Jay Bilas just said the stupidest thing (re: football playoff)

[SoonerBBall]

During the Kansas/Arizona basketball game they showed a graphic of the current BCS standings and he said "This is a perfect example of why the BCS is an untenable system" or something to that effect. He goes on to say, and i'm paraphrasing, that "college football needs to have a playoff like college basketball because on any day, any team can beat any other team." Now I'm not a sports genius like Mr. Bilas, but isn't that the perfect counter argument to a playoff?

The best teams are the ones that come to play week in and week out, not the ones that get lucky and catch a great team on an off week. Does it make Texas Tech or Arizona a great team because they benefited from Oklahoma and Oregon losing their all-star, starting QB early in the game? Does that make TT and AZ playoff worthy teams? Hell no. They can keep their fluky plaoff system that has Kansas winning a NC over a team that beat them 3 previous times that season.

[silverwheels]

That's why he is a basketball analyst. I support a playoff, but not for that reason.

[Curly Bill]

I'm with you on this one...but there are a lot of playoff proponents on here that are liable to come on here and tell us both why we are wrong.

I also heard him say that, though I wasn't paying much attention...you know: turn the volume down low enough you can block it out if you want and can actually enjoy the game that way.

[OklahomaTuba]

The best teams are the ones that come to play week in and week out, not the ones that get lucky and catch a great team on an off week. Does it make Texas Tech or Arizona a great team because they benefited from Oklahoma and Oregon losing their all-star, starting QB early in the game? Does that make TT and AZ playoff worthy teams? Hell no.

Not sure what your point is here. Just cause TT and AZ beat us doesn't mean they would make it into any playoff.

And what Bilas said is 100% correct as FOR having a playoff.

Right now, you have to be lucky that you don't get an injury, or that you lose early in the year and not later.

[silverwheels]

I'm with you on this one...but there are a lot of playoff proponents on here that are liable to come on here and tell us both why we are wrong.

Oh, but anti-playoff people never tell playoff proponents that they are wrong. :rolleyes:

[Curly Bill]

Oh, but anti-playoff people never tell playoff proponents that they are wrong. :rolleyes:

touche!

BTW: I'm not a strong proponent of either the BCS or a playoff, I think I just tend to take the "anti" side because all the playoff people are so sure they have the best plan...problem is they all have a different plan. Someone presents me with a playoff plan that solves all of the problems with the BCS, instead of simply making new and different ones then I'm onboard! ;)

[stoopified]

If we used my playoff sytem,we would be playing Missou for the Big 12 playoff berth.

[SoonerBBall]

Not sure what your point is here. Just cause TT and AZ beat us doesn't mean they would make it into any playoff.

And what Bilas said is 100% correct as FOR having a playoff.

Right now, you have to be lucky that you don't get an injury, or that you lose early in the year and not later.

My point was very clear, but I will make it more clear for you.

Because any team can beat any other team on any given day, a playoff is much less likely to end with the best team as the eventual champion.

The BCS, despite its many (many, many, many....) flaws, does a much better job at finding the two top teams in the country based on overall performance and pitting them against each other.

[Curly Bill]

If we used my playoff sytem,we would be playing Missou for the Big 12 playoff berth.

Had we beat TT that's what we would have had anyway.;)

[Collier11]

During the Kansas/Arizona basketball game they showed a graphic of the current BCS standings and he said "This is a perfect example of why the BCS is an untenable system" or something to that effect. He goes on to say, and i'm paraphrasing, that "college football needs to have a playoff like college basketball because on any day, any team can beat any other team." Now I'm not a sports genius like Mr. Bilas, but isn't that the perfect counter argument to a playoff?




I see your point, but I think what his point was is what all of us OU fans have been saying, or atleast most of us. Why is OU #9 behind kansas, va tech. etc. But, if we had a playoff Ou would still have a shot at the title depending on structure, whereas now the two teams who happen to lose at the right part of the season get rewarded even if they have similiar records of other teams...something like that

[bluedogok]

Bilas says a bunch of stupid things, this is probably nowhere near the top of that list.

[silverwheels]

touche!

BTW: I'm not a strong proponent of either the BCS or a playoff, I think I just tend to take the "anti" side because all the playoff people are so sure they have the best plan...problem is they all have a different plan. Someone presents me with a playoff plan that solves all of the problems with the BCS, instead of simply making new and different ones then I'm onboard! ;)

I just don't understand why the method of determining a national champion in major college football is more similar to gymnastics, figure skating, or boxing than it is to sports similar to football, like...well, FCS football.

[Curly Bill]

I just don't understand why the method of determining a national champion in major college football is more similar to gymnastics, figure skating, or boxing than it is to sports similar to football, like...well, FCS football.

This, like some of the other pro-playoff stuff is a good point. I guess one answer to you would of course be: tradition! ...but hey, you don't have to convince me, it's the college presidents you have to convince.

I can honestly say if they want to put in a playoff for next year, then go right ahead, I really don't mind either way. Having said that: with that playoff system in place (pick whichever plan you want) there are still going to be problems and arguments about someone being cheated, someone being left out, there's a conspiracy against someone, etc...

[reddfoxx]

My point was very clear, but I will make it more clear for you.

Because any team can beat any other team on any given day, a playoff is much less likely to end with the best team as the eventual champion.

The BCS, despite its many (many, many, many....) flaws, does a much better job at finding the two top teams in the country based on overall performance and pitting them against each other.

That's a good point. Whose opinion is used to determine the best two teams? A sportwriter who never saw half the teams play he is ranking? A computer? My aunt? Coaches who sure don't see very many other teams?

Why not play it out on the field and let a team earn it outright instead of trying to play god and tell us who the two best teams are.

If college football's system is so great, why doesn't other sports use sportswriters to determine their champions? I'll answer it, it's because this system is plain stupid.

[SoonerBBall]

I see your point, but I think what his point was is what all of us OU fans have been saying, or atleast most of us. Why is OU #9 behind kansas, va tech. etc. But, if we had a playoff Ou would still have a shot at the title depending on structure, whereas now the two teams who happen to lose at the right part of the season get rewarded even if they have similiar records of other teams...something like that

I completely agree with you and think the BCS needs to implement different scoring rules, such as the computers accounting for 50% of the rank component, the AP and Harris poll only comprising 25% each of the rank component, allowing the computers to once again take margin of victory up to 30 points into account, reintroducing an explicit strength of schedule component, and adding more computers with published formula mechanics to the computer polls.

Even without these things, though, I believe the BCS is is still pretty good and using the entire season to determine the two most deserving teams in the nation.

[Curly Bill]

I will say this in favor of the current plan: I would be willing to wager that we more often get the true best team as the football National Champs, then we do in B-ball, where it often comes down to who the hot team is at tourny time.

...and I love the NCAA tournament

[silverwheels]

there are still going to be problems and arguments about someone being cheated, someone being left out, there's a conspiracy against someone, etc...

That stuff only happens to OU, remember? :D

[SoonerBBall]

I just don't understand why the method of determining a national champion in major college football is more similar to gymnastics, figure skating, or boxing than it is to sports similar to football, like...well, FCS football.

Isn't that just jumping off a bridge because everyone else is doing it? I want the best way to determine the most deserving teams, not the way everyone else does it unless the way everyone else does it is the best.

Oh, and the BCS is incredibly dissimilar to the scoring systems used by gymnastics, figure skating, and boxing, FWIW.

[Curly Bill]

That stuff only happens to OU, remember? :D

Oh yeah ;)

...and damn it, I told myself: self, don't get involved in anymore playoff/BCS arguments! :mad:

[sooneron]

If college football's system is so great, why doesn't other sports use sportswriters to determine their champions? I'll answer it, it's because this system is plain stupid.
Last time I checked, sportswriters had no affect on the BCS.

[tommieharris91]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Qwq7BYOnDrM

[silverwheels]

Isn't that just jumping off a bridge because everyone else is doing it? I want the best way to determine the most deserving teams, not the way everyone else does it unless the way everyone else does it is the best.

Oh, and the BCS is incredibly dissimilar to the scoring systems used by gymnastics, figure skating, and boxing, FWIW.

No. There's a reason why every other sport in the world uses a tournament-type of setup, and not human polls and meaningless post-season games.

Maybe I over-dramatized it, but my point is that the current system relies way too much on human judgment.

[Curly Bill]

Last time I checked, sportswriters had no affect on the BCS.

Quit letting facts get in the way of a good argument! ;)

[bluedogok]

No. There's a reason why every other sport in the world uses a tournament-type of setup, and not human polls and meaningless post-season games.

Maybe I over-dramatized it, but my point is that the current system relies way too much on human judgment.
Anytime you try to narrow down a bunch of teams into a smaller pool, figuring out who is "deserving" requires human judgment. There are 119 teams in D-I football and to decide who gets into 16 slots would require that. The same thing happens with the basketball tourney, 200+ teams for 65 slots. There are enough openings there to allow pretty much all the conferences to send their rep, all of the "at-large" teams are a judgment call, You can cut the numbers quicker because you can play two games per weekend, you can't do that in football. For it to work in DI-AA, D-II and D-II requires the conferences be somewhat even, you don't have majors, mid-majors and minor conferences. I think just recently they added a few at-large teams to DI-AA, before then it was only for the conference winners.

I think the only way that it is ever going to happen is a bowl-playoff hybrid system. The top tier go into a playoff/bowl format and the lower tier go to bowls. The smaller school college presidents have more votes than the BCS conference presidents. They are afraid that they would become completely irrelevant if a pure playoff system were to be implemented. That is why I don't see a playoff system happening until those presidents and their line of thinking die off.

[silverwheels]

I know you can't really remove human judgment from the thing completely, but I would like to see less emphasis on it.

[SoonerBBall]

I know you can't really remove human judgment from the thing completely, but I would like to see less emphasis on it.

I outlined a whole lot of BCS changes that would minimize the impact of human judgement on the outcome, and bluedog was absolutely correct in saying that human judgement is used in every single playoff format conceived.

I still can't understand the "let them settle it on the field" mentality. How have the teams in college football this year not settled it on the field? Having more games for a playoff just increases the likelihood that one of the best teams will get eliminated by a bad team on hot streak or by a freak accident.

[silverwheels]

I outlined a whole lot of BCS changes that would minimize the impact of human judgment on the outcome, and bluedog was absolutely correct in saying that human judgment is used in every single playoff format conceived.

Uhh...okay. I just said that you can't remove human judgment completely. Or does my post not say that? I just said I want less emphasis on it.

[TopDawg]

They can keep their fluky plaoff system that has Kansas winning a NC over a team that beat them 3 previous times that season.

Man, in 88 they beat us in the final after we beat them twice and then it happened again another year with a team that beat them three times?!

;)

[Lott's Bandana]

I still can't understand the "let them settle it on the field" mentality. How have the teams in college football this year not settled it on the field?


Ooooh, ooooh, ooooh...Mr. Kottair! <waving hand in air wildly>

I'll answer that...

Because under the current system, we have 3 BigXII teams in the top 5 with two weeks left in the season. One loses and the remaining two play each other with one losing. Then the winner goes to play the one that first lost and loses. That is "settling it on the field" and the winner should get a playoff berth. Yet:

Viola'! A team that doesn't even play a conference championship game sits on their couch, watches all this while packing their bags for New Orleans to play another team that doesn't have a conference championship game. Both from incredibly weak conferences (Big 11 this year, Big East puh-leeze) and criminal non-conference schedules. That is benefiting from the system, not "settling it on the field". In a playoff system, how cool would it be to have OU v. USC, Georgia v. Oregon, Florida v. Kansas, LSU v. Mizzou and Ohio State v. ANYBODY WORTH A PILE OF DIGESTED NUTRIENTS!! These are games we otherwise don't ever get to see...even the bowls are aligned so this never happens. (Fiesta Bowl=BigXII #1 v. Pac10 #2/3.)

Sadly, tOSU will likely get to go to the NC game because they beat a team that lost to a 1-AA team in September. Tressel has a deal with the horned dude...no doubt.

[Leroy Lizard]

Had we beat TT that's what we would have had anyway

So with the current system, the Tech game had real meaning. With the playoff, it wouldn't have mattered. So the regular season DOES mean more with the current system.

