BCS and a playoff.

#1
JAllen18MVP

JAllen18MVP

Junior Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2006
Messages
807
Likes
1
#1
I know we're all tired of talking about the BCS vs. Playoff stuff, but why is it that everytime the discussion comes up, it has to be one or the other? Why can't we have a playoff using the BCS?

Let's pretend that it's the end of the season right now and the BCS rankings look like they do now:

1. Ohio State
2. USC
3. Michigan
4. Auburn
5. West Virginia
6. Florida
7. Louisville
8. Notre Dame
9. Texas
10. California

Now, since there are 5 BCS bowl games, we take the Top 6 teams in the BCS rankings and put them into the BCS Playoffs. The top two teams, Ohio State and USC, get a bye to the BCS Final Four :)lol:).

In the opening round, the #3 team would play the #6 team, and the #4 team plays the #5 team. So it looks like this:

Rose Bowl: BCS #3 Michigan vs. BCS #6 Florida
Fiesta Bowl: BCS #4 Auburn vs. BCS #5 West Virginia

Let's say Michigan downs Florida, and Auburn downs WV. The BCS Final Four then looks like this:

Orange Bowl: BCS #2 USC vs. BCS #3 Michigan
Sugar Bowl: BCS #1 Ohio State vs. BCS #4 Auburn

Then we'll say Michigan beats USC and Ohio State beats Auburn.

BCS National Championship: BCS #1 Ohio State vs. BCS #3 Michigan

This way, you keep the BCS rankings, and the BCS bowl games, and you still get the playoff. You'd probably have to drop a couple of games from the regular season, but I don't see that as being a big deal. Plus the argument that every game wouldn't count wouldn't be true here. You lose one game and you could very easily miss the playoffs. Plus you want to win all your games and get to that #1 or #2 spot to get a bye right to the Final Four.

Am I alone in this? Does it not make enough sense? Does it make too much sense?

Also, excuse me if this has already been said before.
 
#5
#5
Just take the top 8 teams in the BCS and put them in a playoff. Its a total of 3 games. Shorten the season by one game and get rid of the sec and big 12 champ games.



It would work great. Of course we will never see it, cause everyone knows how great the BCS works.
 
#6
#6
The conferences would never give up the Championship Game payday.
 
#7
#7
Your entire argument is moot due to the obvious fact that the Big Orange isn't factored into the equation.....
 
#8
#8
A lot of people on here are jumping the gun on the BCS issue. There is a whole month and a half of football to be played. This time last year, Penn State was 10 in the BCS, Ohio State was 15, and Notre Dame was 16. They finished the regular season 3,4, and 6 respectively.

The second point I would like to address is that of a playoff. The controversy does not end if a playoff is introduced, it just spreads over more fan bases. Look at the final BCS standings from 2005, 2004, and 2003 to see how this would have shaped out.
FOX Sports - BCSFootball - BCS Standings Archive

Using a 6 team playoff, in 2005, UGA, Miami, Auburn, Va. Tech, WVU, LSU, Alabama, and possibly more teams, would all have had legitimate arguments as to why they should have been included in the 6. Decrease it to 4, you still have any 1 loss or 2 loss team (OSU had 2 losses and was the BCS #4) that is able to make a legitimate argument. Increase it to 14 to include all of the teams that had a legitimate argument about the 6 team playoff, then however, you would have added a 3 loss team from 2005 and increased the gripes.

The BCS has gotten it right more than the old bowl system and the bowl coalition. The BCS at least gives fans a championship game.
 
#9
#9
BCS not perfect but better then what we had before which was predetermined conference vs conference bowl games.
 
#10
#10
all good points.........i for one don't like the idea of a full blown playoff of taking teams from the rankings, simply because there would always be a team that's ranked 9th or 17th or whatever that would have a gripe.

Plus, i love the regular season in CFB...it's the best regular season in ALL OF SPORTS, professional or otherwise.

So i would not be in favor of any play off that would "devalue" the reg. season.

I would be in favor of taking the top 4 in the BCS, play two games with the winners playing for the NT. and it's already there with the 5th BCS game....so the allotted games doesn't change, just who plays in the 5th game.

Other than that, the only playoff i would be in favor of is one that only took conference champions, and that the conference champions were determined in the same way. the SEC, ACC and Big 12 are at a big disadvantage with the CG's they play.

On the positive side for the BCS, we have gotten games that we never would have gotten before the BCS...OSU/Miami, OK/USC, LSU/OK, USC/TX...none of those games happen before the BCS came about. So it's not perfect, but it's also not a complete failure, every year.

it will all work out in the end.
 
