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

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
He's one scary mofo, both on the field and off...

Only because he is totally mental And hence the reason he will never be a real back in a real league.

[Drake Tungsten]

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.

Are you this stupid? If the BCS would've been around in '94, then Penn State and Nebraska would've played each other for the national title. How is that not the proper outcome? And why does it matter what the BCS would've ranked PSU in '94? The BCS wasn't around back then, so all your arguments are strictly academic.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

OK

I'll do this slowly for you Drake. If you like, I'll repeat it as well.

You on the one hand defend the BCS process by saying it can pick the best two candidates for a run off, but in the same breath say it can't discriminate between two ala the '94 case.

So of all the examples heaped before you by the other poster here saying if there are 3 or more equal candidates, who gets the opportunity to play for the championship. By your own admission the BCS isn't good enough to discriminate between two candiates so how does it magically pick the most worthy of the three candidates.

The answer is: it doesn't. Only true gridiron combat works that out. You still have yet to give a definitive answer as to why a playoff is inferior to the very suspect BCS. And yes I call bull**** on the [lazy excuse] the bcs is good enough as is [/lazy excuse].

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
By your own admission the BCS isn't good enough to discriminate between two candiates so how does it magically pick the most worthy of the three candidates.

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
This is the only thing we agree on. If three quality teams go undefeated, the BCS doesn't work. It's something that needs to be fixed, but a playoff isn't the only answer.

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
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.

Before you do things slowly for me, you might want to read the thread. Condescension usually works better when you have your facts straight...

And there are pages and pages of explanations by both myself and DanS about why the current system is far better than a playoff. Read them before you shoot your mouth off.

[Ming]

You seem to have no problem with a computer picked one loss team getting a chance to beat an undefeated team... So what's the problem with letting the some of the other quality one loss teams have their chance in a true playoff. If that undefeated team is the best, they will prove it.

[Drake Tungsten]

You seem to have no problem with a computer picked one loss team getting a chance to beat an undefeated team...

I do have a problem with it, but there isn't much that can be done about it. You can't expect the undefeated team to not play in a bowl; it would go against college football tradition. I'll accept the fact that a single one-loss team (or two in some years) may have a chance at the title. If there aren't two unbeatens, then it really can't be avoided. I don't like it, however, and don't really consider a one-loss champion to be a true national champ. Without a perfect season, I consider the title tainted.

I certainly don't want to see seven one-loss teams getting a shot at the title. It's unneccesary and lessens the importance of the regular season. A playoff sets up the myth that you play the whole regular season to earn a spot in the "real" season. That isn't how it should work. We should reward teams that achieve perfection in the regular season.

[Ming]

Uhh... right now there is no such thing as the "real" season... There are the non conference games... conference games... and then the bowl games. ALL of them are used to determine the national champion. There is really nothing different between a playoff system and the Bowls

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
[

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
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.

Before you do things slowly for me, you might want to read the thread. Condescension usually works better when you have your facts straight...

And there are pages and pages of explanations by both myself and DanS about why the current system is far better than a playoff. Read them before you shoot your mouth off.

And what you have just admitted to is what......

A mini playoff. Thats right folks. Seems you want the best of both worlds but can't make up your mind.

[Drake Tungsten]

There is really nothing different between a playoff system and the Bowls

You don't see the difference between a single bowl game (which doesn't get you any closer to winning the title unless you are in the title game) and a multi-game, championship playoff? I know you're smarter than that, Ming. Don't go all Ogie on me...

Anyway, I've got to get to sleep. I have Japanese class in eight hours... (sigh)

Good night.

[Ming]

Well... at least 2/3 of the serious voters think that the BCS should go... that kind of sums it up

[Drake Tungsten]

And what you have just admitted to is what......

A mini playoff. Thats right folks.

One game that only takes place in a very rare and very specific circumstance does not a playoff make. You need to try harder...

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

You Beat me to it Ming

The obvious look at the score board reference.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
You don't see the difference between a single bowl game (which doesn't get you any closer to winning the title unless you are in the title game) and a multi-game, championship playoff? I know you're smarter than that, Ming. Don't go all Ogie on me...

A single bowl championship game is a playoff, pure and simple... While you are indeed smart enough to see the difference between a one game playoff and a three game playoff, they are both still a playoff system.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

And what you have just admitted to is what......

A mini playoff. Thats right folks.

One game that only takes place in a very rare and very specific circumstance does not a playoff make. You need to try harder...

A system built upon exception is not a system in my book. It means its broken and needs outside intervention in order to make it work.

Try harder yourself.

[Dis]

Here's my take

Sure having teams play each other once can lead to unpredictable results. But the NFL faces the same problem. Look at New England last year. Could they have beat the Raiders or Rams 2 out of 3 games? Not likely.

So we are back to the top teams playing each other once. It works fairly well for the NFL it will work for college.

Next is how many games. This one is tight because the kids have school etc, etc.

16 teams playoffs would be nice. But there probably isn't enough time.

So an 8 team playoff system is the way to go. They should all keep their spiffy bowl names (even if the corporations have taken them all over). 8 teams play each other 4 teams remain. Then 4 teams play each other and 2 remain. Then the 2 teams play for the championship. The championship game rotates yearly between the last 3 top bowl locations (I think they are Rose, Sugar, and Orange- but I'm no bowl game expert).

How to decide the top 8 teams? Well keep the current BCS system. I say it works pretty well with a few inconsistencies. Those inconsistencies mainly lie with the 2, 3, and 4 positions. Having the top 8 teams play each other will leave out the possibility that a great 3rd ranked team can't play for the title.

The only problem this poses is the 8,9, and 10 positions. There will be plenty of 9th ranked teams complaining. But so what? College basketball faces the same problem with 64 teams. There is always someone complaining. But by the time you reach rank 9 how much of a shot do they have of taking it all anyways? It's not too likely. The power scales down too rapidly in college football due to lack of enough talent. This is equivalent to 65th ranked team in college basketball having a shot of taking it all.