Christian Forums

All right, I'll christen the board.

The BCS was designed to pit number one against number two and number two, and end the arguments about who the national champion is.  This year, we've ended up with a mess.  A shared national championship between USC and the Oklahoma-LSU winner (my guess:  Oklahoma).  

And some people's solution is to suggest we need one more game after the BCS is over, pitting those 1 and 2 teams against each other.  Huh?

We need a playoff!  16-team, preferably!

Is this silly or what?

Ya!

16 team playoff... means 5 playoff games to win it all, right?

No way College Prezes will give up a single regular season home game and no way the super conferences will give up their cash-cow championship games.

But dare to dream, Marc!  Dare to dream!

What I don't like about the bowl season is a up and coming conference like the MAC only gets two bowls and Conference USA (one of the worst) gets five.

marc,

Ditto! I wish we could have a playoff system. If anything, just the top ten. We could even have it AFTER the bowl games. That way colleges would get their $$ and we could still have an outright champion.

The BCS is messed up in many ways. I think the idea of not counting the amount by which a team wins is way off. No one can tell me that a 3 point victory says as much about a team as a 21-point victory.

Maybe they should only count the amount by which a team wins until 21 in the BCS equation. That way, teams are not encouraged to run up scores.

:swordfight:

Lee
Roll Tide!

I only count four needed games

Sweet 16 (8 games)

Round of 8 (4 games)

Semi-finals (2 games)

Championship (1 game)

This could be done using the current bowl system, with the championship alternating between the four BCS.  One of these, though would be dropped down to the round of 8 every year (which would be a tough thing for the Rose Bowl to swallow when the lot fell to them--maybe the assurance of the top-ranked remaining team playing in this bowl would help).

The other three Quarter-final games would be given to the Cotton, Peach and Gator bowls.  That leaves plenty of current bowls to fight for the remaining eight spots. The bowls that don't make the cut can still go on, inviting the best-of-the rest and providing a little extra holiday football.

If these playoffs were started the first weekend in December, the timing would be about right for a New Year's Day championship.

This would, btw, eliminate the rustiness often caused by the month-long layoff between the regular season and the bowls.

Also, inviting 16 teams would leave room for that very good team from a lesser conference gets it's shot at the big boys and an even chance to win it all.

NCAA-II has had a 16-team playoff for quite a while, so it is possible.

Okay, so it only takes four games.  My bad.

But lets say you only took 16 teams by your plan.  Once you give all your conferences automatic bids, where does that leave the super-conferences?  Texas would have been in the same situation with a 16-team playoff system because K State would get an automatic bid for winning the Big-12 and OU would have gotten a second.  That would have put the (then) #5 team in the country either on the bubble or on the outs.  And certainly the second place teams in the smaller conferences would be cut out.  The point is that every system has its problems, even the 64-Team NCAA basketball tourney has its shortcomings.

What you say is totally possible.  But possible is one thing, getting College Prezes to come along is another.  

But like I said--dare to dream!  This world needs dreamers like you, buddy!

Division 1-AA also has a playoff.

Next year in the BCS, there will probably be a stipulation stating that in order to win the national championship, you must also win your own conference (Oklahoma).

I was thinking I-AA when I typed NCAA-II :doh: I guess Division II has a playoff too, though.

As to the makeup of the field, I would say 11 bids to the 11 1-A conference champions with five runner-up spots decided by either a committee or a bcs-type formula. If you want to open up more at-large spots, ban the ACC.   :saint:   They deserve it.

No system will make everyone happy, but this would certainly give more teams a shot--and produce a truer national champion--than our current system.

I think they ought to pitch the whole thing and go back to conference bowl alignments like they used to do.  

The only people who would really benefit from a play-off are the television networks who would sell more ad time.

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (marc @ Jan. 04 2004,11:25)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]The BCS was designed to pit number one against number two and number two, and end the arguments about who the national champion is.  [/quote]
No the BCS was designed to maximize revenue for the six conferences that are members of that association. Pitting #1 & #2 is a marketing ploy to further that goal.

Far as I'm concerned we either go with BOG's idea reinstating the old system that did not pretend to present a 1-2 match or we go to a 16 team playoff field with auto bids for each of the 11 conference champions.

If you give guarantees to all 11 champions, you are almost guranteeing a higly ranked also-ran is left out for an unranked conference champion.  On the other hand, how bad do we really want to see that first round game pitting USC [presumably the 1st seed] against N Texas [automatic bid - Sun Belt Conf champion]?  This year, such a system would have had Ohio State, Iowa, Texas, Oklahoma, Washington St., Georgia, and Tennessee, fighting for 5 at large bids.

My solution: there are only 8 automatice bids determined based on the 8 highest ranked conferences from the previous year. Conference rankings would be based on some kind of points system based on the final rankings for the previous year.  E.g. No.1 gets 25 points for its conference, No 25 gets one.  The 8 conferences with the highest point totals get guaranteed bids.  My guess is that after Miami and Va Tech bolt the Big East, that the Big 10, Big 12, SEC, ACC and PAC 10 would be locks, year in and year out.  The other 6 conferences would float in and out over the years.  This year, for example, [based on the final AP Poll] the 8 guarantees would got to, in order: Big 10, SEC, Big 12, PAC 10, ACC, Big East, MAC, and WAC.

This would leave 8 at-large bids which should be plenty to guarantee a top 10 also ran a bid plus room for an up and coming team from a non-guaranteed conf, plus a major independent [lets not forget Notre Dame].

It isn't perfect, but it's close.

If you have only 16 SOMEONE is going to be left out that is deserving no matter what criteria you use.

In basketball NO 16 seed has EVER won an NCAA tournament game, yet we invite four 16 seeds (automatically) every year.