[silverwheels]

So with the current system, the Tech game had real meaning. With the playoff, it wouldn't have mattered. So the regular season DOES mean more with the current system.

Not for the mid-majors. Their seasons are basically over before they even start. Same for BCS conference teams that aren't even close to being ranked.

[Leroy Lizard]

OU v. USC, Georgia v. Oregon, Florida v. Kansas, LSU v. Mizzou and Ohio State v. ANYBODY WORTH A PILE OF DIGESTED NUTRIENTS!!

Why would Florida get to compete for a national title with three losses? Don't those losses mean anything? Where's Virginia Tech with only two losses? Arizona State also only has two losses. Why doesn't Hawaii get to play? They are undefeated!! How do you know that they are not the best team in the country if no one has been able to beat them?

Yeah, the playoffs really settle the arguments.

[Leroy Lizard]

By the way, I have my own playoff idea. It would involve the following matchups:

Hawaii versus Kansas.
Ohio St. versus USC.
Missouri versus LSU.
Georgia versus West Virginia

Any problems with that playoff idea? (Me thinks you will find one.)

[silverwheels]

By the way, I have my own playoff idea. It would involve the following matchups:

Hawaii versus Kansas.
Ohio St. versus USC.
Missouri versus LSU.
Georgia versus West Virginia

Any problems with that playoff idea? (Me thinks you will find one.)

Since you set it up purposefully, I will say that looks awesome.

[Vaevictis]

I still can't understand the "let them settle it on the field" mentality. How have the teams in college football this year not settled it on the field?

If Hawaii wins out, they'll be undefeated... and they won't even get a shot.

Any system that leaves an undefeated team at the end of the year, and that team isn't the national champion, well, that pretty much means it wasn't decided on the field.

The worst thing is that this is NOT uncommon. If at the end of the year, Hawaii remains standing, it'll be four teams in three years. The system is just broken.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

I think every player on every team should get a little trophy like we used to in 4th grade football and get a pat on the back and taken out to eat pizza. and have no bowl games or playoffs

[silverwheels]

I think every player on every team should get a little trophy like we used to in 4th grade football and get a pat on the back and taken out to eat pizza. and have no bowl games or playoffs

I've already suggested that, but I think a nice steak dinner would be better. :D

[goingoneight]

Well... I'm not for a ridiculous format like basketball. 65 teams is about 59 too many.

As far as injuries are concerned... truly great teams can still win. We've won two championships just off the top of my head where we lost an amazing talent and worked around it. If we lose Sam Bradford, that means Joey Halzle, Duke Robinson, DeMarco Murray and everyone else who wears the 'Sooners' logos have the exact same duty to win football games as Sammy did.

If Josh Heupel got knocked out of the 2001 Orange Bowl and we had to put in someone by the name of Jason White, we still had the task of winning and Jason certainly was capable of putting up more than 2 points to win that game.

If Vince Young busted a wheel in the Rose Bowl, Chance Mock still had a Texas jersey on. Granted, if that happened, the game would have been worse than 55-19 in a millisecond, but you get the picture. They're a team.

Champions, IMHO don't "suddenly get hot." They play with everything they have from the first hour of spring ball all the way to the final snap of their season. That means you continue to showcase your value, even if you don't have Mr. All-American for a quarter, two, three or thirty.

What do people say about OUr loss to Tech? They make fun of us. Did they watch the game and see the four players injured, and the team playing without two stud DEs? No, they look at it as OKLAHOMA lost to TEXAS TECH.

Above all things, the wins are what matters in college football. The way you keep it so that every Saturday matters is to keep your current format, but make it so that conference championships actually mean something. Make it so that conference champions, and independent wildcards (should they have a deserving record and ranking) go into a small post-season playoff.

Too many games? Every five years or so, college football adds another game it seems like for OOC scheduling, and bowl games before you know it will go to everyone with a pulse. My $.02, let East Pocorn Tech slug it out with OSU for their 5th win in the Toilet Bowl, don't subject deserving programs to the same fate of playing in a meaningless matchup. Let the term "championship" mean something.

The BCS is close, but not close enough. It's pretty clear that any average Joe can beat an undefeated or 1-loss team this year and any year.

[Leroy Lizard]

They are afraid that they would become completely irrelevant if a pure playoff system were to be implemented.

And they would be right.

As of now, bowls have some meaning. Some more than others. If a playoff is instituted, I have no interest in watching any of them, even if OU is playing. If my team doesn't get into the playoffs, then what exactly would it be playing for? IMO, absolutely nothing.

[silverwheels]

And they would be right.

As of now, bowls have some meaning. Some more than others. If a playoff is instituted, I have no interest in watching any of them, even if OU is playing. If my team doesn't get into the playoffs, then what exactly would it be playing for? IMO, absolutely nothing.

Isn't that how it works now? Only one bowl really "means" something. The rest are irrelevant except to the fans of the teams involved and some people who just like to watch college football, no matter who is playing.

[RedstickSooner]

We shouldn't have lost to Colorado.

Had we won that game, we'd be in the driver's seat to play for the national championship. Not to mention, the Big 12 championship game would be pitting #1 vs #2, which'd be pretty awesome for a game that more typically pits #1-3 vs. #10-unranked.

The argument for the current system is simple: Under the current system, every game matters.

Does it suck if you miss out simply because a player got hurt for one game?

Yes -- but that's not happening to us this season. It's easy to focus on the TTech loss, but we have to also accept the fact that we played flat and got beat by an inferior team that shouldn't have even hung close with us when we lost at Colorado.

I also think there's a case to be made that championship teams shouldn't be one-trick ponies. If we're good enough to be the best in the nation, our backup QB should be good enough to at least hold his own when called on -- and our defense should be good enough to rise to the occasion, when a vital player got hurt.

A playoff system would benefit us enormously this year -- and many years. But I don't think champions should take games off. And this year, we did.

[Leroy Lizard]

Isn't that how it works now? Only one bowl really "means" something.

Not at all. Bowls still have meaning... but not under a playoff. Big difference between a one-game finale and a playoff. That's what playoffs do. They place all of the importance on a series of games, and everything else just dies off, a la the NIT.

[oudivesherpa]

The one thing a playoff system would do, is to keep a team like Ohio State from reaching the NC game without facing a strong team all year. A weak conference with a cupcake non-conference that gets go the title game is just wrong. At least a one plus playoff system should be in effect after the bowl games--play the NC game two weeks (instead of one week) and choose the best two teams after the regular bowl games. You, could even have one versus four and two versus three in the bowl games with the winner to play in the title game. West VA V. Ohio State--who really thinks those two are the best two teams?

[reddfoxx]

Answers to those who don't want a play-off:

1. The regular season still means a lot. Not only are teams playing to get into a play-off bid, (much as they do now to reach a meaningless bowl) but teams would also be trying to get home field advantage and a higher ranking for an easier path to the championship. The Texas Tech loss could mean the difference in hosting Arizona State or playing LSU on the road.

2. Human judgement would still come into play. But teams that are arguing over getting into 16 or 32 team field is much different than an undefeated #3 team not getting to play for the National Championship because the sportswriters thought that someone else may be better.

3. Money. That's what the current system is all about anyway. The Chambers of Commerce in the bowl towns are ponying up big bucks to keep their tourism dollars. No doubt, a few people at the NCAA are getting rich from all the money being given underneath the table. Even with the millions currently in play, a play-off would bring revenues to the NCAA that would dwarf what the bowls pay-out.

4. Game interest. I'm sorry, but I just can't buy that people would rather watch Texas A&M play Indiana in the Weedeater Bowl than watch a game in which the winner could advance to the title game. Even good games are unappealing to me if all the winner gets is a cheesy trophy from the bowl. Why not actually play for something meaningful? NBA, NFL and all other sports leagues have viewship rise dramatically once the play-offs begin. NCAA football would be no different.

[sooneron]

Answers to those who don't want a play-off:

1. The regular season still means a lot. Not only are teams playing to get into a play-off bid, (much as they do now to reach a meaningless bowl) but teams would also be trying to get home field advantage and a higher ranking for an easier path to the championship. The Texas Tech loss could mean the difference in hosting Arizona State or playing LSU on the road.

2. Human judgement would still come into play. But teams that are arguing over getting into 16 or 32 team field is much different than an undefeated #3 team not getting to play for the National Championship because the sportswriters thought that someone else may be better.


16 or 32 teams? Good Lord, Do you really think that any of these teams DESERVE a shot at the national title?
9. Oklahoma 10-2 (I'm sorry, but I don't think we DESERVE it)

10. Florida 9-3 (with three losses? retarded)
11. Boston College 10-2 (uh, No- big deal, they finally beat miami)
12. Hawaii 11-0 (1 big win this year)
13. Arizona State 9-2 (just got drubbed AT HOME)
14. Tennessee 9-3 (NO)
15. Illinois 9-3 (NO)
16. Clemson 9-3 (NO, NEVER)
17. Oregon 8-3 (HELLS NO without Dixon)
18. Wisconsin 9-3 (Didn't they just lose 2 out of their last three?)
19. BYU 9-2 (Well, they lost to average teams)
20. Texas 9-3 (Pretty much beat down at HOME)
21. South Florida 9-3 (NO)
22. Virginia 9-3 (Just got drubbed)
23. Cincinnati 9-3 (NO)
24. Auburn 8-4 (Definitely NO)
25. Boise State 10-2 (NO)

Football is great because the season matters more than the post season. More than 8 teams is idiocy and I'm not really for that. The only thing that I am for is having a two game play in for the title game. This is a rare year where more than 2 or 3 teams may feel like they have a legit gripe. This country is so friggin knee-jerk, why ruin one of the great things just because some one feels it ain't fair. Life isn't fair. NO ONE has a legit gripe unless they have 1 loss and are being left out after playing a season in a bcs conference.

[Collier11]

16 or 32 teams? Good Lord, Do you really think that any of these teams DESERVE a shot at the national title?
9. Oklahoma 10-2 on most saturdays we are the best team in the country, we just lose focus from time to time

10. Florida 9-3 yes
11. Boston College 10-2 no
12. Hawaii 11-0 yes, why the hell not
13. Arizona State 9-2 no
14. Tennessee 9-3 if they win the sec, yes
15. Illinois 9-3 (NO)
16. Clemson 9-3 (NO, NEVER)
17. Oregon 8-3 (HELLS NO without Dixon)
18. Wisconsin 9-3 (Didn't they just lose 2 out of their last three?)
19. BYU 9-2 (Well, they lost to average teams)
20. Texas 9-3 (Pretty much beat down at HOME)
21. South Florida 9-3 (NO)
22. Virginia 9-3 (Just got drubbed)
23. Cincinnati 9-3 (NO)
24. Auburn 8-4 (Definitely NO)
25. Boise State 10-2 (NO)

Football is great because the season matters more than the post season. More than 8 teams is idiocy and I'm not really for that. The only thing that I am for is having a two game play in for the title game. This is a rare year where more than 2 or 3 teams may feel like they have a legit gripe. This country is so friggin knee-jerk, why ruin one of the great things just because some one feels it ain't fair. Life isn't fair. NO ONE has a legit gripe unless they have 1 loss and are being left out after playing a season in a bcs conference.

FIXED

In a 16 team playoff, those particular teams above deserve a shot IMHO

[SoonerBBall]

1. The regular season still means a lot. Not only are teams playing to get into a play-off bid, (much as they do now to reach a meaningless bowl) but teams would also be trying to get home field advantage and a higher ranking for an easier path to the championship. The Texas Tech loss could mean the difference in hosting Arizona State or playing LSU on the road.

NFL and NBA teams pull their starters in the regular season so that they don't get injured before a playoff. When you don't care whether or not you lose a regular season game then the regular season doesn't matter. Thanks, though.


2. Human judgement would still come into play. But teams that are arguing over getting into 16 or 32 team field is much different than an undefeated #3 team not getting to play for the National Championship because the sportswriters thought that someone else may be better.

How many times do we have to tell you that sportswriters don't have any say in who plays for the NC right now?


3. Money. That's what the current system is all about anyway. The Chambers of Commerce in the bowl towns are ponying up big bucks to keep their tourism dollars. No doubt, a few people at the NCAA are getting rich from all the money being given underneath the table. Even with the millions currently in play, a play-off would bring revenues to the NCAA that would dwarf what the bowls pay-out.

