Should BCS Be Replaced By Playoffs? -- Guynemer's Proposal

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Ming


Actually... I read a similar proposal last year... I don't think any of us can take credit for such an idea, we can only agree and improve on it

I posted a similar proposal last year... actually, exactly the same proposal last year.

[Ming]

The proposal I was refering to was written by some consulting group for use by the TV Networks

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Ming
The proposal I was refering to was written by some consulting group for use by the TV Networks

Consulting groups suck!

ACK!

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by Ming
But I agree... out of all the suggestions, I still like the "pick the best 8 teams with 1 loss or less and let them play" idea the best. Then the worst case will be that the national champ has only one loss, and no team will be left undefeated, and it will still be proved on the field instead of on paper.

In the spirit of plagiarism...

...that sounds a lot like my idea *pats self on back*

[Imran Siddiqui]

You honestly can't see how giving a three loss team a shot at the title lessens the importance of the regular season?

I can't. Obviously in the regular season the other teams in the conference had the same number of losses.

I would (the Imran plan ) have every conference champion go on plus 1 at large. However, I'd LIMIT each conference to 12 teams and have every team play every other team in conference (no out of conference games) and then we can see who is the best in the conference.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I can't. Obviously in the regular season the other teams in the conference had the same number of losses.

Well, in the current system a team could go, say, 8-0 in conference games and 0-3 in nonconference games and be conference champ over a team that was 7-1 and 3-0. But you did make a proposal:

I would (the Imran plan ) have every conference champion go on plus 1 at large. However, I'd LIMIT each conference to 12 teams and have every team play every other team in conference (no out of conference games) and then we can see who is the best in the conference.

There'd have to be a lot of reorganized conferences for that system to be fair. I mean... records aside, in many years the top 3 teams in, say, the Big 10 or SEC are stronger than the top team from, say, the MAC or Sun Belt. Why send a champion from a weak conference to a championship playoff (where they'll be blown out, anyway) ahead of a stronger team that finished 2nd in a stronger conference?

I can see sending undefeated conference champions... there's merit in being undefeated. But if you want (for example) New Mexico State in there, well, c'mon... who wants that? They're 5-3, and nobody else in their conference is even .500!

I can't see how your scheme would work without inducing good teams to flee good conferences for weaker ones.

[Drake Tungsten]

I can't. Obviously in the regular season the other teams in the conference had the same number of losses.

This is a completely false statement. To use the Big 12 as an example, Oklahoma could go undefeated this year and then get beat in the Big 12 title game by the Big 12 North champ. This year, it is looking more and more likely that the Big 12 North champ will have at least two in-conference losses, plus any non-conference losses they may have acrued. Thus a two or even three loss team would represent the Big 12, not a one loss Oklahoma. If Texas keeps winning, you would also leave a one loss Texas team out of the mix. So how exactly does taking only the conference champ into a tourney maintain the importance of the regular season?

This isn't a problem only with the Big 12, as the SEC has a similar system. How is a tourney that has a high potential of screwing the best teams in the two best conferences in college football a good idea?

[Ming]

Ok... I'm convinced... let's just take the 8 best teams with one or no losses and let them play it out. At least the whining will be minimized since no team will have a better record than the team that wins

[DanS]

Well, there's one team out of the hunt this year.

Has to be the worst game of football I've seen in quite a while.

[DanS]

Anyway, I would point out that college football is the most popular college sport. Because of this, I think they're doing an awful lot right. There's a lot of opportunity to screw up what is good about college football.

First, do no harm!

[Ming]

Yeah, but it's time to fix what's WRONG with College Football... how they determine their champion.

[DanS]

I think they pick their champion just fine. A full 21% agree with me!

[Ming]

Well... ND lost today and so did NC State. Only 6 unbeaten left.

[Guynemer]

Great Caesar's ghost.

Four unbeatens implode on the same day, and another flirted with diaster for three full quarters.

Miami, Oklahoma, Ohio State, and Bowling Green still unscathed. Virginia Tech, Notre Dame, NC State, and Georgia all bite the dust.

The good news for that second group of teams is that said group of teams is so large; they are all still in it, provided the unbeatens lose. And all three "major" unbeatens still have huge obstacles ahead of them; Miami is looking more vulnerable by the week.

Surpisingly, there might not be three or more unbeatens by season's end. Chances are getting better that there might be none at all, but instead a whole mess of one-loss teams with an axe to grind.

[JohnT]

Me to that asswipe with the 15-yard personal foul:

GA's BCS chances have