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

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

A simple way to run the playoff would be to keep the BCS, and then seed the top 8 teams. A good compromise, perhaps, and it would only require 2 extra games than we have now. Any team that didn't finish in the BCS top 8 doesn't have a great case to argue that they should have been champion. (Of course, if #8 wins the title, #9 can argue they should have been seeded 8th... but it's less of an issue than we saw last year with the #3 Oregon/ #2 Nebraska issue)

Yes, the small conferences lose out... but what was the last small conference team that wound up #1, under the old system?

[ixnay]

I like this proposal. Upsets happen, and if a team is hot at the right time, a playoff environment gives them a chance to win it. Practically any playoff is better than the current system. This is why I like 1-AA football.

[rah]

I agree with 6K. The top 8 teams would represent those that had realistic claim to saying they're the best. Most likely, you'd get 8 teams that were undefeated or one lose. so the winner of the turnament wouldn't look bad, since they'd be at least tied for the best record in the country. At worst, a team with two loses would win the tournament, and if they two losses because of a real tough schedule, so be it.

RAH
And this would only add 3 games so it wouldn't kill it.

[Buck Birdseed]

Originally posted by JohnT
But that argument can be used against playoffs in general: baseball, hockey, division 3 football, etc.

Amazing, an american latching on to the biggest problem with their sport.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Adam Smith
This sounds like a good proposal. Need to cut back the number of regular season games back to 11 period. And no conference championship games.

Only problem I see is that you will probably get a profusion of chicken sh!t football conferences in order to get an automatic bid, which is what happened in the basketball tournament.

edit: Another issue is that the conferences need to be small enough that everybody plays everybody else. For example, Iowa might win the Big 10 this year without ever playing Ohio State. If that shuts Ohio State out of the national championship, then they have a legitimate beef.

If both teams win out, Ohio State would be champion by virtue of being undefeated overall. Obviously, there would be a problem if Ohio State dropped a game (ahem, Michigan). Perhaps this would encourage the Big 10+1 to become the Big 10+2, and have two divisions plus a championship game, avoiding future problems.

As for proliferation of conferences... I can't really see that happening (not enough teams), but if it did you'd just have to expand the tourney accordingly.


As for teams *****ing that they should be in the tourney--again, tough noogies. If you aren't in the tournament, it means you didn't win your conference. You have no one to blame but yourself. There is no selection committee choosing between "bubble teams" to complain about. You want it? You have to win, PERIOD. I certainly don't see how this lessens the importance of the regular season, especially if this season gives us three or more undefeated teams--which it probably will.

[Drake Tungsten]

I certainly don't see how this lessens the importance of the regular season, especially if this season gives us three or more undefeated teams--which it probably will.

What if a team loses every single one of its non-conference games and then goes on to win its conference title? They'd go to the playoffs in your system. Can't you see how this severely lessens the importance of the regular season? It'd make college football just like the NFL, where you can lose a ****load of games and still make the playoffs by winning your division...

[DanS]

"As for teams *****ing that they should be in the tourney--again, tough noogies."

Tough noogies is an insufficient justification for a potentially inequitable system. You can do better than that.

[Ming]

Why should football be the ONLY sport without a playoff system... The BCS is a joke. Time to gut the old boys bowl system and put in place something that everybody else wants...

[Drake Tungsten]

Why should football be the ONLY sport without a playoff system...

The only American sport. European club soccer leagues get along fine without a postseason, which is one of the major reasons I like soccer so much.

There's actually a lot of parallels between American college football and Euro club soccer. This article shows what they have in common and why these qualities set them apart from other sports.

http://www.pigskinpost.com/elkon-it's_all_football.htm

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by DanS
"As for teams *****ing that they should be in the tourney--again, tough noogies."

Tough noogies is an insufficient justification for a potentially inequitable system. You can do better than that.

I'm still not understanding how it is an inequitable system. The system we have now--THAT'S an inequitable system. NC State could finish undefeated and it won't get a whiff of the Fiesta Bowl, simply because it started the season completely out of the polls.