You are flat out wrong right here. How many people can afford to travel all over the country in successive weekends for playoff games? Hint: the answer is much closer to zero than you'd like to believe.


4. Game interest. I'm sorry, but I just can't buy that people would rather watch Texas A&M play Indiana in the Weedeater Bowl than watch a game in which the winner could advance to the title game. Even good games are unappealing to me if all the winner gets is a cheesy trophy from the bowl. Why not actually play for something meaningful? NBA, NFL and all other sports leagues have viewship rise dramatically once the play-offs begin. NCAA football would be no different.

First off, Texas A&M and Indiana have no business being considered for any kind of championship right now anyways, so your argument is stupid. Second, the reason that playoff sports see a dramatic rise in viewership during the playoff is a direct result of the regular season not having any meaning. There is no reason to tune in to regular season games when the real action comes in the playoffs. Also, why would I watch a regular season game when all the starters are being pulled so they don't get injured? That is boring sh*t.

[sooneron]

FIXED

In a 16 team playoff, those particular teams above deserve a shot IMHO

12. Hawaii 11-0 yes, why the hell not
Why? See KU. I will lay even money down that Hawai'i (correct spelling - my bad for earlier) will come up short at UDub.
Heck, I'll bet a decent bottle of booze on it.

[Collier11]

It is my opinion that every team that wins their conference, no less a team that goes undefeated should atleast have a shot in a playoff. My plan has always been 16 teams with all 11 conf winners and the next 5 highest bcs ranked teams Or 18 teams with the 11 conf winners and the next highest 7 bcs ranked teams and the top 2 get a bye

[TopDawg]

NFL and NBA teams pull their starters in the regular season so that they don't get injured before a playoff. When you don't care whether or not you lose a regular season game then the regular season doesn't matter. Thanks, though.

How many times do we have to prove this argument wrong before it's accepted? The only time starters are pulled is when a playoff team has secured a playoff spot and home field/court advantage. For every team that pulls it's starters, there are 3 or 4 teams who are playing their hearts out for a shot to make it into the playoffs.

Let's take a look at last weekend's games.

Games that become less important with an eight-team playoff:
LSU/Arkansas
Kansas/Missouri

Games that become more important with an eight-team playoff:
USC/Arizona State
Texas A&M/Texas
Virginia Tech/Virginia
Tennessee/Kentucky
Georgia/Georgia Tech
West Virginia/UConn
Oklahoma/Oklahoma State
UCLA/Oregon
Florida/Florida State

If you expand it to a 16-team playoff, you can add a few more games to the top list, but even more games to the bottom list.

And if the top ranked teams get to host first round games, then the LSU/Arkansas game and Missouri/Kansas game are still very important.

[Lott's Bandana]

Why would Florida get to compete for a national title with three losses? Don't those losses mean anything? Where's Virginia Tech with only two losses? Arizona State also only has two losses. Why doesn't Hawaii get to play? They are undefeated!! How do you know that they are not the best team in the country if no one has been able to beat them?

Yeah, the playoffs really settle the arguments.


Liz, those were examples of possible games, not a scientific bracketing of my own playoff format. We don't see these games now because of the way the bowls are set-up. Wouldn't an OU/USC game be great this year? Instead, it looks like we get Arizona State in their hometown. (Tempe/Glendale is like Norman/Edmond)


Personally, I think the BCS conference champions, plus one or two at-large to make it an even number, would be the best system. Makes being a conference champion mean something. This would also give Georgia and Hawai'i a chance this year...and of course, ND when they get back to .500.

[FaninAma]

I'm with you on this one...but there are a lot of playoff proponents on here that are liable to come on here and tell us both why we are wrong.

I also heard him say that, though I wasn't paying much attention...you know: turn the volume down low enough you can block it out if you want and can actually enjoy the game that way.

Bilas is right and both of you are so wrong in so many ways I can't even begin to address them all.

Suffice it to say that if you're not convinved that the BCS sucks and college football needs a playoff after this year then there is absolutely no argument I can make that can chisel away the rust from your disengaged brains. And I say that in a nice way.

[SoonerBBall]

How many times do we have to prove this argument wrong before it's accepted? The only time starters are pulled is when a playoff team has secured a playoff spot and home field/court advantage. For every team that pulls it's starters, there are 3 or 4 teams who are playing their hearts out for a shot to make it into the playoffs. .

I watch more NBA than NFL and it most definitely does happen all the time in the NBA. In any case, watching those 3 or 4 teams playing their heart out to make it into the playoffs is usually fun, but do they really deserve a shot at a title? Shouldn't you have to come to play every week for that shot? I'm speaking in college football terms here. A playoff may work for the NFL and NBA, but I think it would take away from a lot of what is great about college football. OU/TX sure would mean less if we had to play them again in a playoff. Ditto for the rest of the great college rivalries.


Let's take a look at last weekend's games.

Games that become less important with an eight-team playoff:
LSU/Arkansas
Kansas/Missouri

Games that become more important with an eight-team playoff:
USC/Arizona State
Texas A&M/Texas
Virginia Tech/Virginia
Tennessee/Kentucky
Georgia/Georgia Tech
West Virginia/UConn
Oklahoma/Oklahoma State
UCLA/Oregon
Florida/Florida State

If you expand it to a 16-team playoff, you can add a few more games to the top list, but even more games to the bottom list.

And if the top ranked teams get to host first round games, then the LSU/Arkansas game and Missouri/Kansas game are still very important.

All those games are important anyways because it affects the landscape of the BCS. They would be even more important if the changes I outlined earlier were made so that human judgement (i.e. Ohio State and West Virginia being rated so high without playing very tough schedules) played less of a part in the rankings.

[FaninAma]

The fact that Hawaii, the only undefeated team in D-1 has no shot at the title added to the fact that it is very likely that tOSU is going to backdoor their way into the title game simply because they have finished their season early(and with exactly one semi-quality win over a 4 loss Michigan team) tells you all you need to know about the suckage that is the BCS.

Please, please explain to me how tOSU deserves a shot at the title before a 2 loss SEC team, a 2 loss PAC 10 team or a 2 loss Big 12 team?

[SoonerBBall]

Bilas is right and both of you are so wrong in so many ways I can't even begin to address them all.

Suffice it to say that if you're not convinved that the BCS sucks and college football needs a playoff after this year then there is absolutely no argument I can make that can chisel away the rust from your disengaged brains. And I say that in a nice way.

Nice copout answer. No really.

You could try crying more. That might get a playoff instituted faster. Maybe?

[TopDawg]

Bilas is right and both of you are so wrong in so many ways I can't even begin to address them all.

If "both of you" includes SoonerBBall, although I have an issue with one of the points in his latest post, I do agree with his original post.

I don't want a playoff system that allows a mediocre team to get hot at the right time and win the title, which is what it sounds like BBall thought Bilas was getting at. I prefer a format that allows the best teams to battle it out on the field. That's why I think an 8-team playoff is a great number. It takes into account the "fact" that "on any given Saturday......" but, in most years, it won't allow many teams to have two such Saturdays.

[SoonerBBall]

The fact that Hawaii, the only undefeated team in D-1 has no shot at the title added to the fact that it is very likely that tOSU is going to backdoor their way into the title game simply because they have finished their season early(and with exactly one semi-quality win over a 4 loss Michigan team) tells you all you need to know about the suckage that is the BCS.

Please, please explain to me how tOSU deserves a shot at the title before a 2 loss SEC team, a 2 loss PAC 10 team or a 2 loss Big 12 team?

First off, tOSU is getting their chance because of the human polls, no explicit strength of schedule component, and no margin of victory component. We said that earlier.

Second, how in the world can you argue for Hawaii getting a NC shot but against tOSU?? Hawaii played a weak schedule and is correctly getting hammered for it. tOSU also played a weak schedule but isn't getting hammered for it because the human polls are stupid.

[Collier11]

why dont they put into affect some kind of "margin of victory" aspect that only measures against top 25 teams...would that be fair? It would take out all the people that beat creampuffs by 50, but reward a team who beats a good team by 3tds, maybe a little extra weight for margin of victory against a ranked team on the road? Sounds good to me, what do you think?

[Collier11]

We shouldn't have lost to Colorado.

Had we won that game, we'd be in the driver's seat to play for the national championship. Not to mention, the Big 12 championship game would be pitting #1 vs #2, which'd be pretty awesome for a game that more typically pits #1-3 vs. #10-unranked.

The argument for the current system is simple: Under the current system, every game matters.

Does it suck if you miss out simply because a player got hurt for one game?

Yes -- but that's not happening to us this season. It's easy to focus on the TTech loss, but we have to also accept the fact that we played flat and got beat by an inferior team that shouldn't have even hung close with us when we lost at Colorado.

I also think there's a case to be made that championship teams shouldn't be one-trick ponies. If we're good enough to be the best in the nation, our backup QB should be good enough to at least hold his own when called on -- and our defense should be good enough to rise to the occasion, when a vital player got hurt.

A playoff system would benefit us enormously this year -- and many years. But I don't think champions should take games off. And this year, we did.


I think the main point that all of us playoff proponents have been trying to make and that I have stated several times is this, why does a 1 loss ohio state team get a shot over a 1 loss oklahoma, or texas, or michigan,etc...just because of when they lost in the season, thats not fair in any given year.

With this year, why is it that a 1 loss ohio state whose only ranked win was against an overrated michigan team be in a better position than OU who did lose two games, but also beat mizzou who is currently #1? IN most years there is really very little or NO difference between teams 1 thru 6 to 10...

[Scott D]

everything that comes from Bilas' mouth is stupid....why do you think he's so revered in Dukie land.

[TopDawg]

I watch more NBA than NFL and it most definitely does happen all the time in the NBA. In any case, watching those 3 or 4 teams playing their heart out to make it into the playoffs is usually fun, but do they really deserve a shot at a title? Shouldn't you have to come to play every week for that shot? I'm speaking in college football terms here.

I think a team that finishes a 12-game regular season ranked 8th out of 119 teams deserves a shot at the title. You still have to come to play every week. One loss might eliminate you. If you're lucky and it's a crazy year like this, you might get a second chance. If it turns out you are not worthy, you'll probably get eliminated fairly quickly. If you are worthy, you'll have to beat 3 of the top 8 teams in the nation to win it.

As it is now, you can play a patsy schedule, finish second, and have one good game to win the national championship.


All those games are important anyways because it affects the landscape of the BCS.

My point is that regular season games will still be important. You seemed to be dismissing the playoff argument by stating that the regular season will become less important because everybody will be resting their starters. That's just not the case. For every one game that become less important (and sees starters being rested) there are at least 2 or 3 games that become more important.

[SoonerBBall]

I think the main point that all of us playoff proponents have been trying to make and that I have stated several times is this, why does a 1 loss ohio state team get a shot over a 1 loss oklahoma, or texas, or michigan,etc...just because of when they lost in the season, thats not fair in any given year.

With this year, why is it that a 1 loss ohio state whose only ranked win was against an overrated michigan team be in a better position than OU who did lose two games, but also beat mizzou who is currently #1? IN most years there is really very little or NO difference between teams 1 thru 6 to 10...

We are absolutely in agreement that the BCS as it stands currently does not take enough factors into account to correctly determine rankings. That is why I listed the changes that should be made earlier in the thread. In fact, I wouldn't be opposed to the Quality Win component being added back in instead of an explicit strength of schedule component. That was a very visual, easy to understand way to reward a team for beating other top teams.

I think the main thing is I believe that a modified version of the BCS is the best way to determine best teams in CFB, while you and TopDawg think a playoff is the better way. I understand your arguments to be sure, I just think my way is a lot less painful, has a much greater chance of being adopted by the member conferences, and preserves a lot of what makes CFB the best sport in the world, bar none.

Oh, I also think that we should get rid of automatic berths. The top 12 teams in the BCS should go to the bowls. Hell, I wouldn't even be against an And 1 game that would make for 1 4 team playoff.

[Socrefbek]

touche!