#11
#11
jakez4ut said:
all good points.........i for one don't like the idea of a full blown playoff of taking teams from the rankings, simply because there would always be a team that's ranked 9th or 17th or whatever that would have a gripe.

Plus, i love the regular season in CFB...it's the best regular season in ALL OF SPORTS, professional or otherwise.

So i would not be in favor of any play off that would "devalue" the reg. season.

I would be in favor of taking the top 4 in the BCS, play two games with the winners playing for the NT. and it's already there with the 5th BCS game....so the allotted games doesn't change, just who plays in the 5th game.

Other than that, the only playoff i would be in favor of is one that only took conference champions, and that the conference champions were determined in the same way. the SEC, ACC and Big 12 are at a big disadvantage with the CG's they play.

On the positive side for the BCS, we have gotten games that we never would have gotten before the BCS...OSU/Miami, OK/USC, LSU/OK, USC/TX...none of those games happen before the BCS came about. So it's not perfect, but it's also not a complete failure, every year.

it will all work out in the end.
Click to expand...

Well, you're going to have teams griping no matter what system it is. But I would much rather have a team ranked 7 or 8 have a gripe than the #3 team.
 
#13
#13
JAllen18MVP said:
Well, you're going to have teams griping no matter what system it is. But I would much rather have a team ranked 7 or 8 have a gripe than the #3 team.
Click to expand...
well, that's why i think you take the top 4. we have yet to have a situation where 4 teams are all in the same position and two teams get left out. we had it one year with Auburn as the #3 team that got left out, and that was a justifiable gripe.

the problem with taking the top 8 teams in my mind is that look at who determines the top 8...pollsters. And looking at the current polls, i think we could agree that the pollsters don't necessarily get it right, right?

so take the opinion out of it....let the conf. champions play for the NT. there's no way a team that can't win it's own conf. should play for a NT...Nebraska played Miami for the NT in 01 and they finished 3rd in their own conf....ridiculous.

let the top 4 play each other and the last one standing, congrats. If not that, let the conf. champions all play for it.
 
#14
#14
jakez4ut said:
well, that's why i think you take the top 4. we have yet to have a situation where 4 teams are all in the same position and two teams get left out. we had it one year with Auburn as the #3 team that got left out, and that was a justifiable gripe.

the problem with taking the top 8 teams in my mind is that look at who determines the top 8...pollsters. And looking at the current polls, i think we could agree that the pollsters don't necessarily get it right, right?

so take the opinion out of it....let the conf. champions play for the NT. there's no way a team that can't win it's own conf. should play for a NT...Nebraska played Miami for the NT in 01 and they finished 3rd in their own conf....ridiculous.

let the top 4 play each other and the last one standing, congrats. If not that, let the conf. champions all play for it.
Click to expand...
Which 4 conferences would be chosen though? There are 6 conferences that could very well have legitimate national title contenders every year, Pac-10, Big XII, Big Ten, SEC, Big East, and ACC.
 
#15
#15
therealUT said:
Which 4 conferences would be chosen though? There are 6 conferences that could very well have legitimate national title contenders every year, Pac-10, Big XII, Big Ten, SEC, Big East, and ACC.
Click to expand...
you're misunderstanding me...take the top 4 ranked in the BCS standings, play 1 vs. 4, 2 vs. 3 and the winners of those two games play in that 5th BCS game for the NT. the great thing about that is that they've already created the 5th BCS game, so it really wouldn't be "adding" any games to the current schedule.

Also, we have yet to have a situation where 4 teams were legitimately in the running for the NT...we've had 3 obviously in the past....and the liklihood of having 3-4 in the future is good as well...just do the plus one and settle it on the feild. Who wouldn't have wanted to see Auburn play USC in 04? Or LSU/USC in 03?

the only way i would want conf. champions included, is if the playoff only allowed for ALL conf. champions....
 
#16
#16
I think they just need to add the independent strength of schedule rating and the margin of victory calculation (cap at 21) back into the BCS formula. This would force teams to schedule tougher competition and would cut down on undefeated teams.
 
#17
#17
therealUT said:
I think they just need to add the independent strength of schedule rating and the margin of victory calculation (cap at 21) back into the BCS formula. This would force teams to schedule tougher competition and would cut down on undefeated teams.
Click to expand...
i agree about the SOS, but the margin of victory would almost cancel it out...i don't think you could have both.

you have team a that plays a top 15 team and wins 21-17 and team be that plays Duke and plows them 32-6...which one gets more weight? is it equal? if so, why schedule the tougher game, that could, along with the real possibility of loisng that game, result in much closer margin of victory in lieu of scheduling a patsy and run up the score for "style" points in the margin of victory category?

the margin of victory aspect forces teams to run up the score on the lesser opponents and i never like that aspect of it...aside from a pure sportsmanship issue, it also increases the chances of getting key players injured in such games because you're inclined to keep them in games longer than really needed, and you reduce your chances of getting younger guys in the game to develop depth and talent...
 
