Potential BCS antitrust case (merged)

#251
#251
BCS use to be reasonably cool but the past 2 years it has gotten really lame matching up Boise with TCU and stringing out their games. New years use to be a blockbuster now it's watered down. It use to lead up to the NC now it takes over 2 weeks to see the big game after new years. If you guys like this system it's your prerogative but this system is getting boring. I hope all this brings some kind of change.
 
#252
#252
GreveHaller said:
even if the 'can' the BCS, it wont bring a playoff. The BCS members as well as membership of D1 football will vote to revert to the old bowl system we had before. It all comes down to money and currently the bowl system, with or without the BCS, nets more money that what a playoff will. They've looked at the data from bb as well as the FCS and crunched their own numbers with the conclusion that a playoff at this will will not work now. Now, because if they had implemented a playoff back in the 50s or 60s, sure it might work. But now with the money it generates for the conferences as well as the hosting cities, its not worth the risk.

Then we'd have 35 meaningless games and even more debate. Careful what you wish for.
Click to expand...

Not true. Under the old system, there were usually 2 or 3 games that played into the national championship picture. So we'd actually reduce the number of meaningless games by reverting to the old system.
 
#253
#253
strongtower said:
BCS use to be reasonably cool but the past 2 years it has gotten really lame matching up Boise with TCU and stringing out their games. New years use to be a blockbuster now it's watered down. It use to lead up to the NC now it takes over 2 weeks to see the big game after new years. If you guys like this system it's your prerogative but this system is getting boring. I hope all this brings some kind of change.
Click to expand...

Have to correct you on something - the BCS did not match Boise with TCU. The Fiesta Bowl did.

First off its entirely up to the bowl of who they invite. Yes there are some constraints such as conference affiliations ie Sugar-SEC, Orange-SEC, Rose-Big 10/Pac 10. But they get their choice and they want to make the best match to maximize their revenues not to appease the couch potatos.

Next, the picking order was

1. BCS National Championship Game in Pasadena -- No. 1 Alabama vs. No. 2 Texas.
2. Sugar selected Florida to replace No. 1 Alabama.
3. Fiesta selected TCU to replace No. 2 Texas.
4. Orange (first in rotation) selected at-large Iowa.
5. Fiesta (second in rotation) selected at-large Boise State.
6. Sugar (third in rotation) selected AQ Cincinnati.

Please indicate what would have been a better match up of #4 TCU vs #6 Boise State?
 
#254
#254
bamawriter said:
Not true. Under the old system, there were usually 2 or 3 games that played into the national championship picture. So we'd actually reduce the number of meaningless games by reverting to the old system.
Click to expand...

ok, I'll give you that cause its true too but that only increases the debate on who is the NC and that's far worse that what we have today.
 
#255
#255
GreveHaller said:
ok, I'll give you that cause its true too but that only increases the debate on who is the NC and that's far worse that what we have today.
Click to expand...

The current system hasn't eliminated the split championship issue. It has simply started a new debate over teams that weren't even allowed to compete for the title.

I'd much prefer a split title that everyone had a decent shot at than the garbage we have now.
 
#256
#256
bamawriter said:
The current system hasn't eliminated the split championship issue. It has simply started a new debate over teams that weren't even allowed to compete for the title.

I'd much prefer a split title that everyone had a decent shot at than the garbage we have now.
Click to expand...

so how many of these split champions have there been since the creation of the BCS?

How many before the BCS?
 
#257
#257
GreveHaller said:
so how many of these split champions have there been since the creation of the BCS?

How many before the BCS?
Click to expand...

Only once, but shall we count all the years of the BCS when potentially deserving teams weren't even given a chance to compete for the title? Not that such a scenario never happened under the old system, but it seems to be an annual thing nowadays.
 
#258
#258
bamawriter said:
Only once, but shall we count all the years of the BCS when potentially deserving teams weren't even given a chance to compete for the title? Not that such a scenario never happened under the old system, but it seems to be an annual thing nowadays.
Click to expand...

They all are potentially deserving but only 2 get to play for the NC. That's the rules and they know it going in.

In using the 2004 year where USC, Ok, and Aub were all undefeated but Aub was left out even though they were "potentially deserving", who would be that 4th teams to fill a 4 team/+1 playoff? California? Utah? Texas? Louisiville? Maybe even #10 Boise State? Because all you've done is increase the number of "potentially deserving" teams from 1 (Auburn) to at least 5 if not more. Yeah, that fixed the problem. It doesnt get any better if its an 8 team playoff.

How many "potentially deserving" teams get left out of the blob called March Madness? Each year there are teams with better records than many of the at large teams yet they have to play in the NIT. Happens every year, will always happen. A playoff doesnt make it fix the problem - it only makes new problems.

You're logic has more holes than a Memphis levee.
 
#259
#259
GreveHaller said:
They all are potentially deserving but only 2 get to play for the NC. That's the rules and they know it going in.

In using the 2004 year where USC, Ok, and Aub were all undefeated but Aub was left out even though they were "potentially deserving", who would be that 4th teams to fill a 4 team/+1 playoff? California? Utah? Texas? Louisiville? Maybe even #10 Boise State? Because all you've done is increase the number of "potentially deserving" teams from 1 (Auburn) to at least 5 if not more. Yeah, that fixed the problem. It doesnt get any better if its an 8 team playoff.

