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

[Ming]

Not at all... I'm just repeating what some of the talking heads are saying.

Just because a team goes undefeated, doesn't make it the best team. Drake would be the first person to say that Bowling Green going undefeated doesn't mean a thing. Yet he is saying that since OSU did, they earned the right. Who can really say if a one loss Iowa team is better than OSU... or maybe Georgia is better... Right now, a damn computer is making the call... and that's crap. Let em prove it by actually playing the games.

Only a playoff will determine who truely is the best team.

[DanS]

"Right now, a damn computer is making the call..."

And the sportswriters. And the coaches.

You're hyping up a tempest in a teacup.

[Ming]

No... you are the guys doing that. Take a look at the results of this poll... or any other poll that has been taken on this subject. A far higher percentage of people think the current system sucks. To support a system that is full of flaws is just silly, and most people can agree on that. No other sport allows some outsider to determine their champion... No other college sport allows a computer to determine who makes the playoffs... Every other sport makes the teams fight it out on the field of battle instead of on paper. The current BCS should have no place in college football, and only greed and money is keeping it in place. And that's a fact

[Drake Tungsten]

No other college sport allows a computer to determine who makes the playoffs...

You've never heard of the RPI rankings for college basketball?

Every other sport makes the teams fight it out on the field of battle instead of on paper.

How did Ohio State and Miami not earn their spot "on the field of battle"? They were the only two teams to win all their games; they are the only two teams who deserve a shot at the title this year. Your stupid playoff would take away their hard work and make them prove themselves all over again in the "real" season.

To support a system that is full of flaws is just silly

A playoff system has just as many flaws, even if you don't want to admit to them. Nothing is perfect.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
You've never heard of the RPI rankings for college basketball?

And it is only used as a "guideline" by members of the NCAA Selection Committee... Actual people make the final decision... and people that are part of the NCAA, not a bunch of greedy old farts who run the bowl system.

How did Ohio State and Miami not earn their spot "on the field of battle"? They were the only two teams to win all their games; they are the only two teams who deserve a shot at the title this year. Your stupid playoff would take away their hard work and make them prove themselves all over again in the "real" season.

Yeah.. it would make them prove if they do deserve to be the best. And what's the problem with that

You always argue that if Bowling Green went undefeated, that they wouldn't deserve a shot because of their strength of schedule... Using that logic, Georgia had the Ninth hardest schedule in the country... far harder than Miami's 30th ranked or even OSU 21st rank.
Maybe if Miami or OSU had played as hard as a schedule, they wouldn't have gone undefeated...
You don't know...

A playoff system has just as many flaws, even if you don't want to admit to them. Nothing is perfect.

Yes... nothing is prefect... but a playoff system has FAR FEWER flaws than the current BCS system.

Again... if Miami and OSU are the best teams in the nation, what is wrong by asking them to play a total of three games instead of one to prove it. The best will win...

[Drake Tungsten]

Again... if Miami and OSU are the best teams in the nation, what is wrong by asking them to play a total of three games instead of one to prove it. The best will win...

It's wrong because the regular season is supposed to be the most important part of the game The regular season shouldn't be just a qualification process for the postseason playoff. Every game should matter; every loss should count against you. If you can't see how a playoff makes the regular season less important, you're blind.

Anyway, today has proven mighty useful for debunking the loveably misguided playoff backers. Washington State's victory over UCLA means that USC is the #4 team in the country, but won't win their own conference championship.

How would Guynemer's wonderful playoff idea handle this? Do you give the one wild-card slot to USC? Or do you give it to Iowa? And how do you explain giving North Texas a title shot over one of these two teams? I can't wait to hear the answer to this question. And "tough noogies" isn't a good enough answer in this case...

I'm loving this!

[Ming]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
It's wrong because the regular season is supposed to be the most important part of the game The regular season shouldn't be just a qualification process for the postseason playoff.

