NCAA football - how about that BCS?

yossar · Post by **yossar** » Sun Dec 05, 2004 11:05 pm

What a joke. I definitely don't understand how Texas made it in over Cal. There's nothing obviously wrong about the teams in there, but Cal and Aubrun definitely got screwed. Maybe if Cal had tried for a touchdown instead of taking a knee at the end of the game...

With so many teams and so few games, I guess it's expected that some teams are going to get screwed. But how much fun would it be to have an 8-team playoff between USC, Oklahoma, Auburn, Virginia Tech, California, Texas, Utah, and Georgia? And I wish we could somehow throw in undefeated Boise St. too.

naednek · Post by **naednek** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 12:51 am

I know the rankings are based on many different stats, but damn, both teams have the same record. Cal lost to the #1 team in college football, Texas lost to the #2. Cal should be in.

Eel Snave · Post by **Eel Snave** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 12:53 am

Here's the thing that they were saying on ESPN Radio: USC and Oklahoma started at the polls at #1 and #2, respectively. Auburn started at #16. Auburn never had a chance to begin with. Kind of ridiculous.

yossar · Post by **yossar** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 5:56 am

Also, assuming the three other teams stay unbeaten would it even have been possible for Utah to be playing for the national title given the schedule they had? Their defense could have been a bit better but just looking at the scores, they didn't play a close game all year. Stick USC or Oklahoma in the Mountain West and would they still be playing in the title game?

GungHo · Post by **GungHo** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 10:20 am

naednek wrote:I know the rankings are based on many different stats, but damn, both teams have the same record. Cal lost to the #1 team in college football, Texas lost to the #2. Cal should be in.

ANd Texas beat 4 ranked teams and Cal beat one...so does that not count for anything?

There is no *should be in* about it; either Texas or Cal was gonna get screwed(if indeed there is anything 'screwy' about not making it to a bowl that's just as unimportant as any other, outside of the ORange). THe team that doesnt belong is Pitt...and that's not their fault, they're just playing by the rules laid out there.

It's just another feather in the cap of the BCS that, once again, it will fail to give us a consensus NC(assuming Auburn wins the Sugar), while at the same time it managed to exclude a top team from it's so called 'Big-Time Bowls'.

Of course it's done that before; Texas was ranked in the Top 6 of the BCS in both 2003 and 2001 and didnt make a BCS bowl, so this is hardly uncharted territory for the BCS(EDIT: Texas was 7th in 2001 and 5th in 2003). But if Cal's playing the sacrifical lamb to the BCS, stirs up (even more) popular dissent for the BCS, Im all for it...as much as I hate seeing them shut out of the Rose Bowl.

We wont ever get rid of this damn thing unless some real travesties take place, and the sooner those happen(rather than later), the better it is for everyone.

Dont get me wrong, as a Texas alum, Im excited to see we're playing Michigan(amazingly, it's the first time the 2 schools have played, and they're #4(EDIT: Texas is #5) and #1 all-time in wins in the NCAA, respectively). But Id be just as excited to play them in the Toilet Bowl. THe fact that it is a BCS bowl does nothing for me, personally.

jblank · Post by **jblank** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 12:32 pm

Playoff,Playoff,Playoff,Playoff,Playoff,Playoff,Playoff,Playoff,Playoff,Playoff,
Playoff,Playoff,Playoff,Playoff,Playoff,Playoff,Playoff,Playoff,Playoff,Playoff,
Playoff,Playoff,Playoff,Playoff,Playoff,Playoff,Playoff,Playoff,Playoff,Playoff.

Someone, ANYONE, tell me why these egghead college Presidents cant get together, and set up a 4 team playoff, with the BCS formula, that uses a rotating bowl to decide the title? Its just like now, except you have #1 playing #4 and #2 versus #3, then they go to the (insert bowl of the year) and the winner of those 2 games plays for the title. Its so simple, so easy, and so uncontroversial that it is asinine that it hasnt been done. All you have to do is save the title bowl for the winner of those 2 games, hell you dont even have to add another bowl game, or change who goes where with the BCS. Just pisses me off, royally, and its sad for the kids and fans of Auburn, just like it was for USC last year.

