Would another CFB thread be overkill? My problem with the BCS...

The Game Room
1

My problem with the BCS is simple (and maybe simplistic and naive; you tell me):

To me, you can’t say “I like football” without saying that you like competition, and you can’t say that you respect the spirit of competition and the clash of wills without also respecting impartiality and fairness.

The only possible fair way to determine the best team is to put them on the field and let them play. A playoff, while not 100% perfect, is a damn sight more fair than human polls and computer algorithms.

I get so sick of hearing about how a win by an unlikely team was a fluke, and how the perceived better team would have won “9 out of 10”, or some such nonsense. There’s only one game. If a team wins, they have the inalienable right to claim that they’re the better team.

I’m one of the hated ones around here: I’m an SEC homer all the way. I think the SEC reigns absolutely supreme, and as much as it pains me to say it, given this past Friday’s game, I believe Auburn will step on Oregon’s neck and take home the Championship.

But I want to see it proven in a national playoff. Fair play is fair play, and I’m very tired of seeing us systematically avoid the simplest, fairest solution in favor of ludicrously skewed and complicated systems.

2

For college football, which has perhaps the most non-standard schedule of any American sport (in terms of home/road games, quality of opposition, conference alignments, etc), a playoff makes good sense. How can you honestly expect to determine who is better between an undefeated MWC team or a 2-loss SEC team without having them play one another?

However, I think for other sports we have taken your sentiments too far. I favor “de-playoffization” of baseball and basketball to re-emphasize the regular season. IMO we should give a much greater weight to 16 or 82 or 162 games, rather than 1 or 5 or 7.

3

Is this where we’re going to do this this year? OK.

I’m sure I’ve said this before (every year about this time), but I don’t want to water down the regular season with a huge, drawn-out playoff system. I do think that there are usually more than 2 teams with a legitimate claim, but there are rarely more than 3 or 4. I can’t think of the last time that there were 5 teams that could legitimately claim that they were better than the other 4 top-5 teams and deserved a chance to prove it, and I doubt that it will happen more than once a century.

Also, any plans of doing away with the bowl system simply aren’t going to happen without congress stepping in, and I don’t think anybody wants that.

So, my favored plan is doable because it keeps the traditional bowl system intact, (and even makes it more traditional), while essentially making a 4+ team semifinal round by adding only 1 more game.

The basic version that is floated around is that we go back to the traditional bowls, and play them on New Year’s eve and Day and maybe the 2nd. Then we have another vote, and the top 2 teams meet around Jan 8 - 10.

I would add some further stipulations designed to encourage, but not force, pairups that resemble a 1v4 and 2v3 type playoff: The #1 team will have to play a team ranked #3 - 5 in their bowl game. The #2 team will have to play a team ranked #3 - 6. The next highest ranked team remaining must be pitted against a team in the top 8. The next must be pitted against a team in the top 10.
There will be a 2-ranking extension/exemption to preserve traditional bowl matchups.
The order that games get picked is determined by the conference/bowl affiliation of the teams ranked by the BCS, with an annual rotation of the 4 bowls breaking ties or clearing up ambiguities.

So, let’s look at the current situation and see how things would go.
Because Auburn is currently #1, the Sugar bowl gets first pick, and has to choose between TCU, Stanford or Wisconsin. (OK, on further though, I might need to add a rule to keep one bowl from screwing up another major bowl.) Let’s just say that TCU gets snubbed and it’s Auburn vs. Stanford
Rose bowl gets next pick, and it’s Oregon vs. Wisconsin. Tradition is preserved better than under the current system.
Whatever bowl is higher in this year’s rotation gets next pick. They have to pick TCU and a remaining team in the top 8, which now is #6 - #8. Let’s say TCU vs. Ohio State
The other bowl gets to Arkansas vs. a remaining top 10 team. Nobody wants to see a regular season rematch, so LSU is out. There are no automatic qualifiers, but they decide to put in the Big 12 champion, and it’s Arkansas vs. Oklahoma (or, perhaps Nebraska, if they can get to the top 10 after beating Oklahoma).
Now you have 1 vs 4, 2 vs.5, 3 vs. 6, and 7 vs. 9. There are essentially 3 semifinal matches in there, and one other good game.

