BCS

[The Leaper]

Maybe it wouldn't be the best game to watch, but how do you know they wouldn't win? I seem to recall a very shitty (worst in the league) Colts team that knocked off the Packers back in the glory days. What about the USA hockey team beating Russia in the semi-finals of the 1980 olympics?

I love Cinderellas. I just don't love giving Cinderella a free ticket to the big dance. She should have to earn her way there via a playoff.

How can you blame them for not beating a team of consequence when other teams are too scared to play them?!? Do you think LSU is in any rush to schedule Hawaii. Hell no. They drop that game and they lose all their recruits for that year.

I realize they have it tough. I'm not saying they do not deserve a chance. In fact, my concept of a 16 team playoff, rather than some ridiculous 4 team playoff or "plus-one" is to GUARANTEE that teams like Hawaii get a fair chance to prove their regular season.

[The Leaper]

I disagree that there is a lack of motivation for players and coaches who are unhappy with the game that they won.

Perhaps you disagree, but the fact of the matter is that recent bowl history suggests that teams who have a reason to be disappointed in where they wind up based on the regular season usually underperform in the bowl game they end up at.

If you think you truly should have a shot at something more...and don't get it...obviously that will make it more difficult to really gear up for the game you are playing.

Should it be that way? No. But these aren't professional athletes. These are college kids with over a month between games. It is hard to keep them on task that long with little in the way of motivation. If they win...who cares? They SHOULD win in the eyes of the pundits. That makes it harder to motivate yourself than someone who is on the other side of the argument...told they SHOULDN'T win.

[4and12to12and4]

I didn't read one post on this thread, but I just want to say that a playoff system isn't going to solve anything unless they make it 64 teams involved in it, which would be almost impossible. But you have an 8 or 16 team playoff, we will still have the same arguments about who got shafted as the ninth or 17th team out, and that will be the new stories for the media to feed off of. It's not the answer, there is no answer, and this system at least is exciting in that you're favorite team has to go undefeated to have a shot, and that's cool.

[Rastak]

Isnt it funny how no debates who the super bowl champ is.. Even when a wild card team wins it all.

Or

who the National champions of the NCAA college hoops , even if NC State wins it.

Or

MLB even when Florida wins it

OR oh you get the picture

People don't dispute who the super bowl champion is but they dispute who the best team was. Same thing in college. The national champion is clear... its the winner of the national championship.

The National Championship matchup is a friggen vote or a computer picking who they might be the two best. Yes, every sport has a debate about the best team vs the champion. Difference is, they won it on the field in a tourney, not by vote or by a computer matchup.


I HATE the bowl system. Maybe hoops should have a bowl system, how thrilling would that be?

[HarveyWallbangers]

I didn't read one post on this thread, but I just want to say that a playoff system isn't going to solve anything unless they make it 64 teams involved in it, which would be almost impossible. But you have an 8 or 16 team playoff, we will still have the same arguments about who got shafted as the ninth or 17th team out, and that will be the new stories for the media to feed off of. It's not the answer, there is no answer, and this system at least is exciting in that you're favorite team has to go undefeated to have a shot, and that's cool.

Media would discuss it, but just like the #65 team in college basketball (#66 with that stupid play-in game) you don't have much of a gripe if you are team #17. If you made it questionable that you should get in, then you have no complaints when the field is 16 or 64 teams. Yes, some teams will have an argument that they should be #16, but that issue would be small potatoes.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I HATE the bowl system. Maybe hoops should have a bowl system, how thrilling would that be?

Agreed. There's a way they could make it work. Eventually, they will. The good and bad thing about this whole BCS system is that it ruined the tradition of the bowl games. Rose Bowl was Big 10 vs. Pac 10, Cotton Bowl was Big 8, etc. They don't have that to overcome anymore.

[4and12to12and4]

I didn't read one post on this thread, but I just want to say that a playoff system isn't going to solve anything unless they make it 64 teams involved in it, which would be almost impossible. But you have an 8 or 16 team playoff, we will still have the same arguments about who got shafted as the ninth or 17th team out, and that will be the new stories for the media to feed off of. It's not the answer, there is no answer, and this system at least is exciting in that you're favorite team has to go undefeated to have a shot, and that's cool.

Media would discuss it, but just like the #65 team in college basketball (#66 with that stupid play-in game) you don't have much of a gripe if you are team #17. If you made it questionable that you should get in, then you have no complaints when the field is 16 or 64 teams. Yes, some teams will have an argument that they should be #16, but that issue would be small potatoes.