[EDIT - godhugh: I changed the formatting so it didn't stretch the page]

Freezer-TPF- · Post by **Freezer-TPF-** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 2:15 pm

With the "4+1" option (1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3, then one extra game to decide the champ), you still have arguments about who should be #4 or even #3, depending on the season. If you expand it to 8 or 16, then you start adding too many games. (I know the lower divisions have a playoff, but I think they play fewer reg. season games, don't they? And they don't really have any bowls at all, do they?)

I'm not at all in favor of a playoff, but I guess I might feel differently this year if I were an Auburn fan. At least they should get a share of the "title" if they win their bowl game.

jblank · Post by **jblank** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 2:27 pm

Freezer-TPF- wrote:With the "4+1" option (1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3, then one extra game to decide the champ), you still have arguments about who should be #4 or even #3, depending on the season. If you expand it to 8 or 16, then you start adding too many games. (I know the lower divisions have a playoff, but I think they play fewer reg. season games, don't they? And they don't really have any bowls at all, do they?)

I'm not at all in favor of a playoff, but I guess I might feel differently this year if I were an Auburn fan. At least they should get a share of the "title" if they win their bowl game.

Dont you think that 9.9 times out of 10, its gonna be easier to see who is the 3rd or 4th seed? I would rather there be the chance that a good number 5 team not go, than to see an undefeated 12-0 team get the shaft, and have 90 kids not have a chance to play for a NC.

1-AA teams also play an 11 game schedule, with the potential of playing 3 additional playoff games, after the regular season.

SuperHiro · Post by **SuperHiro** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 2:31 pm

I think the BCS is dumb.

It was supposed to end all debate regarding who was the "real" champion. Well if anything we're debating MORE now. First it was just "True Champion" and "Two Polls vs. playoffs" arguements running around.

Now it's "True Champion", "BCS sucks vs. it's okay", "BCS vs. playoffs"... we added one whole new arguement... and STILL CAN'T RESOLVE THE FIRST ONE.

Croaker24 · Post by **Croaker24** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 2:50 pm

yossar wrote:What a joke. I definitely don't understand how Texas made it in over Cal. There's nothing obviously wrong about the teams in there, but Cal and Aubrun definitely got screwed. Maybe if Cal had tried for a touchdown instead of taking a knee at the end of the game...

The Texas coach lobbied other coaches for votes for his team in the AP poll, that's why Texas got that slot. Makes the BCS an even bigger joke.

yossar · Post by **yossar** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 4:29 pm

Freezer-TPF- wrote:I'm not at all in favor of a playoff, but I guess I might feel differently this year if I were an Auburn fan. At least they should get a share of the "title" if they win their bowl game.

No they shouldn't. No matter what rankings you look at, they'll still be #2 behind the Orange Bowl winner. At least last year, USC was #1 in whichever poll doesn't have to go along with the BCS. If you're gonna give Auburn a share of the title, you'd have to give one to Utah and Boise St. too.

Maybe they should abandon the whole "national title" concept and just play for fun. Then we can all be winners

Freezer-TPF- · Post by **Freezer-TPF-** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 5:01 pm

yossar wrote:
Freezer-TPF- wrote:I'm not at all in favor of a playoff, but I guess I might feel differently this year if I were an Auburn fan. At least they should get a share of the "title" if they win their bowl game.
No they shouldn't. No matter what rankings you look at, they'll still be #2 behind the Orange Bowl winner. At least last year, USC was #1 in whichever poll doesn't have to go along with the BCS. If you're gonna give Auburn a share of the title, you'd have to give one to Utah and Boise St. too.

If Auburn blows out VT, they could possibly be voted #1 by the other poll if the winner of USC and Oklahoma doesn't look impressive. Doubtful, but possible. And even if they don't get a #1 ranking, plenty of folks will consider them to have a share of the "title" (the MNC "title" doesn't actually exist anyway, thus the Mythical in MNC).