15 seeds shouldn't win yet there have been a number of 15 seeds to win first round games.

Let's look at the idea of taking the top 8 conferences based on prior year ranking and giving them an auto bid. This year the auto bids (ranking is final regular season coaches poll first AP second) would have gone to:

Kansas State - Big 12 #10, #8
USC - Pac-10 #1, #1
LSU - SEC  #2, #2
Florida State - ACC #8, #9
Michigan - Big 10 #4, #4
Miami (FL) - Big East #9, #10
Utah - MWC #25, #25
Southern Miss - Conference-USA unranked, unranked

Those left out would have been:
Miami (OH) - MAC #15, #14
Boise State - WAC #16, #18
North Texas - Sun Belt unranked

Now you round out the selection field with 8 at-large. Most likely the at-large pool would have been:
Oklahoma #3, #3
Texas #5 #5
Tennessee #7 #6
Ohio State #6 #7
Georgia #11 #11
Purdue #13 #12
Iowa #12 #13
Washington State #14 #15

Washington State after finishing #2 in Pac-10 ties WAC champion Boise State in the polls. The old strength of schedule argument knocks out Boise even though they are tied in the rankings which means that voters hopefully taking everything into account deemed them equal.

So now what you have is a field of 16 that omits three conference champions. One member of the field is unranked. Of those three omitted, one is unranked, one is rated higher than two members of the field that came in auto, one is rated higher than two members of the field that came in auto and is tied with one that is in at-large.

Now if all conferences get an automatic bid who is left out?
Purdue #13 #12 (tied for second in the Big 10)
Iowa #12 #13 (tied for fourth in the Big 10)
Washington State #14 #15 (second in Pac-10)

Then of course there is the model employed by the NCAA for basketball. Auto bids into the field of 64 are capped at 30. Right now there are 31 conferences so the two lowest rated conference champions have to play-in.

Imposing a similar cap on the playoff field at say 9 that means of the 11 automatic qualifiers, six have to play their way in with a single game.

The bottom six auto qualifers would be:
North Texas
Southern Miss
Utah
Boise State
Miami (OH)
Miami (FL)

No one would stand for a highly ranked team like the 'Canes having to play-in so you instead make it the bottom six from among auto bids and at-large. That gives you:
North Texas
Southern Miss
Utah
Boise State
Miami (OH)
Washington State

Instead of a 16 field you now have a 19 team field.
By comparison Division III has something on the order of 26 or 28 team field.

If you don't use play-ins and just go with conference champs and 5 at-large, all you have lost is:
Purdue #13 #12
Iowa #12 #13
Washington State #14 #15

Washington State was a bubble team any way that was going to be sweating the selection between them and Boise State.

Ark,

My head hurt bad enough after I dreamed up my system.

To me, the BCS Champion is just as credible as an Ice Dancing pair champion. Both are just the end result of a panel of judges modified by a few mandatory point modifications.

Well, except that Ice Dancing actually manages to have all of the best teams compete against each other, and they almost never have a split championship (and if they do split, at least it was in head-to-head competition).

In most proposals for a Division 1 football playoff, actually winning your conference is seen as a prerequisite for advancing (unless at-large bids are included). This is in contrast to the BCS, which put a non-conference-champion in the final "National Championship" game! In which other sport can you lose the "playoff" game (or not even qualify for it), and still advance?

I personally would feel more comfortable with a playoff system that pulled in eight or sixteen teams mostly through earned-on-the-field automatic bids for conference winners, and have an argument over whether the ninth or seventeenth team was playoff-worthy, than have an unresolved argument over who the #1 team was!

Skip

Well college football has done OK without crowning a real champion but if there is going to be a playoff it needs to be like other NCAA competition and give conference champions their shot whether they are capable of staying on the field with the best teams or not.

I don't know about the other parts of the country, but the people here in Oklahoma seem to really like the current system.  They just happened to lose to a better team in the championship.

Kevin

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (spurly @ Mar. 31 2004,09:25)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]I don't know about the other parts of the country, but the people here in Oklahoma seem to really like the current system.  They just happened to lose to a better team in the championship.

Kevin[/quote]
Twice!

First the Big-12 championship, then the National championship!
:D

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (Skip @ Mar. 31 2004,12:23)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--][!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]I don't know about the other parts of the country, but the people here in Oklahoma seem to really like the current system.  They just happened to lose to a better team in the championship.

Kevin[/quote]
Twice!

First the Big-12 championship, then the National championship!
:D[/quote]
Oh.  :rant:  Low-blows are legal, huh?  Well, K-State was not a better team, in a series OU would have beaten them 7 out of 8 times.  Unfortunately the Big 12 championship was the one time they lost.

Kevin

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (spurly @ Mar. 31 2004,4:34)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]. . . K-State was not a better team, in a series OU would have beaten them 7 out of 8 times. . .[/quote]
What if? Who knows?  But it is beyond question K-State was the better team on December 6, 2003.  35-7 was pretty convincing.

I heard  :talkingonephone: that the BCS was going to add a fifth bowl.  Do any of you know which bowl they will use?

Kevin

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]I heard  :talkingonephone: that the BCS was going to add a fifth bowl.  Do any of you know which bowl they will use?

Kevin[/quote]
I heard several cities mentioned without reference to any specific bowl. Dallas was one, which would suggest the Cotton Bowl.  I think Orlando may have been mentioned as well which would lend credence to what a Mickey Mouse system it is.

For what it's worth from a March 1 AP article:

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Frohnmayer [a BCS spokesman] said existing bowls probably will get the first shot at becoming the fifth BCS bowl. Cities expected to show immediate interest include Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Jacksonville, Orlando and San Diego.[/quote]

The toilet bowl?