time matchups. Ohio State and Stanford played 1 ranked team each all year and lost that game. Why would they schedule anyone good out of conference if they can play horrible teams at home (with large paydays), lose 1-2 games in conference, and still get in the playoff?

Not only that, but the more you start adding teams, the less and less regular season games matter. Ohio State gets a pass despite losing their only game against a ranked opponent. Stanford gets in despite not beating a single ranked team. Arkansas couldn't even win its division, but would get in. Why even play a regular season if teams are able to throw out 2+ games every year that they lose?

* But the BCS formula is flawed, why would anyone use it for a playoff?

It is flawed, definitely. I would replace the Coaches' Poll with the AP Poll and allow computer rankings to use whatever formula they like. Currently, having coaches with obvious bias influence the polls is ridiculous. Also, forcing computer rankings to change their formula is also stupid if you want the most accurate rankings from them. I would use 40% AP, 40% Harris, and 20% Computers in the new system.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

I'm always amused by this "but, but, we have to keep the regular season important!" argument.

As i've proven time and time again, an 8 team playoff makes MORE regular season games MATTER, not LESS.

Due to the current setup, college football is the sport, with BY FAR, the highest percentage of meaningless games of any major sport. And it isnt even close.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

It's also the only sport where the entire postseason is meaningless, except for one game.

COLLEGE FOOTBALL, WHERE EVERY GAME MATTERS (but not really, the majority of them don't matter at all) !!!1111!!!11!!!!

 

[JeremyHight]

I'm always amused by this "but, but, we have to keep the regular season important!" argument.

As i've proven time and time again, an 8 team playoff makes MORE regular season games MATTER, not LESS.

Due to the current setup, college football is the sport, with BY FAR, the highest percentage of meaningless games of any major sport. And it isnt even close.

Tell me again how an 8 team playoff would make the Ohio State/Wisconsin game and Stanford/Oregon game matter more?

As it stands right now in our currently flawed system, both had HUGE implications on the National Title game and decided who won 2 different conferences.

With an 8 team playoff, they determined... seeding, since all teams involved are going to the playoffs anyways. Also, since both losing teams involved lost by 2+ scores, they get rewarded by getting a chance at the title.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

Tell me again how an 8 team playoff would make the Ohio State/Wisconsin game and Stanford/Oregon game matter more?

Tell me again how TCU playing an entire schedule of meaningless games is a good thing?

Its impossible to answer your question. I cant tell you what kind of meaning those games would have under a playoff unless we knew the format. League champions only? Obviously just as meaningful. At larges? Still meaningful, and as a bonus, a shitload of other games that eneded up meaning nothing would have had tons of importance. More meaningful games = a better product.

I will sacrafice the level of of how meaningful a handful of games are, for more meaningful games and a fair playoff. Anyone with common sense would take that trade, unless of course your favorite team is part of THE CARTEL and benefits from this garbage system. Call it like it is.

 

[NAHSTE]

My team has benefited twice from this garbage system, and I still hate it. I did a radio show on campus the day after we got invited to the 2007 BCS CG blasting how stupid the system is.

It sucks balls, and even if it does happen to benefit your school, it still sucks balls.

 

[JeremyHight]

Tell me again how TCU playing an entire schedule of meaningless games is a good thing?

Its impossible to answer your question. I cant tell you what kind of meaning those games would have under a playoff unless we knew the format. League champions only? Obviously just as meaningful. At larges? Still meaningful, and as a bonus, a shitload of other games that eneded up meaning nothing would have had tons of importance. More meaningful games = a better product.

I will sacrafice the level of of how meaningful a handful of games are, for more meaningful games and a fair playoff. Anyone with common sense would take that trade, unless of course your favorite team is part of THE CARTEL and benefits from this garbage system. Call it like it is.

You are missing my point entirely. I want a playoff, but I don't want the playoff at the cost of hurting the season. You say you want meaningful games, but you have to remember, it isn't just about meaningful wins, it is also about meaningful losses.

Once you start taking in too many teams (ie. 8+), you start to take away the meaning of past games. All of a sudden, the Stanford/Oregon game doesn't matter because both teams got in regardless of the fact that Stanford couldn't even win it's conference. Now, the Wisconsin/Ohio State game is meaningless because both teams got in anyways. Now, the fact that Arkansas lost 2 games and couldn't even win their division doesn't matter, they still get in.

That isn't making games meaningful, that is making losses meaningless, which means the game was pointless.

Again, I'm all for a playoff, but a playoff that makes big time games into meaningless seeding exhibitions isn't a good format.

 

[NAHSTE]

You are missing my point entirely. I want a playoff, but I don't want the playoff at the cost of hurting the season.

Logic tells me that there is no way this would happen. More at stake = more intense regular season.

Now, the Wisconsin/Ohio State game is meaningless because both teams got in anyways.

That game already was meaningless, because neither team is playing for shit but sponsorship money.

Now, the fact that Arkansas lost 2 games and couldn't even win their division doesn't matter, they still get in.

They would only get in because they beat LSU in the last game of the season in a game that would suddenly matter more.

Again, I'm all for a playoff, but a playoff that makes big time games into meaningless seeding exhibitions isn't a good format.

Meaningless exhibitions is the definition of what we have now. I'd rather let in a few too many teams than leave out even one undefeated team like TCU.

I'm down for a 4-team, works for me ... but I'm willing to compromise and go to 8. I understand it's a slippery slope though, and would be very wary of a 16-team model.

I don't care if it's 4 or 8, but I refuse to believe a playoff in any form would diminish the regular season.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

You are missing my point entirely. I want a playoff, but I don't want the playoff at the cost of hurting the season. You say you want meaningful games, but you have to remember, it isn't just about meaningful wins, it is also about meaningful losses.