BTW: I'm not a strong proponent of either the BCS or a playoff, I think I just tend to take the "anti" side because all the playoff people are so sure they have the best plan...problem is they all have a different plan. Someone presents me with a playoff plan that solves all of the problems with the BCS, instead of simply making new and different ones then I'm onboard! ;)

Div I limited at 96 teams.

8 12 team conferences (2 - 6 team divisions in each conference)
11 game schedule (8 conference and 3 non-conference)
Each conference has a conference championship game
8 conference champs go to playoff (Seeded with BCS system)
Play 1 vs 8, 2 vs 7, 3 vs 6, 4 vs 5

Teams with winning records and conference CG losers go to bowl games

Additional class time is not a factor.

2 teams play 15 games
2 teams play 14 games
All other teams play 13 or less games

Best part of all Neutered Dumb has to join a conference.

Will that work? :)

[FaninAma]

First off, tOSU is getting their chance because of the human polls, no explicit strength of schedule component, and no margin of victory component. We said that earlier.

Second, how in the world can you argue for Hawaii getting a NC shot but against tOSU?? Hawaii played a weak schedule and is correctly getting hammered for it. tOSU also played a weak schedule but isn't getting hammered for it because the human polls are stupid.

That's what drives me absolutley batty regarding you BCS apologists. You have no consistency in the way you think the system should be applied. Everything is so damn subjective and open to totally subjective interpretation by non-participants.

BCS apologist:"Well Hawaii had a weak schedule"
Counterpoint: So did tOSU and they lost at home to Illinois!

BCS apologist: "The human polls are stupid".
Counterpoint: Duh!!!! Then why do you support a system based on stupidity? Geezus all mighty. How can I reason with that type of logic?

TD, So what if a team gets hot at the end of the season? They still have to win their conference and they still have to prove it on the field.

[TMcGee86]

Div I limited at 96 teams.

8 12 team conferences (2 - 6 team divisions in each conference)
11 game schedule (8 conference and 3 non-conference)
Each conference has a conference championship game
8 conference champs go to playoff (Seeded with BCS system)
Play 1 vs 8, 2 vs 7, 3 vs 6, 4 vs 5

Teams with winning records and conference CG losers go to bowl games

Additional class time is not a factor.

2 teams play 15 games
2 teams play 14 games
All other teams play 13 or less games

Best part of all Neutered Dumb has to join a conference.

Will that work? :)

no way that ever gets implemented.

I'm sorry but I just think you have to be realistic when trying to think of a playoff scenario.

A massive realignment of the conferences, and a removal of D1 schools is never going to happen.

Also, the main flaw with that system is that only allows conf champs.


The big 12 provides perfect examples of why this is flawed almost yearly.

Lets say next year OU is undefeated and UT loses one game to OU. Nebraska wins the north but lost four games in the process, including blow out losses to OU and UT.

So now an Undefeated OU teams has to face a 4 loss Nebraska team in teh CCG because Neb "won" the north even though they blew them out earlier in the year.

Now let's say Bradford goes down in the CCG with a concussion (ala Tech), and we lose a fluke game to that bad Neb team. Bradford comes back the next week and we are back to full strength, but it's already too late.

A horrible Neb team is now in the playoffs over a one loss OU team, and a one loss UT team, both of which donkey stomped said Neb team during the year.

That is beyond unfair.

[Curly Bill]

Dare say that a playoff is not the absolute greatest thing since sliced bread and risk the wrath of those that due to their greater intellect absolutely know for sure that it is. Does that sound about right? faninama?

...or I guess I could go along with the herd mentality and not risk being referred to as having my brain disengaged? No thanks...

I already said that a playoff might be better, but the way some of you look to a playoff in college football as the gospel is hilarious

[TopDawg]

TD, So what if a team gets hot at the end of the season? They still have to win their conference and they still have to prove it on the field.

I'm not sure I understand your question, but I just don't want a system that would allow a team with 3 losses to get into the playoff. I think a 16-team system might allow that, but an 8-team system wouldn't. Just to be clear, I'd prefer a 16-team system over nothing...if it was set up well...but I'd prefer 8 over 16.

But in the end, I'd prefer to give the national title to a team that finished the regular season 16th and had to beat #1 and 2 other top 16 teams, instead of a team that played a weak schedule and finished the year (title game included) with only one quality win.

And on a different note, will everyone please quit trying to group all pro- and anti- playoff arguments together? To me it makes no sense to discredit one pro- or anti- playoff argument simply because it doesn't match up to the other ones. Whether or not my ideal playoff scenario or SoonerBBall's ideal no-playoff scenario matches up to other scenarios in our respective camps has no bearing on how much validity each individual scenario may or may not have.

[Socrefbek]

Lets say OU gets their QB knocked out of the game against TTech and loses tha game and then they have virtually no shot at playing for the National Championship as a result. That would be horribly unfair .... oh wait :rolleyes:

[SleestakSooner]

The current system might be viable if all the teams played the exact same amount of games each regular season. They don't.

I for one hate the month-long doldrums spent waiting for the mostly meaningless bowl season to come to a crescendo in yet another blow-out MNC game.

Give us an 8-team playoff system and we not only add a couple of meaningful games to the December football downtime (and who can argue against more foolsball?) and allow more of the teams that have proven through the regular season that they deserve a shot at the NC to actually have a chance to win it.

As for SonnerBBall's inability to convey his opinion w/o naming every counter arguement and it's presenter "stupid" well... "that's all I have to say about that"

[SoonerBBall]

That's what drives me absolutley batty regarding you BCS apologists. You have no consistency in the way you think the system should be applied. Everything is so damn subjective and open to totally subjective interpretation by non-participants.

BCS apologist:"Well Hawaii had a weak schedule"
Counterpoint: So did tOSU and they lost at home to Illinois!

BCS apologist: "The human polls are stupid".
Counterpoint: Duh!!!! Then why do you support a system based on stupidity? Geezus all mighty. How can I reason with that type of logic?

TD, So what if a team gets hot at the end of the season? They still have to win their conference and they still have to prove it on the field.

Are you purposefully ignoring the other 3 pages worth of argument about the BCS being flawed and the human polls being the worst pat about it? How about the part where I outline how the BCS could be made better by diminishing the human component and adding in explicit measures for schedule strength?

No, I think you saw them just fine and are being a blowhard. You haven't tried to reason with a single post in this thread, you've just come in completely ignorant like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie. Eight year-olds dude, eight year-olds.

[TMcGee86]

Here's the closest I can come to a scenario that answers all the questions:

First of all, as much as I know this will probably **** the playoff people off, I actually think a tournament has some inherent flaws.

At least a tournament that involves only one game matchups.

Granted it's better than what we have now, which is nothing, but it also can lead to some pretty silly results.

Therefore, I have ruled out a 16 team playoff.

One, I think it's too many teams and while I dont totally agree with the notion of "College football is great because the regular season is a tournament" I do want there to be some incentive to win all your games.

Also, as much as playoff proponents dont want to admit this, a playoff scenario that requires 4 added road games is impossible in major college football.

First of all, you are never going to get rid of the bowls, it just aint gonna happen so forget it.

Second of all, unlike pro teams, you have a butt load of extra people to haul around and while I realize the notion of "student-athlete" is a joke, there is no need to drag the band, the cheerleaders, etc around for a four city jaunt during December.

And you can't expect 80k people to be able to make travel plans for four bowl games. It just isnt practical.

And I know the standard response is "Well D2 and D3 do it". Well, I've been to multiple D3 playoff games and guess what, the attendance was around 1000 people, and that was for semi-final games. So to equate the two is just foolish.

And to expect a major college program to make plans without full confidence that the game will sellout is likewise foolish.

So, for all those reasons, I say Go with an 8 team playoff.

But here's the kicker, under my plan we only need to add one game to the schedule.

That's right, just one game. So there will be no need for massive travel arrangements, no need for last minute flight plans, and no worry that any of the games will have trouble selling out.

First things first, and this will probably be the hardest thing to overcome, but I say we Eliminate the Conference Championship games.

One, because right now not every conference has them and that is ridiculous.

Secondly, in nearly all cases it adds an unnecessary element to the NC puzzle. Sure this year it might work out in the Big12 if Kansas and OU would have faced off as they would not have played each other and it would have been a proving game for who's the best of the big 12, but how many times have we had to watch as a team that doesn't deserve to be there ends up winning the game and claiming the "conference championship". A&M did it, Texas did it, KSU did it, Colorado did it. It's stupid. There is no reason and undefeated UT team should be forced to play a 4 loss Nebraska team just because Nebraska "won" the north. There's nothing in it for UT, the only thing that can happen is they lose and get bounced from the BCS. Dumb.

So eliminate all conference championship games.

Now, in their place, you will have the first round of the playoffs.

To do this, you must also eliminate the bye weeks in college football, which needs to be done anyway as there is no reason we should be forced to watch USC take two weeks off then continue playing into December while everyone else is either finished or playing conference championship games. Again, dumb.

So, the first Saturday in December now becomes the first round of the playoffs.

Since it's an 8 team playoff, there are obviously four playoff games to be played in the first round.

Now i think it would be interesting and possibly more palatable to the NCAA and Bowl committees if you said four BCS Bowls will now host a game in early December, and then another a month later in Early January.

Double the revenue would seemingly be a great incentive for the bowl committees to sign on to such a plan.

Also the real kicker to lock the bowl committees in to such an arrangement, you go back to the old bowl alliances. This would really get those old guys going. Plus this allows for people to make travel arrangements ahead of time because they have a better idea of what game they will be attending.

Now I dont mean a full on bowl alliance where rankings dont matter, instead I am talking about a hybrid of the old bowl alliances and a playoff format.

However to make this work we must add two BCS bowls.

The two games will be The Cotton and The Citrus. The Cotton Bowl as a BCS game makes perfect sense. Since it will be played at JerryWorld in 09, and the current BCS contract runs through 09, it's easy to see that they will add the Cotton Bowl as a BCS bowl come the new contract. And as well they should, its one of the oldest and most storied bowls and deserves the recognition. This Citrus (Capital One) Bowl is also old, and is in a great location (Orlando) so it makes sense as well, however you could also use the Gator Bowl if you wanted as it is old and also well located.


Now, for the Bowl alliances. The conferences will now be assigned their own bowl.

The Rose aligns with Pac 10 and the WAC.

The Cotton aligns with Big 12 and the Mountain West.

The Sugar aligns with SEC and ConfUSA.

The Fiesta aligns with Big 10 and the MAC.

The Orange aligns with Big East and the SunBelt.

The Citrus aligns with ACC and the Independents.


Now then, the hybrid part comes in the rankings. Lets take last year for an example. Here are the standings at the end of the regular season last year:

1. Ohio State
2. Florida
3. Michigan
4. LSU

5. USC
6. Louisville
7. Wisconsin
8. Boise State

You split them up into two separate groups. 1-4 and 5-8. The top four in order of rank go to their respective bowl alliance game.

#1 OSU = Fiesta Bowl

#2 Florida = Sugar Bowl

#3 Michigan = TBD

#4 LSU = TBD


Okay, now, when there overlapping conferences, you simply take the next game up on a rotating basis. We'll say Rose and Orange. So the standings look like this:

#1 OSU = Fiesta Bowl

#2 Florida = Sugar Bowl

#3 Michigan = Rose Bowl

#4 LSU = Orange Bowl

Now you just line up the 5-8 teams based on rank into the respective bowl games that the top teams landed in. Thusly:

Fiesta Bowl = #1 OSU vs. #8 Boise State

Sugar Bowl = #2 FLA vs. #7 Wisconsin

Rose Bowl = #3 Mich vs. #6 Louisville

Orange Bowl = #4 LSU vs. #5 USC

Okay for simplicity's sake, we will say all favorites won. So it's December 2nd and the standings now look like this:

1. Ohio State
2. Florida
3. Michigan
4. LSU

Now then, to quite all the naysayers about the kids needing a break, or the fact that finals are the first few weeks of December, and the fact that people need time to plan bowl game trips, you then have a break till January 1st .

On Jan. 1, the Semi-final games are played at the two remaining BCS bowls(Cotton and Citrus in our example)

Cotton Bowl = #1 OSU vs. #4 LSU

Citrus Bowl = #2 UF vs. #3. UM

The next week, the National Championship game is played.