I think my system is completely equitable. Every Div I-A team, every single last one of them, would have an equal chance at the championship. How is it inequitable? Because (hypothetically) Miami wouldn't make it in if Virginia Tech beats them? Hey, Miami had their chance... at least, under this system, NC State and Bowling Green and Air Force have their chances, too.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

I certainly don't see how this lessens the importance of the regular season, especially if this season gives us three or more undefeated teams--which it probably will.

What if a team loses every single one of its non-conference games and then goes on to win its conference title? They'd go to the playoffs in your system. Can't you see how this severely lessens the importance of the regular season? It'd make college football just like the NFL, where you can lose a ****load of games and still make the playoffs by winning your division...

Imagine, if the NFL Champion were determined via polling at the end of the season, just where do you think the Patriots would have ended up?

Why on earth would you want to take the ultimate result of a season of sporting contests out of the hands of the athletes and put it into the hands of voters? Ever since I started watching college football as a kid, I've thought this was stupid, and the stupidity only grows more obvious with each passing year...

[DanS]

"THAT'S an inequitable system. NC State could finish undefeated and it won't get a whiff of the Fiesta Bowl, simply because it started the season completely out of the polls"

Not so. ND started the season completely out of the polls as well. NC State has a weak schedule. ND doesn't. Should we reward the weakness of their schedule at the expense of other, more deserving teams?

"How is it inequitable?"

Because the toughness of schedule would be insufficiently accounted for each and every year.

[Drake Tungsten]

Imagine, if the NFL Champion were determined via polling at the end of the season, just where do you think the Patriots would have ended up?

Just because I think that a playoff is stupid doesn't mean that I think that the polls are the best solution either. The BCS is a step in the right direction, but it can still be improved.

As for the NFL, they would be better off using a system like Euro club soccer does. Get rid of overtime periods in games and then award teams points for how they do in each game. Three points for a win, one point for a tie, and zero points for a loss. The NFC team and AFC team with the most points meet in the Super Bowl. A simple system that makes every game count.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by DanS
"THAT'S an inequitable system. NC State could finish undefeated and it won't get a whiff of the Fiesta Bowl, simply because it started the season completely out of the polls"

Not so. ND started the season completely out of the polls as well. NC State has a weak schedule. ND doesn't. Should we reward the weakness of their schedule at the expense of other, more deserving teams?

Notre Dame is Notre Dame. Of course they are going to jump up the list (and deservedly so--as I said, I think they're going to win the whole enchilada). But NC State, despite playing in a "major" conference, doesn't have that opportunity, because they don't have the same prestige. (But you watch what happens if Florida, Florida State, or Nebraska start the season out of the polls and then start winning.) I really don't think that it ought to be a controversial statement to say that if a team goes undefeated, it deserves a chance to play for the national championship.

"How is it inequitable?"

Because the toughness of schedule would be insufficiently accounted for each and every year.

Mostly irrelevant, with the remainder being false. Every team in a conference has an equal shot of making the playoffs, period. Plus, the independants (4 or 5 of 'em left in a couple years) and all the good teams that didn't win their conference still have a shot at the twelfth slot, based ENTIRELY on strength of schedule.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, one year Oregon goes 10-1 (8-0) in the Pac-10, and Washington goes 10-1 (7-1). Meanwhile, over in the Sun Belt, Middle Tennessee State goes 7-4 (6-0). Orgeon and MTSU are in. Washington can pitch a fit up and down all they want about MTSU going and they staying home, but that's just too damned bad--1) they shoulda beat the Ducks, and 2) they still qualify for slot #12. If they don't get it, well, guess their strength of schedule isn't so hot after all.

[Drake Tungsten]

I really don't think that it ought to be a controversial statement to say that if a team goes undefeated, it deserves a chance to play for the national championship.

Of course this is a controversial statement. Why should an undefeated Bowling Green get a chance when they don't play anyone good all season? Your plan becomes even more absurd when you think about an undefeated Bowling Green team making the playoffs while a one loss Texas team stays home...