I'll assume you were being funny about equating Auburn with Utah and Boise St.

Jancelot · Post by **Jancelot** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 5:19 pm

I'm all for a playoff system. This season especially we have a whole lot of very good and all deserving teams. The #1 and #2 spots I think are correct. And I also feel Texas being in is the right decision too. Where does Auburn fall? I don't think they're any better than USC or OU, but they are a damn good team. It's nigh impossible to rank them unless you start doing that lame split title crap they pulled last year to band-aid the system. But Utah also got the shaft in the bowl selection. They're favored by 15 freakin' points over Pittsburg. They should've been given the chance to prove themselves against a team like Texas. And no matter if Cal had driven for a last touch down or not, they just didn't put on the best showing against Southern Miss. The BCS will never be able to give everyone a fair shake, and a playoff system is not without its own problems. But I think it's a better system overall.

If you caught or get a chance to catch Lee Korso's comments he has some very convincing arguments as to why the system *did* work this year.

Grinfin · Post by **Grinfin** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 5:40 pm

Yeah, what's up with Pittsburgh? They need to stop slotting conference winners. What Utah fans wanted was to face a high-ranked team to see how the Utes do stack up nationally this year. Now we just won't know. Unless Pittsburgh wipes the Utes out

yossar · Post by **yossar** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 7:18 pm

Freezer-TPF- wrote:I'll assume you were being funny about equating Auburn with Utah and Boise St.

My point was that assuming they're still no higher than #2 in all the polls and rankings at the end of the season, what justification is there for them being #1 (or at least tied for #1) other than they're undefeated and they got screwed in the BCS? Unless you're going to share the title with all the undefeated teams, Auburn has to get the shaft, no matter how close people think they are.

noxiousdog · Post by **noxiousdog** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 9:00 am

I'll throw in the obligatory why does a playoff make a 'legitimate' National Champion?

Why is it any better that national championships should be decided by late flags than by votes?

Why do we want to decrease the importance of the other 10 weeks of the season?

jblank · Post by **jblank** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 9:44 am

This is easily refuted.

I'll throw in the obligatory why does a playoff make a 'legitimate' National Champion?

Because its decided on the field, amongst the worthy teams, rather than coaches and sports writers determining the 2 teams able to have a shot at a championship. If you have a playoff, you increase the number of eligible teams, and probably eliminate the prospect of an undefeated, major conference/conference champion team getting shut out of even a remote chance at a title.

Why is it any better that national championships should be decided by late flags than by votes?

Huh? Are you saying you would rather NOT see the champion decided on the field because of the prospect of a flag or blown call hurting a team? Put replay in if thats the big concern, but at least its decided on the field.

Why do we want to decrease the importance of the other 10 weeks of the season?

Who said we would? I certainly dont believe a 4 team playoff system devalues the regular season at all.

GungHo · Post by **GungHo** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 10:37 am

Croaker24 wrote:
yossar wrote:What a joke. I definitely don't understand how Texas made it in over Cal. There's nothing obviously wrong about the teams in there, but Cal and Aubrun definitely got screwed. Maybe if Cal had tried for a touchdown instead of taking a knee at the end of the game...
The Texas coach lobbied other coaches for votes for his team in the AP poll, that's why Texas got that slot. Makes the BCS an even bigger joke.

Actually, according to ESPN's resident BCS guru, Brad Edwards, he said that given the way the final numbers came out, Texas got somewhere between 30 and 40 voters across both polls(AP and coach's) putting UT higher than Cal this week vs. last.

I totally agree that the system as it stands now, kind of forces(or at least potentially rewards) politicking. ANd I think that not only demeans the individuals and their institutions, but the whole process as well. It's the same crap that had Bob Stoops(sorta) complaining about a conspiracy between ESPN and the SEC. It's silly, but that's the world of college football nowdays, and it sucks.