The media bitch about this system, and as they do it, they love arguing about who should be placed where. They spend countless hours arguing about it, so as they bitch about the system, they secretly love it, cuz it gives them something to discuss and argue about. A playoff system would give them the same opportunity and they would take complete advantage of it. They know that controversy sells, and that's what they want. They would drum up just as much controversy of the teams not getting a chance to participate in the playoffs saying they got snubbed. Hell, they do it for the Probowl selections, and the All Star game in baseball, and those games don't even mean shit. It's just more controversy and shit for them to argue about. I hate the system as much as everyone else, I'm just saying that the sports media will bitch and argue just as much even with a playoff, because of the teams being left out. But, it would be more exciting and more fair for the teams that do make it.

[Partial]

Maybe it wouldn't be the best game to watch, but how do you know they wouldn't win? I seem to recall a very shitty (worst in the league) Colts team that knocked off the Packers back in the glory days. What about the USA hockey team beating Russia in the semi-finals of the 1980 olympics?

I love Cinderellas. I just don't love giving Cinderella a free ticket to the big dance. She should have to earn her way there via a playoff.

How can you blame them for not beating a team of consequence when other teams are too scared to play them?!? Do you think LSU is in any rush to schedule Hawaii. Hell no. They drop that game and they lose all their recruits for that year.

I realize they have it tough. I'm not saying they do not deserve a chance. In fact, my concept of a 16 team playoff, rather than some ridiculous 4 team playoff or "plus-one" is to GUARANTEE that teams like Hawaii get a fair chance to prove their regular season.

They went undefeated. No other team in the country did that. I'd say they more than payed their dues.

I agree completely on 16 team playoff.

[The Leaper]

The votes are in...how did the coaches vote in the final tally of the year?

Of the 60 coaches we have voting information on...here is what interests me:

- Only 9 coaches did not vote Ohio State #1 or #2...and 46 of the 60 placed them at #1. For all the bloviating from talking heads on how the Buckeyes don't belong in the title game, I think the take of the actual coaches (since they likely do actually vote themselves on the final vote) is telling.

- Only 20 coaches did not vote LSU #1 or #2.

- Tressel voted Ohio State #1, LSU #2.

- Miles voted LSU #1, Ohio State #2.

- Stoops voted for Oklahoma #1, Ohio State #2...and LSU #6, the lowest ranking LSU received from any of the 60 coaches! Bob Stoops was clearly trying to do his best to help himself and HURT LSU...and should be pointed out as the jackass he is for doing so. He put VT above LSU in his rankings, even though LSU beat VT head to head in a blowout.

- Richt voted Ohio State #1, Georgia #2, LSU #3, Oklahoma #4...hard to argue that he tried to lowball his competitors like Stoops did.

- Beamer voted LSU #1, VT #2, Oklahoma #3, Ohio State #4.

- Carroll's vote wasn't listed among the 60 coaches.

Go here to look at the results for yourself.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/graphics/coaches_fb_poll_2007/flash.htm

[swede]

Maybe I'll spend part of the BCS bowl season breaking out the tapes and watching USC vs. Texas again. That was a great game. Ohio State vs. Miami in the Orange Bowl was pretty good, too.

Wayne Larrivee had an excellent rant on the BCS matchups this morning on WTMJ.

With the disclaimer that this was a tough year to pick a slate for the BCS bowls, he nevertheless called the BCS selection committee a bunch of "overweight, inebriated guys in plaid sportcoats concerned mostly with getting wined and dined." Riffing on the idea that the BCS guys are drunks, he called the bowl matchups a "slurred version".

Go Wayne.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I agree completely on 16 team playoff.

16 teams is impractical, that would be four weeks of playoffs. That would be grueling, like another season. And it would take something away from the regular season if all a team had to do was crack the top 16.

Even a 4-team playoff would be a huge improvement. Usually the best team is going to be rated in the top 4. And it could be implemented easily.

Maybe an 8-team playoff might work, but that would be pushing it.

[swede]

I agree completely on 16 team playoff.

16 teams is impractical, that would be four weeks of playoffs. That would be grueling, like another season. And it would take something away from the regular season if all a team had to do was crack the top 16.

Even a 4-team playoff would be a huge improvement. Usually the best team is going to be rated in the top 4. And it could be implemented easily.

Maybe an 8-team playoff might work, but that would be pushing it.

I agree, Harlan.

I've heard it said that college coaches like the bowl games because all over the country half of the bowl teams end the season as winners.

In a playoff system everybody eventually ends on the downer of losing except the ultimate winner.