The National Championship game is the only added game on the schedule, a real national championship game at one of the BCS Bowls on a rotating basis.

In last years example, you are right back to #1 OSU vs. #2 Florida in the National Championship game played at the Fiesta Bowl.


I think this is close to a perfect plan. It allows for travel arrangements, studying for finals, more bowl games, and a "true" national champion.


Its the best of both worlds.

[Curly Bill]

Here's what I saw in another post (in really big letters): Lets get a playoff and stop the madness!

...and there you have the thinking of the playoff proponents: if only we had playoffs all problems would be solved and the madness ended.

Again, I don't really care...playoffs, BCS, there are going to be problems with each. Someone just flip a coin...but when there are still gripes and arguments after the Holy Grail...I mean the playoffs are implemented, don't be surprised.

[SoonerBBall]

The current system might be viable if all the teams played the exact same amount of games each regular season. They don't.

No, the current system is perfectly viable until all teams play the same number of games. But for the 5th time in this thread, I'll point out that I have outlined several changes that the BCS needs to be changed to bring it from "adequate" to "good".


I for one hate the month-long doldrums spent waiting for the mostly meaningless bowl season to come to a crescendo in yet another blow-out MNC game. For every blowout MNC you list I can give you one that was a great game. OU/LSU, UT/USC, OU/FSU, tOSU/Miami? What the hell are you talking about?


Give us an 8-team playoff system and we not only add a couple of meaningful games to the December football downtime (and who can argue against more foolsball?) and allow more of the teams that have proven through the regular season that they deserve a shot at the NC to actually have a chance to win it.

There are plenty of arguments against more football, but I'm not the one to make them. I think that 14 games is plenty in a season, though. I don't want to turn CFB into a mini-clone of the NFL. Also, why is giving more teams a shot to win the MNC better? I'd rather have the best teams playing for it, not the best teams and a few more teams that made the cut.


As for SonnerBBall's inability to convey his opinion w/o naming every counter arguement and it's presenter "stupid" well... "that's all I have to say about that"

I've made my opinion very clear to the people with the intelligence enough to comprehend it and I've only responded with condescension to the people who acted stupid in the first place. Thankfully, you've given me another target.

[Collier11]

Here's what I saw in another post (in really big letters): Lets get a playoff and stop the madness!

...and there you have the thinking of the playoff proponents: if only we had playoffs all problems would be solved and the madness ended.

Again, I don't really care...playoffs, BCS, there are going to be problems with each. Someone just flip a coin...but when there are still gripes and arguments after the Holy Grail...I mean the playoffs are implemented, don't be surprised.


Im obviously a playoff proponent and I dont think the playoff is the be all and end all of college football perfection. Having said that, I would rather trust it to be played out on the field than for a computer program to tell me which one loss team is better than another. For a computer program to tell me absolutely that every one loss team is better than every two loss team, or that when you lose should determine how worthy of a title you really are!

[TMcGee86]

Sorry, that was ridiculously long.

Here's the condensed version:

1. Go with an 8 team playoff.
2. Eliminate the Conference Championship games
3. Eliminate the bye weeks in college football
4. The first Saturday in December now becomes the first round of the playoffs
5. Add two BCS bowls.
6. Go back to a hybrid of the old bowl alliances
7. Four BCS Bowls will now host a game in early December
8. The top four in order of rank go to their respective bowl alliance game.
9. The Playoffs break till January 1st, while the lesser bowl games are played as normal.
10. On Jan. 1, the Semi-final games are played at the two remaining BCS bowls
11. The next week, the National Championship game is played at a BCS bowl on a rotating basis.

[silverwheels]

Here's what I saw in another post (in really big letters): Lets get a playoff and stop the madness!

...and there you have the thinking of the playoff proponents: if only we had playoffs all problems would be solved and the madness ended.

Hooray for generalizing!

[SleestakSooner]

No, the current system is perfectly viable until all teams play the same number of games. But for the 5th time in this thread, I'll point out that I have outlined several changes that the BCS needs to be changed to bring it from "adequate" to "good".

For every blowout MNC you list I can give you one that was a great game. OU/LSU, UT/USC, OU/FSU, tOSU/Miami? What the hell are you talking about?



There are plenty of arguments against more football, but I'm not the one to make them. I think that 14 games is plenty in a season, though. I don't want to turn CFB into a mini-clone of the NFL. Also, why is giving more teams a shot to win the MNC better? I'd rather have the best teams playing for it, not the best teams and a few more teams that made the cut.



I've made my opinion very clear to the people with the intelligence enough to comprehend it and I've only responded with condescension to the people who acted stupid in the first place. Thankfully, you've given me another target.

It's apparent that some opinions are like the condescending *******s who bring them forward. Not worthy of discussion and the only stupidity on our part was responding to your bull**** in the first place.

Way to treat fellow fans in crimson and cream. Stick to basketball, at least they already have a proper championship in place.

[Stoop Dawg]

Here's what I saw in another post (in really big letters): Lets get a playoff and stop the madness!

...and there you have the thinking of the playoff proponents: if only we had playoffs all problems would be solved and the madness ended.

Again, I don't really care...playoffs, BCS, there are going to be problems with each. Someone just flip a coin...but when there are still gripes and arguments after the Holy Grail...I mean the playoffs are implemented, don't be surprised.

Before you can solve a problem, you have to know what the problem is.

So, what is the problem that is being "solved" by a playoff?

Well, I'm not entirely certain that everyone agrees on that. So, you are exactly right, the "problem" won't be solved, because there is not one single problem that needs to be solved. Everyone has their own problem they are trying to solve, and that's why you see so many playoff proposals.

As for me, the problem I have with the current system is that there is not a clear-cut method to win a NC. "Win all of your games" doesn't work (see Boise St, Hawaii, et all). "Schedule tougher opponents" doesn't work (how they heck do you know who the "tougher opponents" are going to be 5 years from now). "Join a BCS conference" doesn't work (you think the Big 12 is gonna let Hawaii join).

IMO, the goal is NOT to decide the "best" team in college football. The goal is to implement a system where every team has a chance to win a NC. A system where you know what you have to do before the season even starts, and if you line up every week and do that, you get the reward. That's what drives competition. That's what I want from college football.

[Stoop Dawg]

I think the main thing is I believe that a modified version of the BCS is the best way to determine best teams in CFB, while you and TopDawg think a playoff is the better way. I understand your arguments to be sure, I just think my way is a lot less painful, has a much greater chance of being adopted by the member conferences, and preserves a lot of what makes CFB the best sport in the world, bar none.

Hell, I wouldn't even be against an And 1 game that would make for 1 4 team playoff.

So you don't want a playoff. But you wouldn't be opposed to a playoff? :confused:

[SleestakSooner]

Before you can solve a problem, you have to know what the problem is.

So, what is the problem that is being "solved" by a playoff?

Well, I'm not entirely certain that everyone agrees on that. So, you are exactly right, the "problem" won't be solved, because there is not one single problem that needs to be solved. Everyone has their own problem they are trying to solve, and that's why you see so many playoff proposals.

As for me, the problem I have with the current system is that there is not a clear-cut method to win a NC. "Win all of your games" doesn't work (see Boise St, Hawaii, et all). "Schedule tougher opponents" doesn't work (how they heck do you know who the "tougher opponents" are going to be 5 years from now). "Join a BCS conference" doesn't work (you think the Big 12 is gonna let Hawaii join).

IMO, the goal is NOT to decide the "best" team in college football. The goal is to implement a system where every team has a chance to win a NC. A system where you know what you have to do before the season even starts, and if you line up every week and do that, you get the reward. That's what drives competition. That's what I want from college football.

Amen. Why allow a team into D-1 if they can never win the whole thing?

[birddog]

why is it people are so opposed to a team "getting hot" having a chance to win an nc?

[Collier11]

IMO, the goal is NOT to decide the "best" team in college football. The goal is to implement a system where every team has a chance to win a NC. A system where you know what you have to do before the season even starts, and if you line up every week and do that, you get the reward. That's what drives competition. That's what I want from college football.


AMEN! I have been saying this forever, why are there 119 D1 teams when only a handful each year have a shot to win the title. Why do we have games thursday thru tue some weeks when those teams often have no shot at a title, why should a team that goes undefeated have no shot at the title, ex: boise st, possibly hawaii, marshall with randy moss, etc...

[TopDawg]

Well, just about any team that wins a playoff is going to have to be pretty hot to do so...I just want to try to avoid a system that lets a team that lost one-fourth of their games have a shot at a D-1A college football title.

[Collier11]

Well, just about any team that wins a playoff is going to have to be pretty hot to do so...I just want to try to avoid a system that lets a team that lost one-fourth of their games have a shot at a D-1A college football title.


do you not think that all 11 conf. winners should be allowed in, or do you just want the top 8?

[TopDawg]

As for me, the problem I have with the current system is that there is not a clear-cut method to win a NC. "Win all of your games" doesn't work (see Boise St, Hawaii, et all). "Schedule tougher opponents" doesn't work (how they heck do you know who the "tougher opponents" are going to be 5 years from now). "Join a BCS conference" doesn't work (you think the Big 12 is gonna let Hawaii join).

Uhhhh...hello?! What about "Finish in the Top 2 of the BCS."




;)

[SoonerBBall]

It's apparent that some opinions are like the condescending *******s who bring them forward. Not worthy of discussion and the only stupidity on our part was responding to your bull**** in the first place.

While these two(?) sentences barely make sense, I think I see what you're getting at. Seriously, though, you can bitch some more if it will make you feel better, but 5 pages of replies says that you are dead wrong that the subject is not worthy of discussion...again.


Way to treat fellow fans in crimson and cream. Stick to basketball, at least they already have a proper championship in place.

I went to OU for a total of 7 years and have met just as many bad fans as good, so excuse me for not buying into your holier-than-thou, "fellow fans" bullsh*t. If you are going to come into my thread and act like a retard, I'm going to treat you like one no matter what your school affiliation.

[SoonerBBall]

So you don't want a playoff. But you wouldn't be opposed to a playoff? :confused:

I said Jay Bilas' comments about a playoff were stupid, not that I am totally against all things playoff based. I wouldn't be opposed to an And 1, or 4 team playoff, it is not my prefered method, though. I would much rather see the BCS be modified to make it an intelligent, worthwhile system with far fewer flaws.

[SoonerBBall]

AMEN! I have been saying this forever, why are there 119 D1 teams when only a handful each year have a shot to win the title. Why do we have games thursday thru tue some weeks when those teams often have no shot at a title, why should a team that goes undefeated have no shot at the title, ex: boise st, possibly hawaii, marshall with randy moss, etc...

The obvious answer in my mind has always been that there are far too many football teams considered "D1". The experts can talk about parity all they want, but college football is still much different from college basketball and the mid-major teams are still more likely than not going to get pounded.

[TopDawg]

do you not think that all 11 conf. winners should be allowed in, or do you just want the top 8?

I just want the Top 8. Yeah, there are some problems there...it doesn't address StoopDawg's concern which I think is an extremely valid point...but it does come closer to ensuring that "go undefeated" will be good enough to make it. In most years, if you go undefeated against even a reasonably difficult slate of opponents, you should finish in the BCS Top 8. And while you can't always know who is going to be good five years from now, I think Hawaii was relatively certain that N. Colorado, UNLV, and C. Southern wouldn't be. Heck, even if they would've scheduled that Washington game earlier in the year I think it would've done them a whole world of good.

"Fairness"-wise, a 16 team playoff with automatic berths for conference champions is much more appealing, but I think you get into too many logistical problems there.

[FaninAma]

no way that ever gets implemented.

I'm sorry but I just think you have to be realistic when trying to think of a playoff scenario.

A massive realignment of the conferences, and a removal of D1 schools is never going to happen.

Also, the main flaw with that system is that only allows conf champs.


The big 12 provides perfect examples of why this is flawed almost yearly.

Lets say next year OU is undefeated and UT loses one game to OU. Nebraska wins the north but lost four games in the process, including blow out losses to OU and UT.

So now an Undefeated OU teams has to face a 4 loss Nebraska team in teh CCG because Neb "won" the north even though they blew them out earlier in the year.