But as much as the media would like it to be true(thus being able to blame Mack and not the voters...who happen to be fellow media-types), Mack's lobbying didnt put UT in the Rose Bowl. Fickle voters who typically only watch scoreboards and/or those who don't look at a team's entire body of work, did that.

noxiousdog · Post by **noxiousdog** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 10:57 am

jblank wrote: This is easily refuted.

I'll throw in the obligatory why does a playoff make a 'legitimate' National Champion?

Because its decided on the field, amongst the worthy teams, rather than coaches and sports writers determining the 2 teams able to have a shot at a championship. If you have a playoff, you increase the number of eligible teams, and probably eliminate the prospect of an undefeated, major conference/conference champion team getting shut out of even a remote chance at a title.

What do you by 'decided on the field'? And at least be honest. It's decided on the field during a particular short timeframe.

And what does it prove? Are we attempting to find the best team, or simply the champion of a tourney?

Why is it any better that national championships should be decided by late flags than by votes?

Huh? Are you saying you would rather NOT see the champion decided on the field because of the prospect of a flag or blown call hurting a team? Put replay in if thats the big concern, but at least its decided on the field.

Penalties can't be reversed on replay. I'm not really saying anything because I know my own views are not reflected by the public at large. I'm just trying to gain some understanding of the potentional benefits of a playoff system and to raise some of the complications of said system.

Why do we want to decrease the importance of the other 10 weeks of the season?

Who said we would? I certainly dont believe a 4 team playoff system devalues the regular season at all.

[/quote]

Well, this year you'd be adding a one loss team to the mix. Most years you'd be adding 2 or 3.

Freezer-TPF- · Post by **Freezer-TPF-** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 11:00 am

yossar wrote:
Freezer-TPF- wrote:I'll assume you were being funny about equating Auburn with Utah and Boise St.
My point was that assuming they're still no higher than #2 in all the polls and rankings at the end of the season, what justification is there for them being #1 (or at least tied for #1) other than they're undefeated and they got screwed in the BCS?

Because they are the champions and the winners of the title game in arguably the best college football conference. I haven't examined the results in detail, so if USC and Oklahoma both played a better schedule and were more impressive than Auburn, I apologize in advance.

Anyway, I'd rather keep the bowl system and not turn college football into the NFL any more than it already is.

The Meal · Post by **The Meal** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 11:02 am

noxiousdog wrote:Are we attempting to find the best team, or simply the champion of a tourney?

Tournaments are much more exciting than voting. From the perspective of a fan, I'd much rather watch a tournament.

~Neal

noxiousdog · Post by **noxiousdog** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 11:15 am

The Meal wrote:
noxiousdog wrote:Are we attempting to find the best team, or simply the champion of a tourney?
Tournaments are much more exciting than voting. From the perspective of a fan, I'd much rather watch a tournament.

~Neal

Fair enough, but is that worth destroying the Bowl tradition (if it's not already dead... no Big-10, Pac-10 Rose Bowl Inconceivable!) and adding 15 extra losers to Division 1 college football?

The Meal · Post by **The Meal** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 11:21 am

noxiousdog wrote:s that worth destroying the Bowl tradition (if it's not already dead... no Big-10, Pac-10 Rose Bowl Inconceivable!) and adding 15 extra losers to Division 1 college football?

I don't know the answer to that and I don't even get to vote. I watch TV via free over-the-airwaves broadcasts, don't own a single piece of apparrel from a Division I football team, and haven't ever spent money on a ticket to a Division I football event.

~Neal

GungHo · Post by **GungHo** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 11:41 am

noxiousdog wrote:
The Meal wrote:
noxiousdog wrote:Are we attempting to find the best team, or simply the champion of a tourney?
Tournaments are much more exciting than voting. From the perspective of a fan, I'd much rather watch a tournament.

~Neal
Fair enough, but is that worth destroying the Bowl tradition (if it's not already dead... no Big-10, Pac-10 Rose Bowl Inconceivable!) and adding 15 extra losers to Division 1 college football?

Well this is the 3rd time in the last 5 years(?) that that particular matchup hasnt taken place so....tradition is already dead. Might as well get a real NC if you're going to do that.

