Bcs

[redbuck]

I'll refrain from posting until I see some comments.

What do you think of it? What changes should be made? What do you think of the constant tinkering? How about the Bowl games in it? The added 5th game this year, Notre Dame's special clause in which they get to be as low as 12th and still make the BCS games...So many questions.

[Jack the Cat]

I personally like the BCS by the standpoint that it makes the regular season mean something. Supposedly a playoff would crown a true national champion, but I don't buy it. This year, in the NCAA Basketball tournament the national champion was a #3 seed in it's region. Given, i'm a Gators fan and i'm proud of the title, but in all honestly the Gators lost 6 games and aside from Kentucky, and LSU they struggled against good teams and lost twice to South Carolina.

If we had a playoff last year, I guarantee you Michigan would have made a strong run at it, as would South Carolina. Michigan was a 7-4 regular season team that lost 3 times in conference play. South Carolina was 8-3 during the regular season and also lost 3 times in conference play. Neither team had buisness playing for the national title in my view and if they had the shot in a playoff it would render the regular season meaningless.

My idea is for the 5th BCS bowl to be an extra game played 2 weeks after the bowls are done. The top 2 ranked teams after the bowls will get a shot. That way in 2003 USC and LSU could have gone at it. In 2004 USC and Auburn could have gone at it.

Sure, there was last year where Texas and USC were still # 1 and # 2. In that case, there would be no extra game, or if the NCAA decided to be greedy and wanted money than in that case the #3 team would have gotten a shot, which would mean Texas-Penn St., which would have been a fun game even though I think the Longhorns would have won no problem.

However, I don't want to see a 16, or 32 game playoff in college football like some people want to see.

As for Notre Dame being as low as 12th and getting in, it doesn't really matter much in the long run. As a Notre Dame hater, I like seeing them in the BCS because it was fun watching Oregon St. whoop on them in 2001, and was fun seeing Ohio St. score on them at will this year.

[redbuck]

No single format will accomodate every year. how about we decide every year? Or we could go back to the regular BCS or even older bowl format. That was college football, with arguments and great historic games, not a situation where the Rose Bowl works as a play in game. That's just sad.

Why do we need a clear cut national champion? Remember the good ol' days of Rose Bowl Big 10 vs. Pac 10 and the Orange Bowl as the 2 big bowls.

2005: 2 undefeated teams
Perfect setup for old BCS system, playoff would have created only argument about who the 3 and 4 teams would be - PSU, OSU?, ND?, UGA? 5th game system would have looked stupid given that there was a clear perfect title game setup

2004: 4 undefeated teams, although one of them was Utah
Might have worked as a 4-team playoff or the 5th game format although there would have been great argument as to the 4th team - Utah or Texas

2003: 0 undefeated teams, 3 1-loss teams
Again, a 4-team playoff or a 5th game would solve nothing because there aren't an even number of worthy teams

2002: 2 undefeated teams
Like in 2005, the setup was perfect for a BCS final showdown. 5th game or playoff would look stupid

2001: 1 undefeated team, 2 1-loss teams
Miami was a clear choice, but Oregon or Nebraska wasn't. How about a playoff for Oregon and Nebraska but a bye for Miami? Wouldn't fit in current system

[Jack the Cat]

I really think that my system works.

1998: Tennessee beats Florida St., and then Ohio St. plays Tennessee for the title and a true champion for 1998 gets crowned
1999: Florida St. beats Virginia Tech, and then Nebraska plays Florida St. for the title, and we have a true title for that year instead of Nebraska fans complaining. Nebraska did cancel out their earlier loss to Texas by beating them in the Big 12 title game so they deserved a shot.
2000: Oklahoma beats Florida St., and then gets to play Miami in a game that I feel the Hurricanes would have won. It would have been interesting.
2001: Miami beats Nebraska, winner of Colorado-Oregon plays Miami and the title game everybody wants happens.
2002: This is the one year where my system would not have worked
I already discussed 2003, 2004, and 2005 with my system.

However, out of 8 years there have only been 2 years where the current BCS system has worked. My system would have worked 6 out of 8, which is better.

[redbuck]

You would have to have three clear teams for the game, one of whom is a notch higher than the others. I don't think there's any universal system other than the classic bowl system (which may not crown a champion but which is steeped in tradition and makes it so that many teams can end their seasons with wins...unlike college basketball where if you make your conference tournament you are guaranteed to end your season with a loss) that will work every year.

[trippii]

A four-team BCS playoff might work well: seed 1 vs 4, and 2 vs 3.

If an 8-team playoff is considered, I would give the top 4 teams home field advantage before starting play at neutral sites. But I still PREFER just 4 team playoff; otherwise fans of the best team will probably skip the first playoff game if their team is favored -- saving their funds for the next game (which may never come).

Anything more than 8 team playoff would make regular season almost meaningless.

BCS ranking system should restore some points for quality of schedule. Also, give credit only for wins over Division 1 opponents. Perhaps 1 point for home win over Div 1 team and 2 points for road victory over Div 1 opponent. Double those points for wins over teams ranked in the Top 10. (In other words, reward teams for scheduling tougher opponents; that way, we have less chance of more than one team going undefeated for entire season.)