Now let's say Bradford goes down in the CCG with a concussion (ala Tech), and we lose a fluke game to that bad Neb team. Bradford comes back the next week and we are back to full strength, but it's already too late.

A horrible Neb team is now in the playoffs over a one loss OU team, and a one loss UT team, both of which donkey stomped said Neb team during the year.

That is beyond unfair.

OU wouldn't play for the BCS title under that scenario, either so why aren't you calling the BCS unfair? Because you're inconsistent.

And in a playoff, there could be a scenario where some at-large teams could be selected which means in a playoff OU, in the above scenario, would have a hell of a lot more chance of playing for the title than they would under the BCS.

Next convoluted argument from the BCS supporters, please.

[Stoop Dawg]

I just want the Top 8. Yeah, there are some problems there...it doesn't address StoopDawg's concern which I think is an extremely valid point...but it does come closer to ensuring that "go undefeated" will be good enough to make it. In most years, if you go undefeated against even a reasonably difficult slate of opponents, you should finish in the BCS Top 8. And while you can't always know who is going to be good five years from now, I think Hawaii was relatively certain that N. Colorado, UNLV, and C. Southern wouldn't be. Heck, even if they would've scheduled that Washington game earlier in the year I think it would've done them a whole world of good.

"Fairness"-wise, a 16 team playoff with automatic berths for conference champions is much more appealing, but I think you get into too many logistical problems there.

I agree with this. 16 teams is too many because it would require too many games. 8 teams is a good number, but there are more than 8 conferences.

Given that my real "problem" with CFB can't be reasonably solved (not without conference re-alignments, or perhaps the creation of CFB "divisions" or some such thing), I would settle for an 8 team playoff with participants determined "BCS Style". The fact that it's not "perfect" doesn't mean that it's not "better".

[FaninAma]

Are you purposefully ignoring the other 3 pages worth of argument about the BCS being flawed and the human polls being the worst pat about it? How about the part where I outline how the BCS could be made better by diminishing the human component and adding in explicit measures for schedule strength?

No, I think you saw them just fine and are being a blowhard. You haven't tried to reason with a single post in this thread, you've just come in completely ignorant like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie. Eight year-olds dude, eight year-olds.

Here is your statement about modifying the BCS, although you don't give many, if any, details about how you would dress up this pig and call it "sweetheart".


I think the main thing is I believe that a modified version of the BCS is the best way to determine best teams in CFB,

Point out any other valid arguments I've missed that you've made on how to improve the BCS and I'll retract my comments. Supply some details.....dude. It will give me great pleasure to trash your weak @$$ argument.

[SoonerBBall]

OU wouldn't play for the BCS title under that scenario, either so why aren't you calling the BCS unfair? Because you're inconsistent.

And in a playoff, there could be a scenario where some at-large teams could be selected which means in a playoff OU, in the above scenario, would have a hell of a lot more chance of playing for the title than they would under the BCS.

Next convoluted argument from the BCS supporters, please.

Except this exact scenario played out with OU and KSU in 2003. We come in to the CCG undefeated, KSU has 3 losses. They beat us but we still went to the NCG.

[SoonerBBall]

Here is your statement about modifying the BCS, although you don't give many, if any, details about how you would dress up this pig and call it "sweetheart".



Point out any other valid arguments I've missed that you've made on how to improve the BCS and I'll retract my comments. Supply some details.....dude. It will give me great pleasure to trash your weak @$$ argument.

Post #15

I completely agree with you and think the BCS needs to implement different scoring rules, such as the computers accounting for 50% of the rank component, the AP and Harris poll only comprising 25% each of the rank component, allowing the computers to once again take margin of victory up to 30 points into account, reintroducing an explicit strength of schedule component, and adding more computers with published formula mechanics to the computer polls.

Post #62

We are absolutely in agreement that the BCS as it stands currently does not take enough factors into account to correctly determine rankings. That is why I listed the changes that should be made earlier in the thread. In fact, I wouldn't be opposed to the Quality Win component being added back in instead of an explicit strength of schedule component. That was a very visual, easy to understand way to reward a team for beating other top teams.

Reading comprehension FTW.

[FaninAma]

Except this exact scenario played out with OU and KSU in 2003. We come in to the CCG undefeated, KSU has 3 losses. They beat us but we still went to the NCG.

And OU would have gone to a 8 team or 16 team plyoff without all of the howling, gnashing of teeth and outrage that took place when we made the title game in 03.

If anything, a team that doesn't win it's conference going to the national title game is a huge weakness of the BCS. Last year we got awfully close to allowing tOSU and Michigan to have a rematch to determine what would have been a fraudulent national champion. In a playoff, that would never happen. A team that lost in their CCG title game would have to reprove their worthiness on the field to earn their place in the title game.

And BTW, I noticed your solution is to tweak the current BCS system. Geebus, that system has already been tweaked more than a hooker's nipples on a date with a company of airborne infantry.

And every time it's tweaked it actually sucks more.....just like said hooker.

And why is that? Because individuals with agendas use their subjective opinion to get an artificial result that favors one group over another. It's worse than the friggin' US Congress rewriting the IRS tax code.

[TMcGee86]

OU wouldn't play for the BCS title under that scenario, either so why aren't you calling the BCS unfair? Because you're inconsistent.

And in a playoff, there could be a scenario where some at-large teams could be selected which means in a playoff OU, in the above scenario, would have a hell of a lot more chance of playing for the title than they would under the BCS.

Next convoluted argument from the BCS supporters, please.

wow, you kinda jumped the gun on that one doncha think?

Might want to read up on my 5 gajillion word post on my playoff solution.


I hate the BCS. There is nothing inconsistent in my stance.

[SleestakSooner]

While these two(?) sentences barely make sense, I think I see what you're getting at. Seriously, though, you can bitch some more if it will make you feel better, but 5 pages of replies says that you are dead wrong that the subject is not worthy of discussion...again.



I went to OU for a total of 7 years and have met just as many bad fans as good, so excuse me for not buying into your holier-than-thou, "fellow fans" bullsh*t. If you are going to come into my thread and act like a retard, I'm going to treat you like one no matter what your school affiliation.

So you have spent over a third of your life attending classes at OU and did not learn much. My bull**** is holier-than-Texas same as thou. If you are going to come onto our boards and spout your know-it-all crap be prepared to deal. Calling people stupid and retarded will get you far in life I am sure.:rolleyes:

I am sorry, I should have "come into your thread" and bowed to your almighty intellect. You sure you're not a UT troll? You sure read like one.

I question your fandom!

[lithium]

No tweeks would save BCS. It is stupid when team ranked number 1 in nation is the underdog to team ranked number 9. There must be a playoff system one day because this BcS can't go on forever.

[SoonerBBall]

And OU would have gone to a 8 team or 16 team plyoff without all of the howling, gnashing of teeth and outrage that took place when we made the title game in 03.

If anything, a team that doesn't win it's conference going to the national title game is a huge weakness of the BCS. Last year we got awfully close to allowing tOSU and Michigan to have a rematch to determine what would have been a fraudulent national champion. In a playoff, that would never happen. A team that lost in their CCG title game would have to reprove their worthiness on the field to earn their place in the title game.

Proving it on the field is bullsh*t, though. That is basically saying that if OU went undefeated, then lost in the CCG to a 4 loss NU team they would be less worthy to play in the NCG then if they lost 1 game to that same NU team a week before, but went on to beat their opponent in the CCG. Same team, same record, but when they lost matters. Sounds like the same problem you have with the BCS.


And BTW, I noticed your solution is to tweak the current BCS system. Geebus, that system has already been tweaked more than a hooker's nipples on a date with a company of airborne infantry.

And every time it's tweaked it actually sucks more.....just like said hooker.

And why is that? Because individuals with agendas use their subjective opinion to get an artificial result that favors one group over another. It's worse than the friggin' US Congress rewriting the IRS tax code.

I never said the changes they've made have all been good. Go back and look. Several of the changes they've made have taken out rules that I am suggesting they add back in and I really disagree with the ridiculous, reactionary reasons they were taken out in the first place.

Also, you are living in a dream world if you think a playoff system would be implemented without any of those "individuals with agendas" getting their hands into it. Hell, there is no reason to think that the playoff system they would come up with is any less ridiculous then the BCS is right now.

[TopDawg]

No tweeks would save BCS. It is stupid when team ranked number 1 in nation is the underdog to team ranked number 9.

That has more to do with betting trends than with who "Vegas" thinks will win.

[SoonerBBall]

So you have spent over a third of your life attending classes at OU and did not learn much. My bull**** is holier-than-Texas same as thou. If you are going to come onto our boards and spout your know-it-all crap be prepared to deal. Calling people stupid and retarded will get you far in life I am sure.:rolleyes:

I am sorry, I should have "come into your thread" and bowed to your almighty intellect. You sure you're not a UT troll? You sure read like one.

I question your fandom!

Well, seeing as I've been posting on this board for 9 years, I'm not sure what you mean by "coming to our boards". And I don't care what college football team you root for, if you are an idiot I'm going to call you out for it. I know plenty of Texas fans that are better fans and people than many of the OU fans I've known, but if you are blind enough to think that OU fans are super kewl!!1! and can do no wrong, then I don't know if there is anything that can help you.

Also, you can question my fandom all I want. I don't owe any jackass on a messageboard a damn thing, up to and including proving how much I love the school that I spent a quarter of my life at.

So here is the deal, stop trolling the thread for imagined insults at you and your "sooner bretheren" and actually contribute something worthwhile to the topic at hand. OK?

[Collier11]

This has been a pretty good conversation thus far, so if you dont want it to be stopped and locked, then you guys need to quit going after each other and agree to disagree.

[LittleWingSooner]

High school football has a playoff, college football at every level except Div 1A has a playoff so why does div 1a not have a playoff?

[SoonerBBall]

High school football has a playoff, college football at every level except Div 1A has a playoff so why does div 1a not have a playoff?

Because it hasn't been proven as the best way to determine a champion?

Actually, it has more to do with the fact that, historically, college football has not had a playoff. Now with all the money that comes in due to the bowl games, there isn't enough incentive for the people making the money to change it. I still don't think playoffs are the best or most fair way to determine a champion, though.

[LittleWingSooner]

It is in every other sport except maybe boxing. That's a thriving sport.

[SoonerBBall]

It is in every other sport except maybe boxing. That's a thriving sport.

Care to back that up in a meaningful way?

P.S. Please don't be a baby. Sign your long-winded negs. TIA.

[Stoop Dawg]

Because it hasn't been proven as the best way to determine a champion?

To you, maybe. There is really no question in my mind.

[LittleWingSooner]

Care to back that up in a meaningful way?

P.S. Please don't be a baby. Sign your long-winded negs. TIA.

Okay what other sport doesn't really have a playoff and is thriving as a sport?

Boxing is weaker than ever now.

[IronSooner]

Because it hasn't been proven as the best way to determine a champion?

Actually, it has more to do with the fact that, historically, college football has not had a playoff. Now with all the money that comes in due to the bowl games, there isn't enough incentive for the people making the money to change it. I still don't think playoffs are the best or most fair way to determine a champion, though.

That's the gist of it, yes.

What really gets me is when TV analysts say stupid things like "it makes it more exciting for the fans", or "it's too much fun to have debates like this." BS. Homecoming is for the fans. Games are for the players. Voting on who the best team is is ludicrous.

My HS team had a crack at the state title like a whole bunch of others. We lost in the first round to the eventual champion. They were better, they won. I hated it, but they earned it. What I loved best about that system was, there was no griping at the end of it. You had a chance to prove your mettle, and if someone came along who played better, that was the end of you. That's how it should be. Let the players decide, not the computers, not a bunch of overpaid talking heads. If you're a fan who doesn't like it, go watch golf.

[SoonerBBall]

That's the gist of it, yes.

What really gets me is when TV analysts say stupid things like "it makes it more exciting for the fans", or "it's too much fun to have debates like this." BS. Homecoming is for the fans. Games are for the players. Voting on who the best team is is ludicrous.

My HS team had a crack at the state title like a whole bunch of others. We lost in the first round to the eventual champion. They were better, they won. I hated it, but they earned it. What I loved best about that system was, there was no griping at the end of it. You had a chance to prove your mettle, and if someone came along who played better, that was the end of you. That's how it should be. Let the players decide, not the computers, not a bunch of overpaid talking heads. If you're a fan who doesn't like it, go watch golf.