But there's no need, or really any conceiveable way to do a 16 team tourney. First and foremost, how in the world could fans afford it? And for those that could, would they be able to get the time to travel the country following their team? College football is very regional, so I highly doubt that anyone(or at least very few ppl) in Miami are going to goto the Orange Bowl to see USC play Oklahoma, even though it's the NC game. No way would they go if it's just a first round playoff game.

Just do a 4 team playoff, and rotate the 3 games amongst the Sugar, Rose, and Orange Bowls(who the hell is teh Fiesta Bowl anyways? and when did they gain relevance?). Hell we could even use these stupid BCS rankings if we wanted to, and then matchup 1 v 4 and 2 v 3. The winners then play in the NC game. No doubt there's going to be a lot of hemming and hawing about who the 4 teams are. We've got that this year and that's over a meaningless bowl. BUt if the fans know that they're at least going to get a true NC out of the deal, they'll (probably) be more accepting, esp. if they can understand that you just ahve to draw the line somewhere.

You do a system like that you 1) keep the meaningfulness of the reg. season intact. You lose once(unless it's to the #1 or #2 team and even then it's dicey) and you're out. 2)It would encourage teams to play tougher non-conference games, esp. given a scenario like we saw this last weekend. If Cal is playing Ohio St. and not S. Miss. and they "only" win 26-16, they're probalby still #4. BUt they were favored by 25 over S. Miss(i.e. they arent seen as a strong team) and didnt dominate, so they lose beauty points. Now ill grant you that many of those early season wins vs. tough non-conf teams might get overlooked at the end of the year, so to help with that aspect, you dont start ranking teams until Oct. 1.

As for the other 113 teams in Div 1A(about half of whom are eligible for bowls seemingly every year) you send them to bowls just like we always have.

I love it when a plan comes together.

noxiousdog · Post by **noxiousdog** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 11:46 am

The Meal wrote: I don't know the answer to that and I don't even get to vote. I watch TV via free over-the-airwaves broadcasts, don't own a single piece of apparrel from a Division I football team, and haven't ever spent money on a ticket to a Division I football event.

~Neal

Now that's an interesting question.

My opinion on this whole thing changed when I attended the Cotton Bowl one year. We sat in front of a guy that had attented every Cotton Bowl since SMU and Doak Walker played there in '47 (or '48). He (the guy) was a high school friend of Doak Walker.

I wonder how many people interested in a playoff system are aware and participate in the tradition of the current system.

I'm not so sure it's about money. The NCAA College Basketball tourney brings in HUGE cash for the teams. I can't even begin to guess what a 16 team (and if it starts at 4, it will eventually be 16) football playoff would do.

noxiousdog · Post by **noxiousdog** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 11:51 am

GungHo, if there is a 4 team playoff, is there any logical reason to keep it from expanding?

And we already have an example of tradition (NIT) being squeezed out by TV and dough. The other Bowls will wind up the same way. NIT or non-existent (like the Blue-Gray game).

I don't think travelling fans are a problem either. #1) Most of the money is going to come from the networks. #2) The NCAA tourney doesn't have any trouble drawing fans and that's over 3 weekends. #3) Only 8 teams have to worry about more than 1 game, and by then the stakes are raised even higher.

GungHo · Post by **GungHo** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 12:10 pm

noxiousdog wrote:GungHo, if there is a 4 team playoff, is there any logical reason to keep it from expanding?

And we already have an example of tradition (NIT) being squeezed out by TV and dough. The other Bowls will wind up the same way. NIT or non-existent (like the Blue-Gray game).

I don't think travelling fans are a problem either. #1) Most of the money is going to come from the networks. #2) The NCAA tourney doesn't have any trouble drawing fans and that's over 3 weekends. #3) Only 8 teams have to worry about more than 1 game, and by then the stakes are raised even higher.