I think Margin of Victory should also be included in the ranking formula. To prevent "running up the score" on a weak opponent, perhaps give no credit for margins over 14 points. I just think there is a difference between an overtime win or win when opponent misses an extra point -- versus a solid winning margin of ten points or more. The BCS ranking system should recognize these differences.

[redbuck]

A four-team BCS playoff might work well: seed 1 vs 4, and 2 vs 3.

Doubtful because even if that solves the problem of a 3-team setup, there will be debate as to the 4th team. And what about last year, or 2002? A 4-team playoff might eliminate one of the perfect championship game setups with an upset.

[QUOTE=trippii}BCS ranking system should restore some points for quality of schedule.

I think Margin of Victory should also be included in the ranking formula. To prevent "running up the score" on a weak opponent, perhaps give no credit for margins over 14 points. I just think there is a difference between an overtime win or win when opponent misses an extra point -- versus a solid winning margin of ten points or more. The BCS ranking system should recognize these differences.[/QUOTE]

Of course it should, but one of those elements would evenutally screw a team lots of fans thought should be in the title game, so they'd tinker with the formula until it would set up USC in the 2003-04 title game. And then everybody would complain when that system screwed somebody else the next year.

It's like people can't see more than 3 days ago. It's amazing.

Margin of victory is an interesting topic. Does a 10-1 team that won ten games by 30 points deserve to be in the title game over an 11-0 team that won all its games by an average of 10 points. I say no. (assuming equal schedules) It takes far more than a bunch of athletes to go undefeated. Any good recruiter can have a year or two where he has the best athletes, but to be the best team there must be a molding and a brilliance to get the team through the season without a blemish.

In some ways a team that plays more close games is almost more impressive than a team that wins in all blowouts. The coaching and nerves it takes to win over and over and over in close games in front of hostile crowds over fired up teams is as impressive to me as the sheer talent of a team that wins through blowouts.

[tdk1984]

5th BCS game is the next step towards a playoff which is desperately needed.

[Jack the Cat]

Yes, there would be debate for the 4th team in a playoff but theres only been 1 year where more than 4 teams have gone undefeated during the BCS, and we all know that Boise St. was not deserving. The point is, if you have lost a game, than you can't complain about not being included in the playoff no matter what. If theres ever a year where 5 major conference teams go undefeated, yes there would be debate but I don't ever see that happening.

[redbuck]

Right, but if two teams are undefeated, that lends itself perfectly into a championship bowl game. If 1 is undefeated, there will be debate as to the other 3 teams as there may be more or fewer than three other teams that really deserve a shot at knocking off #1. If there are 3 undefeated teams, there will be tremendous debate as to the fourth team.

[Jack the Cat]

Yes there will be debate, but if the three teams are undefeated things happen, while sure there will be debate over the 4th team, if a team has lost than they have no right to complain about being left out because they controlled their destiny.

If 1 team goes undefeated and there are 5 or 6 with 1 loss than you look at the schedule and various other factors. While yes it does end up screwing over the mid-majors it's another case of if the team didn't lose they would have been in.

Another thing though, I think undefeated teams should be grandfathered in. That way teams like 98 Tulane, and some of those Marshall teams would get a shot. If there are 5 undefeated teams, then there can be a play-in game like the NCAA tournament has.

[redbuck]

And that would work fine if we simply made a different setup every year at the end of November based on that year's needs.

Instead of trying to setup some four or eight team playoff or some system with four games and then a fifth "title game" why can't we just go year by year?

[fatboy]

I personally like the BCS by the standpoint that it makes the regular season mean something. Supposedly a playoff would crown a true national champion, but I don't buy it. This year, in the NCAA Basketball tournament the national champion was a #3 seed in it's region. Given, i'm a Gators fan and i'm proud of the title, but in all honestly the Gators lost 6 games and aside from Kentucky, and LSU they struggled against good teams and lost twice to South Carolina.

If we had a playoff last year, I guarantee you Michigan would have made a strong run at it, as would South Carolina. Michigan was a 7-4 regular season team that lost 3 times in conference play. South Carolina was 8-3 during the regular season and also lost 3 times in conference play. Neither team had buisness playing for the national title in my view and if they had the shot in a playoff it would render the regular season meaningless.

My idea is for the 5th BCS bowl to be an extra game played 2 weeks after the bowls are done. The top 2 ranked teams after the bowls will get a shot. That way in 2003 USC and LSU could have gone at it. In 2004 USC and Auburn could have gone at it.

Sure, there was last year where Texas and USC were still # 1 and # 2. In that case, there would be no extra game, or if the NCAA decided to be greedy and wanted money than in that case the #3 team would have gotten a shot, which would mean Texas-Penn St., which would have been a fun game even though I think the Longhorns would have won no problem.

However, I don't want to see a 16, or 32 game playoff in college football like some people want to see.

As for Notre Dame being as low as 12th and getting in, it doesn't really matter much in the long run. As a Notre Dame hater, I like seeing them in the BCS because it was fun watching Oregon St. whoop on them in 2001, and was fun seeing Ohio St. score on them at will this year.

i agree. i think the top 2 teams should battle it out.

[Jack the Cat]

I'm glad you agree, and to revise what I said before if it is like last year and 2002 than they don't have to play the final game. If the same 2 teams are ranked 1 and 2 again than there is no point.

But twice in 8 seasons we have had the perfect title game, thats only once every 4 years which isn't very good.