After these games are played, there is another vote, and the top 2 teams according to the BCS play again in a little over a week.

Now then, if Oregon was #1, and the highest Big 10 team was ranked #6 or #7, then the Rose Bowl could still get them using the 2-ranking exemption. This rule can also allow the #1 team to play the #2 team (which is normally prohibited). So, if Ohio State is #1 and Oregon is #2, then this is your Rose Bowl.

I’m not aware of any “Traditional bowl” affiliations other than Pac-10 and Big-10 with Rose bowl and SEC with Sugar. Someone please educate me on this.

Feel free to pick this apart.

4

I’ve long been a BCS supporter, but I’m growing tired of it as well. However, one thing that irks me is when people complain about it being “overly complicated”. There’s really nothing complicated at all about the BCS. It takes a bunch of polls, averages them out (after weighing the two major ones a bit more heavily), and sets up the top two teams to face off against each other. There’s nothing complicated about that at all.

5

I think one mess the BCS is starting to cause, and maybe one that hasn’t been thought about much until this last year, has been weird conference realignment for the sake of propping up teams and conferences in the system.

Take a look at today’s announcement that TCU is going to join the Big East in 2012. Pre-BCS the Big East would have had little reason to want a university like TCU, which has little to no track record in the Big East’s biggest sport (basketball), and is hundreds of miles away from the nearest other Big East school. But now the Big East is worried about getting dropped from the BCS since its football schools have not exactly been burning up the Top 25, and TCU is angry about getting potentially being overlooked in future BCS considerations so…hello shotgun wedding-style conference realignment.

Boise State, Nevada, Hawaii moving to the MWC…Utah (and to a lesser extent Colorado) moving to the Pac-10, and Nebraska to the Big Te-twelve-en…all done for the express purpose of improving schools’ chances for BCS gold. I think if this continues the tradition of conferences themselves is going to be lost. Is there going to be a day when the SEC decides, “You know, Vanderbilt and Mississippi State are really dragging down our strength-of-schedule rankings, let’s dump them” or when the Big XII starts raiding smaller conferences for short-term gain (“Central Florida is in the Top 25? Let’s make an offer!”)?

6

Not buying that one. It’s a way to get the Big 12 off its ass and re-expand back to 12. TCU and Houston are going to be there. The Big East makes no sense for them.

7

FWIW, the current system is a playoff, a two team playoff between the top two teams in the BCS poll.

If it wasn’t a playoff, then Auburn* would be playing an opponent in the Sugar Bowl and Oregon* would be playing Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl.

And assuming both teams win in New Orleans and Pasadena, then voters would be determining the National Champion.

The current system is a playoff.

*Assuming Auburn beats South Carolina this weekend, and Oregon beats Oregon St.

8

With the number of colleges fielding a team, a full bracket playoff is not feasible. That means there will have to be some artificial means of ordering the teams. There is a lot of room for discussion on how to do that so why not use several of the methods and average them. That is the BCS. With the finances of the bowl system, an expansion to a plus-one format as described upthread is the only viable option.

The criticism (not in this thread) of computers being involved is actually one of the strengths of the BCS. The computers aren’t deciding anything. They are merely making calculations based on a pre-determined algorithm. That has to be better than a coach voting who spends his Saturday coaching his team, not watching other games. Especially true for cases where a coach’s vote can have a direct impact on his school or his conference, financial and otherwise.

9

I was going to say last year, but that was only 4. But in both 2009 and 2008 there wasn’t a real champion IMO (yeah the crowned champs were probably the best) and it wasn’t too long ago when we had co-champions. It’s clearly broken and the only real discussion should be whether to have 4 or 8 teams in the playoffs.

10

So who is the the 4th choice, this year? Wisconsin, Stanford, Ohio State, Michigan St?