#18
#18
therealUT said:
A lot of people on here are jumping the gun on the BCS issue. There is a whole month and a half of football to be played. This time last year, Penn State was 10 in the BCS, Ohio State was 15, and Notre Dame was 16. They finished the regular season 3,4, and 6 respectively.

The second point I would like to address is that of a playoff. The controversy does not end if a playoff is introduced, it just spreads over more fan bases. Look at the final BCS standings from 2005, 2004, and 2003 to see how this would have shaped out.
FOX Sports - BCSFootball - BCS Standings Archive

Using a 6 team playoff, in 2005, UGA, Miami, Auburn, Va. Tech, WVU, LSU, Alabama, and possibly more teams, would all have had legitimate arguments as to why they should have been included in the 6. Decrease it to 4, you still have any 1 loss or 2 loss team (OSU had 2 losses and was the BCS #4) that is able to make a legitimate argument. Increase it to 14 to include all of the teams that had a legitimate argument about the 6 team playoff, then however, you would have added a 3 loss team from 2005 and increased the gripes.

The BCS has gotten it right more than the old bowl system and the bowl coalition. The BCS at least gives fans a championship game.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. If there were a playoff, even more teams would get screwed out of their shot at the title? Could you imagine if UT and Cal both finished the season with 1 loss and UT didn't make the playoffs? I can only imagine the uproar. There's still a lot of football left, so I'm sure most of the problems will work themselves out, but I'm still disappointed that UT is ranked so low at this point in the season.
 
#19
#19
It shouldn't be a 6 team playoff, it should be more like 24 to 32 teams. The back end should be like basketball, in there for fun, and maybe an upset, but not a real shot at winning it. If there is controversey is there, it is much better than number 3 with controversey there.
 
#20
#20
tvolsfan said:
It shouldn't be a 6 team playoff, it should be more like 24 to 32 teams. The back end should be like basketball, in there for fun, and maybe an upset, but not a real shot at winning it. If there is controversey is there, it is much better than number 3 with controversey there.
Click to expand...

No one will play enough games to have that many teams in the playoffs. You would have to reduce the regular season to like 7 games.
 
#22
#22
A 16 team playoff, the top 16 teams in the BCS. If you cant make the top 16 teams in the BCS the chances of the team winning the NC isn't very good. Thats 4 games played out from Christmas weekend to the 3rd week of January.

The SEC and Big 12 champ game winner should get automatic bids to the elite 8. If the rest of the conferences want to add champ games they could get automatic bids to the Big 10 and Pac 12.
 
#23
#23
I'm voting for an 8 team playoff based on the AP, Coaches, and Harris Polls. Forget the Computers! Anybody that puts Cal ahead of UT and thinks the PAC10 is the best conference has no business deciding who should be in the NC. Also, I'd like to add the strength of schedule back into the mix. All of the USC whining got it taken out, but who was listening when Auburn was left out. AUB would've surely been in it if the SoS had been in effect. Also, to throw a bone to #9+, they can still play in the conventional bowl system if they meet the criteria. I can honestly say that I would still be glued to the television if UT was out of the playoffs, but still in a bowl. The # 9 team would have no business whining. They've had all season to get in the top 8. Chances are they lost mid-season or later if they are a true contender. Thats the price to pay. UT would definitely get into the top 8 if they win out. Also, all conferences must start playing Championship games. If the SEC, ACC, and Big 12 have to, then everyone should. Oh, and Notre Dame, join a damn conference already. I'm sure the Big 10 is licking their chops for you.
 
#24
#24
oklavol said:
A 16 team playoff, the top 16 teams in the BCS. If you cant make the top 16 teams in the BCS the chances of the team winning the NC isn't very good. Thats 4 games played out from Christmas weekend to the 3rd week of January.

The SEC and Big 12 champ game winner should get automatic bids to the elite 8. If the rest of the conferences want to add champ games they could get automatic bids to the Big 10 and Pac 12.
Click to expand...

I just think it is better not to have Conf. championships. All they are good for is screwing teams. I would say if you want to play them, wait until the seeding is done, then play the championships for pride.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top