Spiderpig makes an interesting point. I wonder what the OU players would rather have (because it seems to boil down to) a regular season road that they know they have to get through and a one game shot at the NC or a playoff road who they don't quite know who they'll play, but their fate is determined week by week to an eventual NC game.

[SoonerKnight]

By the way, I have my own playoff idea. It would involve the following matchups:

Hawaii versus Kansas.
Ohio St. versus USC.
Missouri versus LSU.
Georgia versus West Virginia

Any problems with that playoff idea? (Me thinks you will find one.)



Your forgetting OU!!!!!

[Leroy Lizard]

Give us an 8-team playoff system and we not only add a couple of meaningful games to the December football downtime (and who can argue against more foolsball?)

I can. They're called FINAL EXAMS. These are university teams, remember?

[bluedogok]

I don't get into these discussions much because it is the same as bashing your head into a wall, nothing is going to change until the majority of college presidents (most of whom could care less about football) decide to make the change. They aren't going to do that for the reasons that I listed a few pages ago.

The same discussion happens with 65 in basketball, it will happen the same way whether the are 4, 8 or 16 teams since there are too many schools in too many scattered conferences to have it sort itself out on its own like the NFL. Only a concept as previously listed where teams are broken into an NFL style conference/divisions would make it viable or limiting the number of teams in Division I to a manageable number, 119 is not manageable.....but we know that will never happen as it would require the presidents to give up power to the NCAA...and do we really want the NCAA having THAT much control over everything? I know I will watch either way, playoffs or bowls, I watch sports, to me a bowl game between East Popcorn State and Mid-South-West [insert state name here] is better than 90% of the crap on TV, it's better than basketball since officiating is so heavy handed and uneven it takes the joy out of watching the game.

Both systems have inherent flaws, neither are perfect solutions, for the most part I could I could less which system in in effect since my opinion has no bearing on what system will be in place, I just like football....Play on.

[bluedogok]

I can. They're called FINAL EXAMS. These are university teams, remember?
Out of all the athletes that I knew, football players always missed less class than other sports. Most of the 'minor" sports lose much more than the "major" sports.

Football players lose less class time due to their sport than basketball or baseball players do. Most only have games on Saturday and the bulk of the "bowl/playoff" season occurs during winter break.

Basketball plays two games a week from November to middle March, upwards of around 40 games. Then you have a conference tournament away somewhere that eats up most of a week. If you go to the NCAA or NIT tournament you have more weeks like that as well finishing up in early April. Pretty much all during school time as many schools do not play many games during winter break. Baseball loses even more because of the number of games and their playoffs starts around the time of spring finals.

[Collier11]

I can. They're called FINAL EXAMS. These are university teams, remember?


So division 1AA, D2, D3 football, college basketball, college baseball, etc. can all somehow find a way to make it work mysteriously but big time college football cant? Really? Is that all you have, that is pretty weak! finals take one week, dead week can be another week. They do it during midterms? We still have teams waiting 5-6 weeks to play their bowl games so why cant they use up some of that time when only two weeks is required for finals?

[Stoop Dawg]

I wonder what the OU players would rather have

Do you wonder what Hawaii players would rather have? Or Boise St? Why or why not?

[Stoop Dawg]

I can. They're called FINAL EXAMS. These are university teams, remember?

If you've missed class all semester, then being around for the FINAL EXAM isn't going to help that much. They're probably going to fail it anyway.




What? They practice and play games all semester and still go to class and take tests? I call BS.

[LittleWingSooner]

Basketball and baseball miss more class periods than football players ever think about missing. Football players play during the weekend when classes aren't going on. They rarely have week games if they do they are at night 99% of the time when classes aren't going on the road so the only time they miss classes are travel days on a Friday, sometimes.

Also a playoff takes 3 or 4 weeks. School will be over at OU within the next 2 weeks and they are out a full month. I'm sure you can look up the exact dates but I know XMas break is a full month. That's plenty of time for a playoff. And the games are during the weekend. There's no reason to miss any class periods in a playoff.

It's a lot better than a playoff in basketball which has a few games on Thursday and Friday in the middle of a semester. How does everyone pass classes in basketball? They should all be failing as much class as they miss. In basketball they play some road games in midweek so they miss classes on those days. They play a few games so early that they have to miss some home games that day. They also play some NCAA Tournament games in the middle of the week. They miss more class period than football players ever dream of missing.

[SoonerBBall]

Do you wonder what Hawaii players would rather have? Or Boise St? Why or why not?

No, I don't.

Boise St. sent arguably the best team it has ever fielded against quite possibly the worst OU team to win conference championship and was lucky to get out with a win. In fact, it took them completing 5 (6?) trick plays flawlessly to do so. The media may act like that Boise St. team was a giant killer, but most of us know better.

It is up to the AD at Hawaii and Boise St. to create a schedule that can get them the games they need to be taken seriously. Even then, though, how can you accurately gauge how good the team is? Kansas plays in the Big XII but managed to dodge OU and TX in the regular season and played a powderpuff OOC. When they finally played a team that had players on both side of the ball, they got curbstomped for 3 and a half quarters.

Once again, though, you are dreaming if you think that a playoff would change the perception of the mid-majors. At best one a year would make it into an 8 (or even 16) team playoff and would most likely be the longest shot in the field. It is like the 16 seeds in the NCAA basketball tournament. Every once in a while they may give a big dog a scare, but they aren't going to win.

[Stoop Dawg]

Boise St. sent arguably the best team it has ever fielded against quite possibly the worst OU team to win conference championship and was lucky to get out with a win. In fact, it took them completing 5 (6?) trick plays flawlessly to do so. The media may act like that Boise St. team was a giant killer, but most of us know better.

If Boise St is an inferior program, and everyone knows it, why do we play in the same division? Shouldn't there be a different division for teams that are not allowed on the same field with us?


It is up to the AD at Hawaii and Boise St. to create a schedule that can get them the games they need to be taken seriously.

So they are welcome to join the Big 12 if they want? Or they should leave their conference and be an independent, then schedule big names every year? I fail to see how those "options" are preferrable to a playoff. It would be much easier to implement a playoff than to tell the mid-majors to "schedule tougher opponents".


Even then, though, how can you accurately gauge how good the team is?

One way is to let them play each other. As you said, KU can't win the Big 12 without playing at least one good team (in the CCG). Unfortunately, the mid-majors don't get that chance.


Once again, though, you are dreaming if you think that a playoff would change the perception of the mid-majors. At best one a year would make it into an 8 (or even 16) team playoff and would most likely be the longest shot in the field. It is like the 16 seeds in the NCAA basketball tournament. Every once in a while they may give a big dog a scare, but they aren't going to win.

It's not about winning, it's about being given the opportunity to win.

One of the problems with the BCS is that if you're not in one of the 6 BCS conferences (and your name isn't "Notre Dame") then you get no shot at the NC game. And you can't just join one of the 6 BCS conferences any time you want. So it's pretty much an exclusive club. I don't know about you, but I don't feel all that great about winning when the system is set up for you to win. I'm not all that keen on being the "National Champion" when there are other undefeated teams in the same division that I never had to play.

I guess if they forced all non-BCS conference teams down to Div 2 and didn't allow Div 1 teams to play Div 2 teams, then I might be a little more on board with the current system. Maybe.

[Collier11]

It's not about winning, it's about being given the opportunity to win.

One of the problems with the BCS is that if you're not in one of the 6 BCS conferences (and your name isn't "Notre Dame") then you get no shot at the NC game.


EXACTLY! SPEK!

[SoonerBBall]

If Boise St is an inferior program, and everyone knows it, why do we play in the same division? Shouldn't there be a different division for teams that are not allowed on the same field with us?

Earlier in this thread I stated that I think Div 1 contains far too many teams, and yes, I think that no Div 1 team should be allowed to play teams from other divisions.

Aside from that point, though, I don't view Boise St. any differently then I view a team like Okie St. I don't think that Boise St. shouldn't be in Div 1, but rather that just because you eat up a schedule of cupcakes doesn't make you automatically eligible for NC consideration. Okie St. would have a pretty damn good chance of going undefeated if they didn't have to play teams like A&M, Texas, OU, and Texas Tech every season. Do you think Boise St. or Hawaii would be anywhere near undefeated if they had to play those 4 teams every year?



So they are welcome to join the Big 12 if they want? Or they should leave their conference and be an independent, then schedule big names every year? I fail to see how those "options" are preferrable to a playoff. It would be much easier to implement a playoff than to tell the mid-majors to "schedule tougher opponents".

I wish we had 8 conferences all with 12 members based on regions, and that all other schools were in a lower division. That is a pipe dream, though.

As far as those "options", lets take a look at Hawaii's schedule next year:

Hawaii 2008 Non-Conference Schedule:
Aug. 30 at Florida
Sept. 6 Weber State
Sept. 13 at Oregon State
Nov. 29 Washington State
Dec. 6 Cincinnati

So it looks like it is absolutely possible for a mid-major to schedule in such a way as to leave far less doubt about how good they are. If Hawaii goes undefeated next year, I guarantee everyone will sit up and take notice.


One way is to let them play each other. As you said, KU can't win the Big 12 without playing at least one good team (in the CCG). Unfortunately, the mid-majors don't get that chance.

Again, I wish we had 8 conferences with 12 teams. That is plenty of teams in Div 1. Until that happens, though, I can't see mid-majors ever being a part of any serious NC discussion without herculean efforts.


It's not about winning, it's about being given the opportunity to win.

One of the problems with the BCS is that if you're not in one of the 6 BCS conferences (and your name isn't "Notre Dame") then you get no shot at the NC game. And you can't just join one of the 6 BCS conferences any time you want. So it's pretty much an exclusive club. I don't know about you, but I don't feel all that great about winning when the system is set up for you to win. I'm not all that keen on being the "National Champion" when there are other undefeated teams in the same division that I never had to play.

While I disagree with the 6 BCS conferences and the automatic berth system, are you really saying that you think the mid majors are of a calibur to play in the NC game? I said before and I'll say it again. If you bag on a Big-10 or Big-12 team for playing a weak *** schedule, then you certianly have to do the same to a mid-major playing a comparatively weak *** schedule.

Also, since when is it someone's job to give you the opportunity to win? It is up to your school to put you in a position to win. Were you crying for Auburn in 2003 when they played a weak OOC schedule and got left out of the NC game? I wasn't. Their AD shouldn't have put The Citadel on their schedule if they wanted to be taken seriously. Everyone acts like the BCS is a mystery, but it isn't. You can schedule weak and take the risk of losing one game and getting knocked out, or you can schedule strong and risk more losses but have the strength of schedule and human perception to keep you ranked high.


I guess if they forced all non-BCS conference teams down to Div 2 and didn't allow Div 1 teams to play Div 2 teams, then I might be a little more on board with the current system. Maybe.

I'd settle for less Div 1 teams organized in a better way. Also, I will continue to agree that the current BCS system needs to be intelligently changed.

[SoonerBBall]

EXACTLY! SPEK!

I don't get this attitude.

It isn't like mid-majors have EVER had a fair shot at winning a NC, so why is there a sudden outcry for them to get a shot? In fact, it seems that moreso now then ever the mid-majors are being given respect that they might or might not have earned.

Are you really saying that a team like Hawaii or Boise St. who plays virtually nobody all season should have a NC shot?

[Collier11]

I don't get this attitude.

It isn't like mid-majors have EVER had a fair shot at winning a NC, so why is there a sudden outcry for them to get a shot? In fact, it seems that moreso now then ever the mid-majors are being given respect that they might or might not have earned.

Are you really saying that a team like Hawaii or Boise St. who plays virtually nobody all season should have a NC shot?


If 119 teams are in D1, then 119 teams should have a shot at the title. Common sense tells you that most of those will never sniff a playoff, but atleast they would have that dream which they dont have now. If they are never going to have a chance, then only have the 6 bcs conferences be D1, have the other 5 be d1A. It makes no sense at all!