Several, actually. 1) the university presidents have claimed FOR YEARS that they couldnt add more games due to missed class time, and a host of other reasons, a big one being the cost of traveling a football team. It costs far, far more to take a football team, trainers, myriad coaches, hangers-on, the band, etc. across the country than it does 12 basketball players and a 15 member band. 2) if they drag they playoffs out too long, they start treading on the NFL's turf, and neither the NFL nor the NCAA wants to fight that battle. College alumni and students are far more passionate about their schools than NFL fans are about their teams(with the notable exception of Green Bay), but then there are far more casual NFL fans than college football fans. 3) I think the travelling thing really is a big deal. With the NCAA hoops tourney, if you travel(and many of the fans at those games are locals of the host city) you get (possibly) 2 chances to watch 'your' team, and due to scheduling, you dont have to (generally) travel very far. It's a pretty rare occurance that UCLA ends up playing their tourney games in Miami...most likely they're no farther away than Seattle or Boise or Denver. That's huge. ALso I dont think you'll get the locals coming out for a one game playoff; the reason so many locals take in the NCAA tourney is that you get a great deal. If you take in the first 2 rounds, you get 8 games for like $100. If they start making the football playoffs a travelling circus, all you're going to get for that same $100 is one game...and you're not going to get the chance to see a Cinderalla-like upset either. Any team, even one in a 16 team playoff, is going to be pretty darn good, and the prospect of one ranked team(even #16) beating a #1 doesnt hold fan's interest like a #48 team beating #4(or 3 or 1).

Now Im all with you on the tradition thing. IMHO, it's what makes college football the best game going. No other sport has the kind of steeped tradition that it does(well 'cept maybe pro baseball, but that's a pro league and every year the nostalgia for that game gets less and less..again IMHO). THe NFL in its current form is only about 40 years old, but college football goes back at least twice as far..hell Kansas and Missouri have played for the last 112 years! That's insane, but damn if it ain't cool. But we have to face facts and realize that things arent going to go back to how they used to be(as mcuh as I too would like to see that); it's "progress", dontchya know?

EDIT: I wanted to say also that, the bowls, for the most part, have always been meaningless. In the sense that even if your team went to one, you probably didnt have any kind of shot at winning the NC unless you were already ranked very highly, and Team X and/or Team Y lost. College hoops fans already get 15 to 20 chances to see their team play at home, so the allure of seeing the team 'one more time' isnt there like it is in football, where at most, your team plays 6 home games. The bowls have always been about 1) seeing your team one last time 2) playing quality competition 3) having a party. None of that would change if we adopt a playoffs. Your comparison to the NIT doesnt work b/c it's teh same format as the NCAA tourney. The bowls wouldnt be; they be the polar opposite. A one shot and done type of deal that, as a fan, you dont want to miss. Especially if it's in a fun place like Orlando or San Diego. Im sure Boise is a very nice city, but Im not making the trip up there just to see the Horns play in teh NCAA tourney...but damn if Im not giving some serious thought to seeing em play in the Rose Bowl.

noxiousdog · Post by **noxiousdog** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 12:41 pm

and you're not going to get the chance to see a Cinderalla-like upset either.

I think it will be fairly common. Certainly less than 50% of course, but it wouldn't surprise me at all to see the final 8 have two lower seeds, and I think it will be the exception that one of the top 2 teams going in wins the title.

The irony of course, is that the playoff people will claim victory claiming that the best 2 teams aren't selected each year and the 'timing' people will claim victory saying that randomness is too much of a factor in a one game playoff

yossar · Post by **yossar** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 2:24 pm

Freezer-TPF- wrote:Because they are the champions and the winners of the title game in arguably the best college football conference. I haven't examined the results in detail, so if USC and Oklahoma both played a better schedule and were more impressive than Auburn, I apologize in advance.

I haven't (and won't) looked in-depth either, but if Auburn were more impressive and played a better schedule than the other two, shouldn't they be #1 or #2 in at least one of the two polls or five computer rankings? (they're third in all of them)

Octopus Overlords

NCAA football - how about that BCS?

NCAA football - how about that BCS?

Re: NCAA football - how about that BCS?

Re: NCAA football - how about that BCS?