Once you start taking in too many teams (ie. 8+), you start to take away the meaning of past games. All of a sudden, the Stanford/Oregon game doesn't matter because both teams got in regardless of the fact that Stanford couldn't even win it's conference. Now, the Wisconsin/Ohio State game is meaningless because both teams got in anyways. Now, the fact that Arkansas lost 2 games and couldn't even win their division doesn't matter, they still get in.

That isn't making games meaningful, that is making losses meaningless, which means the game was pointless.

Again, I'm all for a playoff, but a playoff that makes big time games into meaningless seeding exhibitions isn't a good format.

You are missing my point.

I would sacrifice the level of importance of a few games, to up the importance of dozens of others.

All of those games you mentioned would still be important with a playoff. The difference, is you would also have a bunch of other games that would suddenly be meaningful also, that arent otherwise.

And without knowing the playoff format or selection process, you cant say those games would have just been for seeding. You dont know that.

And by the way, if you really want to get technical here, those games you mentioned, besides Oregon/Satnford, ended up meaning NOTHING anyway - like 99% of the college schedule ends up every year. A bunch of hype for nothing. Two one loss SEC teams playing for what? Nothing, as long as you have two undefeated teams elsewhere. It's just a bunch of hillbillies waiting for bragging rights. TCU played 12 meanigless games. Boise has NEVER played a meanigful game. It's a joke.

And a playoff solves it all.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

I would like to see wild Saturdays in November where there are a dozen or more games with title implications, not drummed up hype fests for meaningless league titles, waiting around for the one or two games that really mean something.

I dont care who wins the Pac 10 or the Big 12 if there is no national title at stake. I'm not making money off of BCS bowls, neither are any of us, so why does it matter? I cant invest my time in these games, when ultimately, they have no point.

Everyone went crazy when Boise lost, but did it really matter? Nope. If it cost them a playoff spot, now THAT would would meant something.

TCU beats Wisconsin. Unless you are a TCU fan, who gives a shit?

No sport should have these so-called important games, where ultimately, the outcome doesnt matter. Welcome to major college football, where protecting the supposed importance of some random Big 10 game in October matters more than the postseason. Huh?

 

[SuperKevin]

When Maryland makes it into the top 8 I'll care. Until then, I'm happy with being champs of the Military and Gator Bowls of the world

 

[Deviant]

Here's what I don't get about the BCS:

What's the purpose of the Rose, Orange, Fiesta, and Sugar Bowls? Outside of gaining more exposure, it's still just as meaningless as the Meineke Care Bowl because you're not competing for the National Championship. The other BCS games are just bowl games with names.

Here's what the BCS should do:

Keep the original four bowls, but add in two more. Call it the Legend Bowl and the Leader Bowl. Cereal Bowl and Toliet Bowl. I don't care if it was called the Wipe Your Ass With Charmin Bowl, just put in two more.

I'm fine with auto-bids as long as they are given to the six best conference winner, not the six major conferences. This way, UConn, who isn't even in the Top 25 for the BCS, doesn't leap frog over teams like TCU, Boise, or Nevada who are ranked and have superior seasons. Let's be honest... the Big East was ass this year.

Now, the games of the "minor" conferences matter, because "every game [should] matter". Tiebreakers in divisions are broken by whoever has the higher BCS ranking.

So, this year, the winners would be:

#1 Auburn (SEC)
#2 Oregon (Pac-10)
#3 TCU (MWC)
#5 Wisconsin (Big Ten)
#7 Oklahoma (Big XII)
#10 Boise State (WAC)

Leave two spaces for the next two best teams to get in. The only auto-qualifier that should be allowed is if there is a conference champion in the Top 10. However, the only exception to his would be if a Top 5 team is still not in. They receive an At-Large and priority [essentially, an expansion of the 3-4 rule].

This allows for regular season games to mean much, much more because now anyone can have a shot at that National Championship. Teams like Stanford and LSU and OSU who are 1-loss teams have a fairer shot at getting in and their games matter even more because now they know "Hey, we're not just competing for the Rose Bowl or let's just settle for the Fiesta Bowl. We have National Championships on the line every game if we continue playing at a high level." Now, every game actually does mean something and not just a meaningless.

The top two remaining teams this year would be:

#7 Stanford [4]
#8 Ohio State [6]

Then, seed the teams by their BCS rankings:

Toilet Bowl: [1] #1 Auburn vs. [8] #10 Boise State
Soup Bowl: [4] #4 Stanford vs. [5] #5 Wisconsin
- - - - - - - - - -
Cereal Bowl: [2] #2 Oregon vs. [7] #7 Oklahoma
Salad Bowl: [3] #3 TCU vs. [6] #6 Ohio State



Next Round:

Pot Bowl: Toliet vs. Soup
- - - - - - - - - -
Quiz Bowl: Cereal vs. Salad



National Championship: Pot vs. Quiz

Easy. Now you can have your BCS and have the games in them actually mean something. The BCS is less stupid and keeps the entire season competitive and allows for the best teams to compete for the title and not meaningless games.

If you're interested, last year would have looked like this:

#1 Alabama (SEC)
#2 Texas (Big 12)
#3 Cincinnati (Big East)
#4 TCU (MWC)
#6 Boise State (WAC)
#7 Oregon (Pac-10)
- - - - - Wildcards - - - - -
#5 Florida [At-Large]
#8 Ohio State [AQ because Top 10 + Conference Championship]




Toilet Bowl: [1] #1 Alabama vs. [8] #8 Ohio State
Soup Bowl: [4] #4 TCU vs. [5] #5 Florida
- - - - - - - - - -
Cereal Bowl: [2] #2 Texas vs. [7] #7 Oregon
Salad Bowl: [3] #3 Cincinnati vs. [6] #6 Boise State