BCS - Need a playoff
- Thread starter URBCLONE
- Start date
In answer to your question, YES. If ISU was not good enough to make a playoff system then yes, I would have been ok with never going. I do not believe in rewarding things because it feels good. The bowl system rewards mediocrity. I prefer a system that matches best against best and allows a champion to be determined on the field. Two 6-6 teams playing for the Humanitarian Bowl title just doesn't quite offer the drama as a playoff.
No, they really aren't. Teams playing games are largely in control of their own destiny. Win every game, and, at the end of the year, you'll be #1 or #2 almost without question. USC, Penn State, Oklahoma, Florida, Alabama, Texas, Texas Tech. They all had control of their own destiny, and they all lost games. They weren't beholden to the pollsters, all they had to do was go out and win the game on the field, and they lost. I don't see how you can "decide it on the field" any better than that. There's the "we won all our games and still didn't have a shot at the championship" argument, but that would apply just as much to an 8 team playoff that would have excluded Boise State or potentially Ball State this year.
And there really isn't any empirical evidence to support your argument. It's all just conjecture.
I'm not arguing that other sports should go to bowl systems. They are fine with what they have. And it's hard to compare pro sports to college sports. Pro sports are clearly more popular than college sports. It might have something to do with the fact that the leagues that all these pro sports teams play in are all based in the major metropolitan areas of the country. And major metros play against major metros.
Does that mean that the NBA's system is better than the NCAA's for basketball?
The NBA season is too long, no doubt. The NFL season is still four months long (more if you count preseason), so that's not exactly short. I still say fantasy sports keep people interested in the NFL's regular season, not any sort of playoff race.
No, those bowl games go away. There's no way they can compete economically. Explain to me the economics of all this money that is magically created by a playoff system that is going on concurrently with bowl games that allows those games to co-exist? On top of that, tie-ins will get all sorts of screwed up. While you could tie in with a conference, you would never be guaranteed any of their top teams.
Well I don't expect to see you headed to a bowl game if ISU wins 7 games next season. And I hope you didn't go to any of the other ISU bowl games either since you don't believe in rewarding our players for having a winning season.
I'd rather have polls have more room for error than they do now. They get two choices for a champion and expanding that to 8 would certainly help. There won't be any convincing either of us one way or another so I'm done with this. Be happy though that most years we won't really know who the best team is and this will never happen because of the people in charge of the Rose Bowl and University Presidents are too scared they will lose money. Excellent argument though!
You're all over the map here. OU didn't win all of their games and they are playing for the title. Utah did win all of their games and are not playing for the title. Ball State etc. are routinely left out of the title argument under the bowl system so how would they be any worse off?
The NBA and the NCAA tournament are both playoff systems so I am missing the point? My argument is simple playoff > than the bowl system. Again, if the smaller bowls want to continue, no reason why they couldn't. The current system has already created a two tier structure (BCS bowls vs. non-BCS bowls and BCS conferences vs. non-BCS conferences) so I am missing why it would be that harmful to simply take the next logical step to convert the BCS portion of all of this into a playoff system.
"Room for error"? I thought we wanted it decided on the field, not left up to the polls.
The only real way to do that is to award all the conference champions, plus the non-affiliated team with the best record a tournament berth and give revolving byes to conferences. Seed based purely on record with a variety of tiebreakers.
That way the conference championship decides who goes to the playoff. And there are no polls involved at all. No margin for error.
I am a real college football fan and I would like to see a return to the traditional bowl system (pre BCS)
The playoff system that you speak of; are you talking about FCS style or some type of post bowl playoff?
I agree, I barely care about the lower-tier bowls. I don't understand the argument about it diminishing other bowls, though. If the teams want to play, their fans want to watch, and the cities want to host the games, they should play. If you don't care, don't watch.
I don't think a playoff system would work with the current conference alignment. All of the conferences would have to be realigned to be more "fair" in determining who makes the playoffs, which I don't see happening.
Agree. Have always thought that the small bowls would continue under a playoff ala the NIT with the NCAA. Also, under my plan 15 of the current 32 bowl games would be swept into the playoff structure. That would at least satisfy the Chamber of Commerce lobby for those host cities. The BIG bowls (Rose, Sugar, Fiesta, Orange, etc.) would rotate hosting the title game just like they do now. Depending on the year, the Rose Parade would have to be held without the accompanying FB game. Big deal.
Actually, I think the only realignment needed would be that either every playoff conference would have a title game or none of them would. This would even out the schedule and the conference champs would then be rewarded with a berth in the playoffs.
Very similar to the automatic qualifiers for the NCAA Tournament. The subjective part comes in choosing the at-large teams.
16 teams make the playoffs (all conference winners plus 5 at large), the top 8 seeds get home games for the first two rounds, a final four weekend at one BCS site and a final at another BCS bowl site the week after. The BCS playoff site's switch every year. The BCS bowl sites that do not host the playoffs can have the next tier of bowl eligible teams at their game. There would still be a bowl system as well for the lower tier's if the sites feel it is necessary to have them.
Revenue split for the home games:
Home team 50%, road team 15%, NCAA 10%, home team conference, 20%, road team conferene 5%.
I am sure there is a lot more tweaking that can be done but that is my quick $.02 worth. I just find it amazing that Div 1 football is the only major sport in college or pro on any level that does not have a playoff, amazing. The schedule/too many games does not hold any water. The other levels of college can do it, so can Div 1.
Revenue split for the home games:
Home team 50%, road team 15%, NCAA 10%, home team conference, 20%, road team conferene 5%.
I am sure there is a lot more tweaking that can be done but that is my quick $.02 worth. I just find it amazing that Div 1 football is the only major sport in college or pro on any level that does not have a playoff, amazing. The schedule/too many games does not hold any water. The other levels of college can do it, so can Div 1.
I think the solution may be a hybrid of a lot of the ideas posted. The key components being:
1. Bowls are retained to give opportunity to up-and-coming teams to get on the map
2. The major bowls are used as playoff games
3. A plus 1 or plus 2 system decides the National Champ
1. Bowls are retained to give opportunity to up-and-coming teams to get on the map
2. The major bowls are used as playoff games
3. A plus 1 or plus 2 system decides the National Champ
Kirk Herbstreit is the biggest BCS lover there is. The only thing I've heard him say is that he wishes there was a +1 system. He would be the first to vote against a playoff.
As others have pointed out, many of the also-rans in 1-AA have as much as given up. Even more than in 1-A, it's almost the same teams year after year in the playoffs. It's worse than the Yankees in baseball or the Lakers in basketball. The few regular participants get all the publicity along with most of the money and most of the recruits. I'd be in favor of a playoff if I was a fan of OK, TX, USC, FL, LSU, OSU, and a few others. For Iowa State fans and most others it is a clear no.
I also do not buy the playoff money argument. Almost every plan tries to balance the time away from school factor by eliminating the 12th game on the regular schedule. This pretty much equals or surpasses the extra money from the playoff format.
I could have sworn I heard Herbstreit say he was an advocate for a playoff, but realizing that would probably never happen, was in favor of pushing for a +1. It could have been another one of ESPN's talking heads though.
maybe at the end of the season we can have Ryan Seacrest host a national championship show. It would be 3 hours of highlight videos from the top teams in the nation with the star players and coaches from said teams presenting their arguments as to why they should be national champ. Then at the end the results are read in dramatic fashion after three or so commercial breaks. Cue the streamers and confetti.
If you like the Sooners Text OU Rocks to 86-247 NOW!
If you like the Sooners Text OU Rocks to 86-247 NOW!
