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

[Ming]

And when did I mention ND... I personally hope they never get a chance at a title game ever again

But sorry... not giving an quality unbeaten team a chance at the championship is just bull*hit.

And if there are no unbeaten teams, then it's even worse.

Again.. with the BCS, you have to HOPE things work out right... and that's pretty crappy when hope is part of the equation

[Drake Tungsten]

But sorry... not giving an quality unbeaten team a chance at the championship is just bull*hit.

There are far better ways to solve this problem than creating a playoff.

The simplest would just be to let the three unbeatens play in their bowls and then play one more game if two unbeatens are still left. Solves the problem without giving a whole mess of beaten teams an undeserved shot at the title.

[DanS]

"Again.. with the BCS, you have to HOPE things work out right..."

With a playoff, you KNOW that it will be partially unfair, and potentially hugely unfair to one or more of the top teams.

[Ming]

A playoff isn't unfair. If that UNBEATEN team is so good, they will win. If they don't win, they don't deserve to be national champion. It will be determinded on the field, the way it's supposed to be done. Having only 8 teams in the playoffs won't invalidate the entire season. Heck, it will make it more exciting. It's not like we are talking about pro sports where half the teams make the playoffs

[Drake Tungsten]

A playoff isn't unfair.

It is unfair to unbeaten teams. They work hard all season to maintain a perfect record only to be matched up in the postseason against teams that didn't achieve the same thing. What's the point of going unbeaten? Shouldn't we reward teams who achieve perfection? Or is the regular season just a warmup for the postseason?

[DanS]

In an 8-team playoff, Notre Dame (who lost to a team with one win or whatever) could win the national title, while a previously unbeaten #1 team that lost to the #4 team could end up losing the title.

It just ain't right.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by Ming
A playoff isn't unfair. If that UNBEATEN team is so good, they will win. If they don't win, they don't deserve to be national champion. It will be determinded on the field, the way it's supposed to be done. Having only 8 teams in the playoffs won't invalidate the entire season. Heck, it will make it more exciting. It's not like we are talking about pro sports where half the teams make the playoffs

*nods*

I'd support any system that would require teams to prove themselves before being named champion. If that means an 8 (or 4) team playoff of the unbeatens and the top ranked 1-loss teams, so be it. If it means playing another game in mid January if 2 teams are virtually dead even in the polls on January 4, so be it. I don't really care if it's 'unfair' to the teams that are undefeated - what I do care about is not having a college football season end with unanswered questions as to who's the champion.

[Ming]

Well Drake, using your logic, if only one major team goes undefeated, there is no need for a championship game. Just crown them and be done with it...

Even the BCS is totally as unfair as an 8 team playoff.
Asking the undefeated team to play a one loss team is just as bad

Again... to be a national champion. You have to win. Asking a team to win a 8 team playoff isn't unfair, it's just making you prove you are the best. And if you lose, you aren't the best

[Drake Tungsten]

Well Drake, using your logic, if only one major team goes undefeated, there is no need for a championship game. Just crown them and be done with it...

I'd actually support this, except for one glaring flaw. If you did it this way, teams like Florida State and Miami would just eliminate their tough non-conference schedules and try to go undefeated in the ACC or Big East every year. You could still make this plan work, but you would have to have a strength of schedule requirement that must be met to be champion.

I think it's just easier to stick with the current system, though. It is a little unfair to make an undefeated team play a one-loss team for the title, but I don't really care. They're going to play a bowl game anyway, so it might as well be against the best opponent you can find.

At any rate, I'm not nearly as anal retentive about "fairness" as you are...

[Dis]

Here's my plan.

100 team playoff system. The whole season could be the playoffs.

[Drake Tungsten]

100 team playoff system. The whole season could be the playoffs.

But what about the twenty-something D-I teams who would be left out of the tourney? Don't they deserve an equal shot at the title? Your plan wouldn't be faaaiiirrr! [/whine]

[Dis]

team like my hometown team of UNLV suck and have no legitimate shot at winning any games

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
He's lucky he didn't try to tackle Lawrence Philips. He probably wouldn't have lived to tell the tale.

Unless the guy was a woman and Lawrence had a stairwell nearby to drag him down, I think he had nothing to fear. Phillips was a complete non-entity in the NFL.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I also don't understand Drakes adherence to the BCS crap.

I can't think of one sport other than collegiate level football where a playoff is not used to decide championships.

The argument BCS is good enough as is is absolute crap.

Just like his statement the BCS rating system is not used to establish champions. It is however good enough to decide the two contenders tho'. What a load of crap. When I suggested PSU should have won the championship in '94 based upon this supposed bastion of impartial objectivity it wasn't a good enough yardstick. But it apparently is good enough to lock down the 2 best teams. I find that double standard logic flawed at best.

BCS is not a good predictor nor are polls of the previous bcs era. The only means to decide is the right way on the field of honor via playoffs.

[Drake Tungsten]

Phillips was a complete non-entity in the NFL.

He's the best running back in the CFL right now and the best running back in NFL Europe history. His personal problems caused him to wash out in the NFL, not a lack of talent.

He's one scary mofo, both on the field and off...