And who would be #8? There are about seven or 8 two loss teams vying for the 8th and final spot. Or does UCONN (designated Big East team) and Virginia Tech automatically get in. knocking out one of the one loss team.

It is my contention that a bigger playoff system is NOT going solve anything.

11

Right, that’s because you’re an idiot.

It doesn’t really matter who the 4th team is. OSU bitches? Too bad, you lost a game.

12

How about this, out of all the teams with the best record (undefeated, one loss, two losses, whatever) the team with the best SOS is crowned national champion?

13

Well, that’s what we used to do, but now we have a 2-team playoff system where the top 2 teams get pitted against each other.

Do you have something to add that isn’t a personal insult? (Which are only for the Pit, BTW [/Jr. Mod])

14

How about this? TCU bitches. Too bad, play in a better conference. That argument has as much merit as your argument.

15

16 team play-off = 4 extra games, but only for 2 teams. Only 4 teams would play 3 extra games; 8 teams would play 2 extra games; and all 16 would play at least one extra game. What are they doing between Dec. 4th and Jan. 4th anyway?

Reduce the regular season schedule to 11 games by dropping the meaningless 1AA opener and, at most, only two play 15 games, which is a manageable college season. Some teams already play 14, many play 13 and all play 12. 1AA and lower divisions have playoffs. You can still have money-generating bowl games. The National Championship could be played on a rotational basis spread between current BCS bowls (as it is now) and the other games could be played as “bowl” games. They can still have the lesser bowl games for teams that did well, but not well enough to make the play-off.

The tough part would be the tie-breakers.

16

I’ve wobbled back and forth over the years on a playoff, but I’ve come to realize it’s not going to happen. At least for a long time. The problem? MONEY. As long as everybody involved is going home to sleep on their cash-filled mattress, we’ll never see major change. Tweaks? Sure, why not. Throw the fans a bone. But don’t break the money-making machine.

That’s always my answer, by the way, when people talk about the playoffs in D2 for example. Yes, we COULD conceivably put together a cool playoff system that would not affect the (stifled chuckle) student-athletes. But would it make the bajillions of dollars that we are making now? Nobody knows. And what kind of idiot would risk throwing out all this money just to eliminate a few million barroom arguments? Being legally trained, watching college football is almost as fun as arguing about it!

I’ve come to accept that it’s all about money at the end of the day. And until the money starts to dry up, nothing will change.

And I DO like the regular season. Every game means everything. Ask a Boise State fan. Hell, ask me. I’m a Georgia fan. And I have been gutted six times this year. The first time we lost? No national championship. The next four times we lost? No pride, no respect. The last time we lost? Finally, we got eliminated from SEC Championship contention (which, honestly, we never should have even had a chance. The East is wacky this year!) Every game means so much to each team’s fans. You just don’t get that anywhere else. I hardly even get irritated when the Georgia basketball team loses, assuming I even watch the game. I cuss up a blue streak with the football team does, and I DON’T miss watching them.

So… I have no idea where I was going with this. Just random thoughts from me I guess. Do with them what you will.

17

And so does the FBS, a two team playoff

That is exactly what they are doing now, EXACTLY!!!, a two team playoff.

18

I know where fucking insults go.

19

If you could switch conferences freely from year to year you might have a point.

If you actually believe that not making the playoffs because you lost is the same as a team that wins all their games not making the playoffs, then there’s no reason to argue with you. Not that you’ve shown any so far.

20

BTW, in the past decade we’ve had

2009-BSU undefeated, no chance at being the champion
2008-Utah undefeated, no chance at being champion (while kicking the shit out of Alabama in their bowl game)
2007-4 different teams with 1st place votes in the AP poll, with LSU, George, and USC having the same record and not having played each other.
2006-Undefeated BSU, no chance at being champion
2005-Undefeated Texas beats USC in title game. No controversy here.
2004-USC, Auburn, and Utah end the season undefeated
2003-USC and LSU split both polls
2002-Undefeated OSU wins title game, no controversy

Hey, two out of eight ain’t bad.

ESPN only goes back to 2002.