Uhhh... the current system does exactly the same thing. Using your logic, there shouldn't even be a game played then. The computers and sportswriters and Coaches should just pick a winner like they used to. The fact that they added a single game means that the regular season is just a qualification process for the Playoff They just as easily could have added three games.


And the fact that you call it wrong is just your opinion... and from looking at this and any other poll, most people think your opinion is very wrong

I still love the fact that the BCS needs LUCK to work...
You are jumping up and down and saying... see it works... pure luck. A system that doesn't depend on luck is needed.

[Guynemer]

On the contrary, as I outlined in the US Sports Discussion Thread (or whatever it is called), Notre Dame is the wildcard due to their success against high-level competition. They have three wins against conference champs & other 9+ win teams; only Oklahoma can equal that. And if Oklahoma loses tonight, Notre Dame wins the tiebreaker by having more wins against 8+ win teams.

Simple. Efficient. No *****ing or moaning. Prove it on the field, screw the polls and the computers. North Texas is in because they are the best in their conference. USC is not; simple as that. Yeah, USC beat Notre Dame like a redheaded stepchild; ND had more success against high-level competition throughout the season. If USC wanted in the tournament, they probably shoulda made that extra point against Wazzou.

As for Iowa, well, Big Ten rules state that the Buckeyes are the conference champs due to a better overall record. Totally sucks, I agree. Of course, if my system were in place, it would encourage the Big Ten to come up with a way to avoid such problems in the future.

Honestly, what's so complicated about this?

[Drake Tungsten]

The BCS doesn't need luck to work; it needs luck to work flawlessly, like it did this year. The BCS still works when it has to choose between one-loss teams; in fact, that is what it was designed to do. The BCS has worked every year it has been in existence.

[Drake Tungsten]

Guynemer, your playoff is no better than the current system. In fact, it is much worse. Any playoff that lets North Texas and Notre Dame in while denying Iowa and USC is a joke, plain and simple.

[Guynemer]

How is it a joke? USC had every chance to win the Pac 10; they couldn't pull it off. Notre Dame had more success against top-level teams than USC did, despite last week's cathartic whoop-ass.

As for Iowa, well, that's not my system's fault; that's the Big Ten's fault. Now, if we expanded to 16 teams, both Iowa and USC would be in, as they are next in line after Notre Dame (and Oklahoma, if they lose tonight). That leaves one or two more spots open--Texas, Virginia Tech, Michigan, and Arkansas are all tied next, I'd have to spend some time figuring out how the tiebreaker would fall for that.

What would you say to that, Drake? A 16-team tourney, it would include USC and Iowa. And yes, North Texas too. But I simply refuse to support a system which doesn't reward Div I-A conference champs. 12 teams or 16; your choice.

[Drake Tungsten]

"Despite last week's cathartic whoop-ass"?!?

[Guynemer]

Hey, them's the rules I set out. Notre Dame had more wins against top teams than USC. Period.

Anyway, you didn't answer the question. Would you be more comfortable with a system that awarded five wildcards as opposed to one? It would give more "deserving teams" (in your conception) a chance.

[Drake Tungsten]

Anyway, you didn't answer the question. Would you be more comfortable with a system that awarded five wildcards as opposed to one? It would give more "deserving teams" (in your conception) a chance.

No. My concern has never been about giving every team that may theoretically be the best team in the country a shot at the title. My concern has always been about maintaining the integrity of the regular season and making sure that it continues to be of primary importance in college football. No playoff achieves this, no matter how many teams are involved.

Hey, them's the rules I set out.

The same defense can be made for the BCS. Every team knows the rules going into the season.

[Imran Siddiqui]

the BCS worked out perfectly.

Hmmm, must have missed when OSU played USC or Iowa.

Oh yea, they didn't!!

Another year where a team that may be inferior plays for the national championship (that was Nebraska last year).

Just because you are undefeated doesn't mean you are better than a 1 loss team. That's especially proven this year.