Therefore a four game playoff is best since it projects to result in the greatest likelihood of crowning the most worthy team while limiting the number of coaches fired for losing in the playoffs, something that seems important to coaches.

[The Leaper]

16 teams is impractical, that would be four weeks of playoffs. That would be grueling, like another season. And it would take something away from the regular season if all a team had to do was crack the top 16.

I disagree.

The beauty of the NCAA is that ALL teams have a fair chance to be included in most sports. The IUPUI's of the world can find themself facing off against Syracuse or Michigan. Expanding to 16 teams ensures that the champion of ALL ELEVEN conferences in major college football gets a fair shot, plus rewards 5 additional teams (independents, great non-conference champs)

Anything less, and why bother? Just stick with the current moronic format that simply rewards only the teams from the six major conferences with any realisitic chance at playing for the national title. If you go to an 8 team playoff, I guarantee the big six conferences will all want an automatic bid for their champ. That leaves 2 at larges...which will also likely go to major conferences 75% of the time.

How do you make the regular season important? Hold the playoff games at the HOME FIELD of the higher seed. I'm tired of bowl games run by corporations and played in huge, sterile NFL stadiums with no character. I want to see USC play Michigan in the Big House in December, rather than always have the advantage of playing bowl games in THEIR climate. I want to see Ohio State have to invade The Swamp. I want to see the Central Michigans of the world get a chance to go into Norman, Oklahoma and beat the Sooners. I want to see REAL COLLEGE FANS tailgating outside their stadium before these playoff games...because the college gameday atmosphere is SECOND TO NONE in sports.

Granting HFA for the top 8 seeds would most certainly keep the regular season's importance. EVERY conference game now is very meaningful. Every conference championship is now EXTREMELY meaningful. Do you know who played for the conference title in all the WACs and MACs of the world this year? Probably not...it is meaningless at this point in the scheme of the national picture. Implement the 16 team playoff, and MORE games become meaningful and intriguing...not less.

Sorry, traditionalists are always at a disadvantage. Baseball WHINED about the wild card teams...but baseball is infinitely better now with them, and even the staunchest traditionalists agree. Having 16 of 119 teams make the playoffs isn't crazy. That is less than 15% of the teams. Sounds reasonable to me.

Makes the season too long? Reduce the number of non-conference games currently played that are mostly meaningless. Every major team has at least 2 cupcakes on their schedule that no one cares about. Use the playoff to spread the money (which would be infinitely greater than the current BCS contract) among the college conferences rather than force them to earn it playing the big boys on the road in meaningless and lopsided contests.

Nope. 16 teams. Give everyone a fair shot. Just like in EVERY OTHER NCAA SPORT.

[The Leaper]

I've heard it said that college coaches like the bowl games because all over the country half of the bowl teams end the season as winners.

In a playoff system everybody eventually ends on the downer of losing except the ultimate winner.

Keep the bowl system. The playoff should be SEPARATE from the bowls, which is how you can run them in REAL college stadiums. Sure, a few of the extremely mediocre bowls would probably die on the vine. Are you going to be pissed at missing the Poinsettia Bowl? Most of the major ones would do just fine.

For instance, this weekend and next weekend could be your first/second round playoff games.

Take a week or two off for finals/holidays...some of the lesser bowl games will be held then as they normally are.

The New Years bowl games will remain the same...and could even include LOSERS from the first round of the playoff, who would still have 3 weeks notice. Those would include some very good teams.

You'd have 3 huge matchups to close the season after the bowl games on 2 weekends to finish out the playoffs...potentially using current BCS bowl games. The ending wouldn't be much later than the current Jan 7/8 slot.

It is an idea that could easily work and would provide the fairness and beauty we all respect in what we know as March Madness. Instead, college football is greedy and refuses to play fair with the lesser conferences. I'm tired of it.

[The Leaper]

16 teams is impractical, that would be four weeks of playoffs.

HEAVEN FORBID HARLAN!!!!

What the hell do we do every March in the NCAA? Oh, that's right...a FUCKING THREE WEEK PLAYOFF known as March Madness that is viewed as the NCAA's crowning jewel. Yikes, we are extending it an entire week...and only playing 15 games instead of 63.

You are hilarious in your hypocrisy...buying into the silly college presidents and BCS corporate sponsors (including outlets like ABC/ESPN and FOX) and their notion of what works and what doesn't. What do the LESSER college football divisions do to crown a champion Harlan? Oh that's right...an extended PLAYOFF.

Yet, it is good enough for Youngstown State, but not Ohio State?

That's a good one.