Potential BCS antitrust case (merged)

#126
#126
tvolsfan said:
I can't think of many years where more than 4 teams deserve a shot, and I doubt I could think of any years where 7 teams deserved a shot. 2007 was an ugly year, so that may be the best bet, but I still doubt that many teams deserved a chance.
Click to expand...

There are very few years where it is even debatable (aside from the mid-major yahoos) who the number two team in the nation is.
 
#127
#127
therealUT said:
There are very few years where it is even debatable (aside from the mid-major yahoos) who the number two team in the nation is.
Click to expand...
I tend to agree, but I've seen enough years where there were at least 3 for me to want a 4 team playoff.
 
#128
#128
tvolsfan said:
I tend to agree, but I've seen enough years where there were at least 3 for me to want a 4 team playoff.
Click to expand...

As long as the executing clause ensured it would remain at four teams for at least the rest of my lifetime.
 
#131
#131
therealUT said:
64
68
128
...
Everyone.
Click to expand...
I don't see how anyone could look at the tournament from this past college basketball season and tell me that was the best way to determine a champion, or that it is a vastly superior method than the use of the BCS.
 
#132
#132
tvolsfan said:
I don't see how anyone could look at the tournament from this past college basketball season and tell me that was the best way to determine a champion, or that it is a vastly superior method than the use of the BCS.
Click to expand...

It most definitely is not.

The NCAA Tournament should be cut to sixteen teams. Each playoff round should be a three-game series. Unfortunately, that would probably lead to less entertainment value and, therefore, less revenue generated; ergo, that will not happen.
 
#133
#133
therealUT said:
There are very few years where it is even debatable (aside from the mid-major yahoos) who the number two team in the nation is.
Click to expand...

It was certainly debatable in 1998, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010. If "very few" constitutes nearly every year, then yes, very few years are debatable.

Here's the thing about a 4-8 team playoff. If a lower seed wins...wouldn't they have earned it then? People freak out over a team with one extra loss making it, but if they win it all and tie for the best record in college football...wouldn't they have earned it then? Absolutely.

I said it before and I'll say it again: people don't realize this because of tradition, but college football is the absolute worst environment to have a BCS style system.
 
#134
#134
UTRavens said:
It was certainly debatable in 1998, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010. If "very few" constitutes nearly every year, then yes, very few years are debatable.

Here's the thing about a 4-8 team playoff. If a lower seed wins...wouldn't they have earned it then? People freak out over a team with one extra loss making it, but if they win it all and tie for the best record in college football...wouldn't they have earned it then? Absolutely.

I said it before and I'll say it again: people don't realize this because of tradition, but college football is the absolute worst environment to have a BCS style system.
Click to expand...

It is not a much better (if even better) environment to have a playoff.

The only way I see a playoff making sense would be to restrict the regular season to conference games only. All conference winners make the tournament. However, with this being the case, how would one rank the conferences and seed the teams? How many teams that are perennially the second or third best team in a power conference, move to an easier conference? What would happen to independents? What about conference size? Presumably, there would have to be equality in numbers of teams in each conference.

A tournament does not do away with problems, it simply replaces the existing problems with new ones.
 
#135
#135
therealUT said:
It is not a much better (if even better) environment to have a playoff.

The only way I see a playoff making sense would be to restrict the regular season to conference games only. All conference winners make the tournament. However, with this being the case, how would one rank the conferences and seed the teams? How many teams that are perennially the second or third best team in a power conference, move to an easier conference? What would happen to independents? What about conference size? Presumably, there would have to be equality in numbers of teams in each conference.

A tournament does not do away with problems, it simply replaces the existing problems with new ones.
Click to expand...

But the new ones aren't as bad as the old ones. That's what the opposing side doesn't seem to grasp. Could a playoff become oversaturated? Absolutely. Could there be certain systems that are more flawed than others? Sure. Could there be a few logistical issues? Yeah, there could be.

But those problems pale in comparison to the ones the BCS faces right now. It's infinitely better to include undeserving teams that can prove themselves to be worthy than to exclude deserving ones who don't get that chance. There is no excuse whatsoever for a team like 2004 Auburn to not get a chance at the title. None.

Anyway, what about the part about the #2 teams not being debatable? That's the part I'm most interested in. You just glossed over something and made a point that doesn't seem to be true at all.
 
#136
#136
UTRavens said:
It was certainly debatable in 1998, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010.
Click to expand...
I like TCU, and I would have like it if they could have gotten a shot. That being said, there wasn't really a lot of debate in 2009 and 2010. 2006 really shouldn't be on the list, either.
 
Last edited:
#137
#137
tvolsfan said:
I like TCU, and I would have like it if they could have gotten a shot. That being said, there wasn't really a lot of debate in 2009 and 2010.
Click to expand...

2010, fine, though the TCUs of the world deserve a chance anyway. But there was a BCS team in 2009 that went undefeated who everyone forgets about, too. They didn't face such a great schedule themselves and were in fact probably worse than TCU, but still...this shouldn't be happening.
 
