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

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Kepler
We should go back to the Bowl system circa 1970. Restore the tradition of the Bowls and screw the national championship (which is an inane concept anyway). Let there be 5-6 major bowl champions (Rose, Cotton, Orange, Sugar, Fiesta, maybe another), another 10 minor bowl champions, and send more players and fans home happy. The obsession with the national championship is in microcosm everything that's wrong with college sports.

I actually kind of agree with this, I'm from Utha and except for 1984, no team from Utah is going towin the championship, especially in the BCS.

But, they get to go to bowl games every year and have a chance to win those game, thus ending their season with a win.

I think the playoffs, if implemented shouldn't use bowl game sites, there are a lot of teams besides the top 8 to fill those slots, they would also sell out the games and "travel well".

The top 8 shouldn't be in bowls at all, if there is a playoff.


ACK!

[Guynemer]

Good lord 'n' butter, I know I sound like a broken record, but... SCREW a top-8 playoff.

Under MY playoff proposal, the OSU-Michigan game remains very, VERY big. OSU loses, Iowa goes to the tournament, and OSU has to hope they qualify for that one wild card slot. Likewise, the Miami-Pitt game was, essentially, the Big East Championship, with the winner more or less assured of going to the tourney, the loser staying home.

Lessen the importance of the regular season... ha!

[Drake Tungsten]

Lessen the importance of the regular season... ha!

Yes, because Florida State has had a great season and are completely deserving of the playoff spot your plan would give them... ha!

[Guynemer]

Yes, they are deserving. They won the ACC, fair and square.

The only--ONLY--objective way to have a tournament is to have all the conference winners go, and fill out the remainder of the field according to STRICT criteria, no selection committees of RPI rankings allowed. Heaven forfend we allow performance on the football field decide who gets to compete for the championship...

[Ming]

NOT THAT I AM ADVOCATING THIS POSITION ANYMORE...

However
If they are conference champions... why not? It would really place a real value on the regular conference games. Win your Conference, get a shot at the big ring.
Every 1 - A team has a shot to win it all from starting at the beginning of the season. Every other sport rewards their conference champions with a shot at the big game, no matter what their record is. The fact is, they are champions to begin with... They have won the right.

This would also leave a bunch of great teams for the greedy Bowl Committee to pick thru like the vultures they are for their own profits.


Now that I've said that... Screw Florida State this year...
I would rather go with a playoff that includes ALL undefeated 1 - A teams, and next highest ranked number of teams needed to fill the top 8.

This gives a majority of all the teams that deserve a crack (and probably ALL of them most years) and a smaller conference team that somehow manages to not lose a game a chance as well.


OK Drake... go for it again

[Drake Tungsten]

Heaven forfend we allow performance on the football field decide who gets to compete for the championship...

How exactly does a plan that allows a three-loss team a shot at the national title place any emphasis whatsoever on on-the-field performance?

[Drake Tungsten]

I would rather go with a playoff that includes ALL undefeated 1 - A teams, and next highest ranked number of teams needed to fill the top 8.

I liked your idea of a playoff limited to unbeatens and one-loss teams better.
It wasn't perfect and I didn't like it better than the current system, but I could probably live with it. I'll never support a playoff that gives a team with more than one-loss a shot at the title, however. You might as well flush the regular season down the toilet right now...

[Guynemer]

Because they earned that shot by winning their conference, period. A tangible, concrete measurement of how they compare to other teams. Not some hopeless ephereal and ludicriously subjective combination of polls and computer rankings (which are, let's be honest, a single-person poll).

If you are the best team in your group of teams, then heck, you may just be the best team in the country. If you're only the second best team in your group of teams (2001 Nebraska, we're talking about you), then you're obviously not the best team in the country, and should content yourself with some other bowl game.

Christ almighty, this seems so simple to me.

[Drake Tungsten]

Because they earned that shot by winning their conference, period.

The conferences aren't anywhere close to being similar in talent levels or structures. To say that winning the MAC is just as impressive as winning the Big 12 is ridiculous. Hell, finishing sixth in the Big 12 is more impressive than winning the MAC!

If you are the best team in your group of teams, then heck, you may just be the best team in the country.

The groups of teams aren't equal. And if you lose 2 or 3 non-conference games, I think we can safely say that you aren't the best team in the nation.

Christ almighty, this seems so simple to me.

And that frightens me to no end...

[Ming]

There you ago again with the irrelevent regular season stuff again. It's only irrelevent to people who think the national championship is the only thing worth playing for. It's not. Every conference game will still mean a lot to those schools playing. Heck, Notre Dame can have it's own TV network in it's pocket... not because they win the national championship every year, but because their alums CARE A LOT ABOUT THE GAMES.

Stick with your "they don't deserve a chance" argument vs, the regular season will be made irrelevent. It will never be irrelevent... and if you can't see that, you don't know one darn thing about College Football.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Because they earned that shot by winning their conference, period.

The conferences aren't anywhere close to being similar in talent levels or structures. To say that winning the MAC is just as impressive as winning the Big 12 is ridiculous. Hell, finishing sixth in the Big 12 is more impressive than winning the MAC!

Again, who are you or I to judge which conference in better? I've certainly been more impressed with Marshall in the past few years than I have with the vast, vast majority of teams in the "Big Six" conferences.

[Drake Tungsten]

Stick with your "they don't deserve a chance" argument vs, the regular season will be made irrelevent. It will never be irrelevent... and if you can't see that, you don't know one darn thing about College Football.

Fine, it won't be "irrelevant". The regular season will still have some meaning, but it will be the same limited meaning you find in every other sport. The regular season will just be a means of qualifying for the post-season, with the occasional rivalry game to remind everybody of the good old days. The games will lose a lot of their thrill, since you're spotted one or even two losses before you drop out of postseason contention. And if you go with Guynemer's idea, you could loss three or four games, as long as you win your conference. The days of every game counting will be gone forever and I for one would miss it. I think college football is fun and interesting because it isn't like every other sport, but I guess only 31.25% of the population agree with me on that...

[Drake Tungsten]

I've certainly been more impressed with Marshall in the past few years than I have with the vast, vast majority of teams in the "Big Six" conferences.

Why? Because they put up huge numbers against MAC competition? They've only played two games against major conference opponents in the past two years and they got blown out in both of them.

2001 - Florida 49 - Marshall 14

2002 - Virginia Tech 47 - Marshall 21

Real impressive.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Because they earned that shot by winning their conference, period.

The conferences aren't anywhere close to being similar in talent levels or structures. To say that winning the MAC is just as impressive as winning the Big 12 is ridiculous. Hell, finishing sixth in the Big 12 is more impressive than winning the MAC!

And how will they ever be equal in our current situation?

Just because you are in a conference that has tough teams doesn't mean you are the best team in the country.

You can't finish sixth in the Big 12. You can finish last in the north or last in the south.



ACK!

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
The regular season will just be a means of qualifying for the post-season, with the occasional rivalry game to remind everybody of the good old days. The games will lose a lot of their thrill, since you're spotted one or even two losses before you drop out of postseason contention.

Most of the rivalry games will still be played, if not all of them.

How many non-conference rivalries are there?


ACK!