How many "potentially deserving" teams get left out of the blob called March Madness? Each year there are teams with better records than many of the at large teams yet they have to play in the NIT. Happens every year, will always happen. A playoff doesnt make it fix the problem - it only makes new problems.

You're logic has more holes than a Memphis levee.
Click to expand...

Why get into that? Just send all the conference champs to a playoff and let the also-rans play in meaningless bowls like they do now. If you aren't the best team in your conference, you can't be the best team in the country.
 
#260
#260
bamawriter said:
Why get into that? Just send all the conference champs to a playoff and let the also-rans play in meaningless bowls like they do now. If you aren't the best team in your conference, you can't be the best team in the country.
Click to expand...

About half of the sec teams are better than the best team in most of the other conferences.
 
#261
#261
bamawriter said:
Why get into that? Just send all the conference champs to a playoff and let the also-rans play in meaningless bowls like they do now. If you aren't the best team in your conference, you can't be the best team in the country.
Click to expand...
The problem is the number of conferences there are makes that a problem. Also, if the Sun Belt champion has multiple losses, why do they deserve anything?

If there were a system where you had to win the conference to get in, I'd like to drop conference championship games. We would probably need the conferences to be 10 teams or less, though.
 
#262
#262
tvolsfan said:
The problem is the number of conferences there are makes that a problem. Also, if the Sun Belt champion has multiple losses, why do they deserve anything?

If there were a system where you had to win the conference to get in, I'd like to drop conference championship games.
Click to expand...

the sec would suffer greatly if this happened. i could see a few teams leaving to go to 'sub par' conferences just to get in the playoffs.
 
#263
#263
rmsmith said:
the sec would suffer greatly if this happened. i could see a few teams leaving to go to 'sub par' conferences just to get in the playoffs.
Click to expand...
Hell, I'd be in favor of Tennessee joining the WAC if it winning it gets the same treatment they get for winning the SEC.
 
#266
#266
bamawriter said:
Why get into that? Just send all the conference champs to a playoff and let the also-rans play in meaningless bowls like they do now. If you aren't the best team in your conference, you can't be the best team in the country.
Click to expand...

Oh, I whole heartily agree with that statement. If (and if only) a playoff were implimened, it should only be conference champions. Anyone that hasnt won their conf doesnt deserve even a shot at the NC.

Problem is there's not enough conferences and its not playoff friendly. Goes back to my phrase that in a playoff its more important to fill the slots than to ensure the best are playing. Could a new conf be made to fix that? eh, sure but then you're building something just for the sake of building, not making sure the best are playing.
 
#267
#267
6 teams is probably as much as I would want for a playoff.

If it were 8, I would probably want it to be conference champions only. The top 5 champs get a bye, and the other 6 play for the final 3 spots in the 8 team playoff. The independents would need to join a conference in this scenario.

That being said, I don't want it to be 8. I don't think that every conference champion deserves a shot at the national title. UCONN this past year serves as a good example. Does anyone really need a playoff system to be confident that they weren't the best team in the country?
 
Last edited:
#268
#268
Working off the English Premier League example from earlier, I honestly believe the following would work:

8 Divisions of 14 teams (this, of course, would require a subjective cut of the worst 8 teams currently in D-I)
Each division is subdivided into two pools.
Round robin within the pool (6 games).
Four team playoff within the division. (2 games)
Playoff involving each division winner. (3 games)

11 game schedule that would be hard to argue with.

Regular season games would still be of utmost importance, plus all the playoff games. The top two teams from each division move up a division every year; the bottom two teams move down. The overall champion immediately moves up to the first division.

On top of that, this would allow I-AA teams to move up to I-A, as well.
 
#269
#269
therealUT said:
Working off the English Premier League example from earlier, I honestly believe the following would work:

8 Divisions of 14 teams (this, of course, would require a subjective cut of the worst 8 teams currently in D-I)
Each division is subdivided into two pools.
Round robin within the pool (6 games).
Four team playoff within the division. (2 games)
Playoff involving each division winner. (3 games)

11 game schedule that would be hard to argue with.

Regular season games would still be of utmost importance, plus all the playoff games. The top two teams from each division move up a division every year; the bottom two teams move down. The overall champion immediately moves up to the first division.

On top of that, this would allow I-AA teams to move up to I-A, as well.
Click to expand...
You don't think it would be a problem for a lot of teams to only be playing 6 games?
 
#271
#271
therealUT said:
Huge oversight on my part.
Click to expand...
Not quite on topic, but I think the MLB would be better following an EPL style setup. Each team would simply play two series against the other 29 teams. One at home, one on the road.
 
Last edited:
#272
#272
One could always change it to eight division of 12 teams (just push more of the bottom feeders to I-AA). Get rid of the four team interdivision playoff and go straight round robin. Then, every team plays at least 11 games and at most 14.
 
#273
#273
therealUT said:
One could always change it to eight division of 12 teams (just push more of the bottom feeders to I-AA). Get rid of the four team interdivision playoff and go straight round robin. Then, every team plays at least 11 games and at most 14.
Click to expand...
It doesn't sound bad, but it would be hard to give up non conference games. Still, I tend to agree that the round robin method is better than the two divisions as far as determining the conference champion.
 
#274
#274
Again, the conferences as they are are not going anywhere. That much im sure of.

Also, I could have sworn that the fiesta bowl was contractually compelled to give tcu a bid per the bcs.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top