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

[Drake Tungsten]

Ahhh... you seem to now be saying "less" important vs meaningless... We must be making progress on you

I wasn't so much you "making progress" on me as it was me realizing that I had been using hyperbole far too much lately. I re-read part of the original thread while looking for JohnT's stat site and I noticed that my rhetoric had been far softer in tone at the beginning of the discussion. I greatly prefer this style, as it fits my personality far better than the blustery style I've fallen into lately.

I should've never started throwing words like "meaningless" and "irrelevant" around, since they don't really reflect the realities of the situation or my own views. I got caught up in the debate and ratcheted up my rhetoric, something I regret doing. I'm going to try to return to my original tone in the future; I don't like being the unreasonable person in a discussion...

You can claim that you "made progress" on me, however, if it makes you feel better about your impotent attacks against my unassailable logic...

[Imran Siddiqui]

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!

So are you saying that MAC team's regular seasons are totally meaningless?

Btw, I'd really like to see that video game simulation of a hypo 8 team playoff run by someone on this thread .

[Ming]

That would be amusing... but it depends on which video game simulation you used

[Guynemer]

Sorry Imran... my Gamecube, my tournament.

Drake--I know you're hung up about the non-power conferences getting a shot under my proposal. Look on the bright side--the NCAA is considering downgrading a large number of the schools in those conferences; if I recall correctly, it would leave around 80 or so teams, and would probably lead to realignment of the remaining non-power teams into a smaller number of conferences. If we still had a 12 team tourney, that would open up more slots for supposed "deserving" teams, even if they weren't the best in their conference...

[Drake Tungsten]

Look on the bright side--the NCAA is considering downgrading a large number of the schools in those conferences; if I recall correctly, it would leave around 80 or so teams, and would probably lead to realignment of the remaining non-power teams into a smaller number of conferences.

I hope this is true. It's something that really needs to be done.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I hope this is true. It's something that really needs to be done.

Why does it "need" to be done. With the current system, it really doesn't make one bit of difference if a school is 1-A or not.

Plus, in the stories I read, they are only considering downgrading the schools because they aren't meeting the attendence requirements needed to stay 1-A, and has nothing to do with any desire to remove perceived weaker teams from 1-A.

[Guynemer]

What I can't remember is if they were planning on dropping entire conferences if their aggregate attendance wasn't up to par, even if individual schools were. IE, by-by to MAC, despite the large fan bases and relative success of Marshall, Toledo, Western Michigan.

[Ming]

I thought it was going to be on a school to school basis, but some of the conferences were concerned that they wouldn't have enough teams, and that a merger might be neccessary.

[Guynemer]

That would make more sense... otherwise, Marshall and Colorado State would dominate the I-AA championship year in and year out.

[Ming]

Neither has ANY desire to drop down in divisions

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Guynemer
That would make more sense... otherwise, Marshall and Colorado State would dominate the I-AA championship year in and year out.

That is why Marshall moved up to 1-A in the mid 90's.


ACK!

[Guynemer]

Well, drop the teams that don't have a fan base, and merge the remainders into two or three new conferences, instead of the five "lower tier" ones we have now. (Though, for the life of me, I can not conceive why the ACC is not considered "lower tier" as well.)

If this were done, would some of the "BCS Top 8 Playoffs" supporters come along to my position?

(Incidentially, I wonder if they would drop teams that are in the BCS conferences, i.e. Baylor, Duke, Wake Forest, Temple, Rutgers, Indiana...)

[Ming]

As long as the team can keep up with the "fan" requirement for 1 - A... let them. Any one of those teams can have a magical season... why not

[Guynemer]

Why not?

Because they're Rutgers, that's why not.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The problem with dropping teams for conferences, is that they aren't just in the conferences for football. They are in the conferences in baseball, basketball, etc. That is why teams that suck in college football (Duke, Rutgers, Indiana) are good at basketball or baseball or soccer in those conferences.