#138
#138
tvolsfan said:
I like TCU, and I would have like it if they could have gotten a shot. That being said, there wasn't really a lot of debate in 2009 and 2010.
Click to expand...

I cannot remember there being a debate in 1998 either; that said, I only lived in Kansas at the time and not in Los Angeles. Maybe UCLA still thought they deserved a shot...
 
#139
#139
therealUT said:
I cannot remember there being a debate in 1998 either; that said, I only lived in Kansas at the time and not in Los Angeles. Maybe UCLA still thought they deserved a shot...
Click to expand...
Ohio State and Wisconsin probably could have argued that they deserved a shot. Kansas State, UCLA, and Arizona all had one loss, and Tulane was unbeaten, but I don't really feel like they deserved a shot.
 
Last edited:
#140
#140
UTRavens said:
But those problems pale in comparison to the ones the BCS faces right now. It's infinitely better to include undeserving teams that can prove themselves to be worthy than to exclude deserving ones who don't get that chance. There is no excuse whatsoever for a team like 2004 Auburn to not get a chance at the title. None.
Click to expand...

Auburn reaped what they sowed. They just wanted to make a bowl game that year and scheduled OOC competition accordingly after being embarrassed a few times when they tried to go against real foes. Then, they are surprisingly successful in a down year for the SEC and get all upset about getting excluded for two better teams.

I'm not saying it's fair to see an undefeated SEC team not get a shot, but I feel no pity for them.
 
#141
#141
kptvol said:
Auburn reaped what they sowed. They just wanted to make a bowl game that year and scheduled OOC competition accordingly after being embarrassed a few times when they tried to go against real foes. Then, they are surprisingly successful in a down year for the SEC and get all upset about getting excluded for two better teams.

I'm not saying it's fair to see an undefeated SEC team not get a shot, but I feel no pity for them.
Click to expand...
I always hear that, but I feel like there's really no way they were going to jump Oklahoma or USC, even if they had an awful non-conference schedule.
 
#142
#142
tvolsfan said:
Ohio State and Wisconsin probably could have argued that they deserved a shot. Kansas State, UCLA, and Arizona all had one loss, and Tulane was unbeaten, but I don't really feel like they deserved a shot.
Click to expand...

Therein lies the problem. Certain one loss BCS teams deserve a shot, but others don't? Particularly when these teams never played each other or, for that matter, even faced common opponents? I'm not sure how to justify that.
 
#143
#143
UTRavens said:
Therein lies the problem. Certain one loss BCS teams deserve a shot, but others don't? Particularly when these teams never played each other or, for that matter, even faced common opponents? I'm not sure how to justify that.
Click to expand...
Kansas State and Arizona State didn't win their conference. UCLA played one meaningful OOC game and gave up almost 50 points in a loss.
 
Last edited:
#144
#144
UTRavens said:
2010, fine, though the TCUs of the world deserve a chance anyway. But there was a BCS team in 2009 that went undefeated who everyone forgets about, too. They didn't face such a great schedule themselves and were in fact probably worse than TCU, but still...this shouldn't be happening.
Click to expand...
Cincy didn't deserve any shot at the title. That showed when Florida executed them.

Also, 2006 shouldn't be on the list, either.
 
#145
#145
tvolsfan said:
Cincy didn't deserve any shot at the title. That showed when Florida executed them.

Also, 2006 shouldn't be on the list, either.
Click to expand...

They went undefeated in a BCS conference. How does that not warrant a chance? Because it wasn't sexy enough. That's exactly what the problem is here. Teams aren't being given a chance to earn a chance at the title ON THE FIELD, instead everything is subjective. I understand that it's unavoidable in the NCAA even with a playoff, but good grief, they went undefeated.

As for 1998 and 2006, again, that's all subjective. They all could have very well been the second best team in the country regardless of the cherrypicked reasons that should deny them an opportunity. They might have even been better than Tennessee or Ohio State.
 
#147
#147
UTRavens said:
They went undefeated in a BCS conference. How does that not warrant a chance? Because it wasn't sexy enough. That's exactly what the problem is here.
Click to expand...
Give me a break. Anyone who watched Cincy at all knew damn well they weren't one of the top two teams in the country. It was EXTREMELY obvious when watching them.
 
#148
#148
UTRavens said:
They all could have very well been the second best team in the country regardless of the cherrypicked reasons that should deny them an opportunity. They might have even been better than Tennessee or Ohio State.
Click to expand...
Who are you talking about here?
 
#149
#149
Who gave Butler a chance to make it to the CBB finals last year and again this year?

If BB was like football, Duke would be playing for the title every year or every other year.

The BCS is bull****. End of story
 
#150
#150
CountVolcula said:
Who gave Butler a chance to make it to the CBB finals last year and again this year?

If BB was like football, Duke would be playing for the title every year or every other year.

The BCS is bull****. End of story
Click to expand...

Butler was not one of the ten best teams in the nation. The fact that they made the National Title two years in a row should demonstrate that the NCAA Tournament is incredibly flawed.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top