I’m not the one who wants to use the term “undeserving.” notfrommensa used the word “deserving” for describing scenarios.
Where I differ from his stance is that yes, there may be some one-loss teams which are excluded in favor of another one-loss team in a “plus-one” 4-team playoff. But with a plus-one system, at least you can say that all teams in the country control their own destiny. Lose a game and your spot in the playoff may be forfeit; but if you win all the games on your schedule, you will at least have a chance to compete for the title.
So the winner of the Sunbelt conference deserves a shot because they are undefeated?
Hypothetical Sunbelt conference winner goes undefeated beating the likes of La-Monroe, and Florida Atlantic within their conference and its non-con schedule includes a couple of FCS teams along with New Mexico St and San Jose St in the FBS division.
Would the Sun Belt champion be ranked in the top 4 of a BCS-style poll? If it wouldn’t happen in this system, it wouldn’t happen in a “plus-one”, either.
This is patently false. Win all the games on your schedule and be in the top 4 in the polls, and you will at least have a chance. Win all of them and be outside that, even if inside that is a team with one loss, and you are just looking in as you are now.
In a plus-one system, all teams in BCS conferences or from the better mid-major conferences control their own destinies. These are the teams we’re talking about in these BCS debates, anyway.
No, a team from the Sun Belt should not control their own destiny since their league is vastly inferior to the rest of the FBS (except for maybe the WAC). However, wouldn’t people have said the same thing about the Mountain West 5 years ago? I wouldn’t rule out a shift in conference power that might enable a team from the Sun Belt to make it into a top-4 playoff, just not as the league and FBS at large is currently constructed.
Not true. It would be quite realistic to have, for example, Boise State, TCU, Auburn, Oregon and Wisconsin all unbeaten at the end of this season. How do they all then control their own destinies?
The BCS is the best that’s possible with 120 teams each playing 12 games. If you want to find a true Nation Champion or whatever, you have to eliminate the 70 or 80 cream puff teams from the top flight. This is never going to happen, because college football (for better or worse) is about money and precious little else.
yaknow what i read as you not liking about the old format is what makes it kind of cool to me. i mean you knew who was playing where and why. plus having all the games on the 1st just meant that you were gnoshing for a whole day. get up see the rose bowl parade. switch it over to the cotton bowl and then the rose and finish it up with the sugar and orange bowl halftime extravaganza. interspersed with naps and stuff. then let everyone grouse about unfair it was. kind of like now but it takes two fracking weeks to get to the bitching these days.
If you had had “It’ far better than what we used to have, and could use a bit of tweaking, but I don’t want a 8- or 16-team playoff” option. I would have clicked that.
I’m in favor of a +1 system, but I think it would be better, and more likely to happen, if we went back to the traditional bowls with a bit of tweaking, then matched the top 2 teams together. That way a team ranked 5th or 6th could presumably make a good enough case for being #2. This year the Rose Bowl would have been able to have it’s beloved Pac-10 vs. Big Ten matchup, and Auburn would have played in the Sugar Bowl, possibly against TCU, depending on the aforementioned tweaking. Then you have one more game to eliminate virtually all controversy without messing with tradition too much.
You get all of this with my plan. The 4 or 5 big bowls get played on New Year’s Eve or New Year’s Day. The difference is that instead of this:
… everybody goes to work on Jan 2 and checks the polls to see who is playing for the championship (although there usually won’t be much doubt by late Jan 1) and then, 7 - 10 days later you watch the NCG.
Yes, as stated before, all teams in a BCS conference or in a strong non-BCS conference. Although I think Boise State gets into the top 4 more often than not with an undefeated record, even playing in the putrid WAC.
[QUOTE=villa]
Not true. It would be quite realistic to have, for example, Boise State, TCU, Auburn, Oregon and Wisconsin all unbeaten at the end of this season. How do they all then control their own destinies?
[/QUOTE]
How many times in history have there been 5 undefeated teams prior to the bowl games?
It’s not that it’s impossible, it’s just highly improbable. Plus, I’m not exactly seeing this as an argument FOR the current system, just semantic nitpicking with the way I worded my post. Fine.
“In a plus-one system, with almost complete certainty all teams from BCS conferences and the stronger non-BCS conferences would control their own destiny.”
The BCS is a vast improvement over what we had before. Also, in a sense every game all season is a BCS playoff game. There are few second chances.
Auburn got left out in 2004 with a 13-0 record, which is the most glaring failure of the BCS. BUT: Having more than two undefeated teams from major conferences in the same year is an extreme rarity. Yes, I’m leaving out the TCU’s and Boise States of the world, but really…if those guys wanna’ play, they can get a schedule that isn’t subject to ridicule. Winning one or two big games a year does not equate to running the field through a conference with major competition nearly every week.
So, while the BCS is a long way from perfect, it’s better than previous alternatives.
The BCS is better than previous alternatives at determining a “National Champion”. Of course that’s not the same thing as being better for college football. I for one couldn’t really care less who the “National Champion” is. It’s much more interesting to know who wins each conference and the BCS pretty much renders that moot, as would some silly playoff system.
I don’t like it. In the past, any game played on New Year’s Day might be important; for instance, if Michigan beat USC they could win the title in the event that Notre Dame beats Texas by a lot, Penn State beats Alabama by a little, and Georgia doesn’t lose to Nebraska. Now only one game matters, and there is still all kinds of injustice but it is made worse by the fact that the BCS has set it up as the official national championship game.
In their defense, TCU, Boise St. and Utah are all moving to tougher conferences. (Whether or not this tendency or conference changing is a benefit or a drawback to the current BCS system is a matter of debate.) Also, I believe that if the system that I proposed above had been in place 2 years ago then Utah would have been playing Florida for the NCG. (Or, at least, if they didn’t play Alabama, they would have played Florida or Oklahoma or Texas in a major bowl game and had a chance at it.)
One other tweak that I would like to make to the current system would be to add another “BCS” bowl game (Cotton? Sun?), make the MWC the 7th automatic qualifier, and add a 3rd At-large bid.
Better yet, get rid of the AQ bullshit altogether.
I agree that this would not likely happen more than once a century. However, in the system that I’m proposing, these 5 teams, plus a 1-loss team, would most likely play in 3 major bowl games, and then the 2 most impressive winners would meet in the NCG.
IMHO, the system that I am proposing would remedy that. Most all of those New Year’s Day games would have significance to the NC.