[SoonerBBall]

If 119 teams are in D1, then 119 teams should have a shot at the title. Common sense tells you that most of those will never sniff a playoff, but atleast they would have that dream which they dont have now. If they are never going to have a chance, then only have the 6 bcs conferences be D1, have the other 5 be d1A. It makes no sense at all!

They do have a shot at the title, though, and a hell of a lot better shot then they had before the BCS. If a mid-major scheduled strong and remained undefeated, they could be at the top of the BCS. We haven't seen it happen yet because no mid-major has ever done those things. We've seen several undefeated mid-majors with weak schedules make it into the top 15 in the BCS already, so why is it inconceivable that they couldn't make the top 2?

[Collier11]

They do have a shot at the title, though, and a hell of a lot better shot then they had before the BCS. If a mid-major scheduled strong and remained undefeated, they could be at the top of the BCS. We haven't seen it happen yet because no mid-major has ever done those things. We've seen several undefeated mid-majors with weak schedules make it into the top 15 in the BCS already, so why is it inconceivable that they couldn't make the top 2?


boise st went undefeated and beat our beloved and mighty sooners, that didnt get them a shot at the title now did it?

[Stoop Dawg]

They do have a shot at the title, though, and a hell of a lot better shot then they had before the BCS. If a mid-major scheduled strong and remained undefeated, they could be at the top of the BCS. We haven't seen it happen yet because no mid-major has ever done those things. We've seen several undefeated mid-majors with weak schedules make it into the top 15 in the BCS already, so why is it inconceivable that they couldn't make the top 2?

Because no one will ever conceed that a mid-major could have "scheduled strong" and still won all of their games. The fact that a team gets beat by a mid-major automatically makes that team weak, so the mid-major's schedule is considered "soft".

Why do you think that last year's OU team was "the worst OU team to win a Big 12 championship"? We had possibly the best running back ever to play at OU on our team. The reason you think they weren't so great is precisely because they lost to Boise St.

This year's team is a lot weaker than last year's team. Let's just hope we don't win the Big 12 and get to play Hawaii in the Fiesta. I'd hate to see yet another weak Big 12 champion get pwned by a mid-major. Especially when that weak Big 12 champion is my alma mater.

[SoonerBBall]

boise st went undefeated and beat our beloved and mighty sooners, that didnt get them a shot at the title now did it?

Beloved? Certainly. Mighty? Not a chance. As I said in my post before, Boise St. sent the best team they have ever fielded against our worst team to ever win a CCG. In fact, we had to back door our way into that CCG. But sticking with my theme of "go undeafeated with a decent schedule and you'll play for an NC", lets look at Boise St.'s 2006 schedule.

8/31 Sacramento St W 45-0
9/7 Oregon State W 42-14
9/16 at Wyoming W 17-10
9/23 Hawaii W 41-34
9/30 at Utah W 36-3
10/7 Louisiana Tech W 55-14
10/15 at NMSU W 40-24
10/21 at Idaho W 42-26
11/1 Fresno State W 45-21
11/11 at San Jose St W 23-20
11/18 Utah State W 49-10
11/25 at Nevada W 35-7

Quick, name two starters from any one team on that list not named Hawaii. Okay, too tough. Even easier, name any two startes from all the teams on that list not named Hawaii. That schedule is as cupcake as it gets. Hawaii, Oregon State, and Fresno State are about the only teams on that list that are even worth mentioning. That is not a NC schedule. That is barely a BCS worthy schedule, but we want to through the mid-majors a bone. There were a whole lot of teams that would have been undefeated with that schedule last year, and Boise St.'s reward for doing it successfully was a BCS berth. They were absolutely not worthy of a NC shot and rightfully didn't get one.

Incidentally, they got a good draw and ended up with Oklahoma who was in the bottom 3 of teams selected for the BCS that year and it took everything in their power and a lot of luck along with it to beat us by 1 point in overtime. I don't know if that proves anything, but I know we weren't anywhere close to being in the NC, so if we were evenly matched that day, why should Boise St have gotten a shot?

[SleestakSooner]

Since your agenda on preserving the BCS is so apparent I have to ask... are you somehow related to any of the following people?

Roy Kramer, former Commissioner of the Southeastern Conference, served as the Coordinator of the BCS for its first two years. John Swofford, Commissioner of the Atlantic Coast Conference, served the following two years, and was succeeded by Michael Tranghese, Commissioner of the Big East Conference, whose term concluded in 2003. Kevin Weiberg, Commissioner of the Big 12 Conference, finished his term as BCS Commissioner at the conclusion of the 2005 regular season. Mike Slive, commissioner of the Southeastern Conference is beginning his two-year term this season.

[SoonerBBall]

Since your agenda on preserving the BCS is so apparent I have to ask... are you somehow related to any of the following people?

Roy Kramer, former Commissioner of the Southeastern Conference, served as the Coordinator of the BCS for its first two years. John Swofford, Commissioner of the Atlantic Coast Conference, served the following two years, and was succeeded by Michael Tranghese, Commissioner of the Big East Conference, whose term concluded in 2003. Kevin Weiberg, Commissioner of the Big 12 Conference, finished his term as BCS Commissioner at the conclusion of the 2005 regular season. Mike Slive, commissioner of the Southeastern Conference is beginning his two-year term this season.

Is there a reason you insist on trolling this thread instead of actually contributing? Are you still butt hurt over you earlier failed attempt at derailing the thread?

[The Maestro]

I haven't read through all of this, but I bet Jay Bilas would be hella-impressed that his name is in a thread with five pages on soonerfans.com.

[SoonerBBall]

I haven't read through all of this, but I bet Jay Bilas would be hella-impressed that his name is in a thread with five pages on soonerfans.com.

7 pages!

Going on 8, even!

[TopDawg]

Are you really saying that a team like Hawaii or Boise St. who plays virtually nobody all season should have a NC shot?

Are you saying that a team like Hawaii or Boise State who wins their conference and then makes it to the finals of an 8 or 16 team playoff doesn't deserve a shot at the national title?

[TopDawg]

lets look at Boise St.'s 2006 schedule.

8/31 Sacramento St W 45-0
9/7 Oregon State W 42-14
9/16 at Wyoming W 17-10
9/23 Hawaii W 41-34
9/30 at Utah W 36-3
10/7 Louisiana Tech W 55-14
10/15 at NMSU W 40-24
10/21 at Idaho W 42-26
11/1 Fresno State W 45-21
11/11 at San Jose St W 23-20
11/18 Utah State W 49-10
11/25 at Nevada W 35-7


Make it a 13-game schedule by adding Oklahoma. That gives them non-conference games against Oregon State, Utah and Oklahoma.

Oklahoma and Utah finished #3 and #4, respectively, in 2004...perhaps around the time Boise State scheduled them. Yet, still, after Boise State won all 13 of those games, they were ranked behind 2-loss LSU and 2-loss USC.

Speaking of Utah, in 2004, they also went undefeated and beat non-conference foes Texas A&M, Arizona, North Carolina and Pittsburgh (in their bowl game) and still only finished 4th.

Making it into the Top 2 by scheduling tough teams is not as easy as you make it out to be.

[SoonerBBall]

Are you saying that a team like Hawaii or Boise State who wins their conference and then makes it to the finals of an 8 or 16 team playoff doesn't deserve a shot at the national title?

No, they obviously should if a playoff is ever implemented. But that isn't really analogous to what I said above.

However, you made me think of a good point about a playoff system. Do you realize how boring the regular season OOC games would be in a playoff system? There is absolutely no reason to schedule any team that would provide any kind of challenge if you are just trying to be undefeated and make it to the playoffs. Everyone would play the most powderpuff schedule possible and be fighting each other to get the bottom feeders on their schedules.

[Collier11]

No, they obviously should if a playoff is ever implemented. But that isn't really analogous to what I said above.

However, you made me think of a good point about a playoff system. Do you realize how boring the regular season OOC games would be in a playoff system? There is absolutely no reason to schedule any team that would provide any kind of challenge if you are just trying to be undefeated and make it to the playoffs. Everyone would play the most powderpuff schedule possible and be fighting each other to get the bottom feeders on their schedules.


I would think the opposite, you play better teams cus there isnt as big of a risk of being left out ala BCS! A pre conference loss by 7 pts to lets say, florida in week 2 would probably look better than a 40pt win over utah st

[SoonerBBall]

Make it a 13-game schedule by adding Oklahoma. That gives them non-conference games against Oregon State, Utah and Oklahoma.

Oklahoma and Utah finished #3 and #4, respectively, in 2004...perhaps around the time Boise State scheduled them. Yet, still, after Boise State won all 13 of those games, they were ranked behind 2-loss LSU and 2-loss USC.

Boise St. didn't schedule the Oklahoma game, and Utah is a conference opponent, so they didn't get a choice whether they played Utah or not. They finished behind 2 loss teams because even after they beat a slightly above average OU team, those two teams were still considered better. If they would have beat OU convincingly or if OU was considered a better team by the human or computer polls, they would have been ranked higher. Incidentally, this just makes it more obvious that the humans need to have less say in the BCS. Their votes counted for a large part of Boise St's final ranking, both in how high they rated Boise St. for winning and how low they rated OU after the loss, so you'd have to take it up with them.


Speaking of Utah, in 2004, they also went undefeated and beat non-conference foes Texas A&M, Arizona, North Carolina and Pittsburgh (in their bowl game) and still only finished 4th.

North Carolina was 6-6, Texas A&M was 7-5, Arizona was 3-8 and that Pitt team was 8-4 (in the crappy Big East) and widely considered the worst team to ever make it into a BCS game. I don't see how beating those teams would make Utah so great. I'm actually a little suprised they were ranked that high at the end of the season.


Making it into the Top 2 by scheduling tough teams is not as easy as you make it out to be.

I never made it out to be easy. I just said that you have to try if you want to be considered for a NC.

[SoonerBBall]

I would think the opposite, you play better teams cus there isnt as big of a risk of being left out ala BCS! A pre conference loss by 7 pts to lets say, florida in week 2 would probably look better than a 40pt win over utah st

I guess it would depend who is picking the 8 (16) teams, the BCS or a group of human voters.

Actually, no, I don't even think that would matter. With that many slots up for grabs, being undefeated would matter the most because of the psychological impact it would have. People irrationally love undefeated teams regardless of how unimpressive their accomplishments are.

[TopDawg]

Boise St. didn't schedule the Oklahoma game, and Utah is a conference opponent, so they didn't get a choice whether they played Utah or not. They finished behind 2 loss teams because even after they beat a slightly above average OU team, those two teams were still considered better.

Boise State is WAC. Utah is Mountain West.

The point isn't whether or not they had a choice in their schedule, the point is that even after undefeated Boise knocked off the Big XII champions, they still weren't "good enough" to make it to a title game. You're trying to make it sound like it's reasonable for these mid-majors to schedule teams that will be impressive enough to get them into the Top 2. But Boise was still #5 behind two 2-loss teams last year after going undefeated and beating the Big XII champs.


I never made it out to be easy. I just said that you have to try if you want to be considered for a NC.

So how are they supposed to try? You can't know years ahead of time who is going to be good enough to get you into the Top 2. In 2003, it would appear that any team who went undefeated with a win over Oklahoma would be deserving of a #2 ranking. But, apparently, that wasn't the case in 2006.

[Collier11]

I guess it would depend who is picking the 8 (16) teams, the BCS or a group of human voters.

Actually, no, I don't even think that would matter. With that many slots up for grabs, being undefeated would matter the most because of the psychological impact it would have. People irrationally love undefeated teams regardless of how unimpressive their accomplishments are.


there are hardly ever going to be more than 1-3 undefeated teams per season. If Ou was hypothetically 10-2, a preconf close loss to a ranked florida team and one big 12 loss but finished 1st or second in the conf, they would have a much better shot at a playoff invite than a bcs championship invite

[TopDawg]

No, they obviously should if a playoff is ever implemented. But that isn't really analogous to what I said above.

However, you made me think of a good point about a playoff system. Do you realize how boring the regular season OOC games would be in a playoff system? There is absolutely no reason to schedule any team that would provide any kind of challenge if you are just trying to be undefeated and make it to the playoffs.

Not true. With automatic berths to the conference champions, there could be a big advantage to playing a good OOC foe to help prepare you for some tough conference games.

Besides...even if what you say is true...how is it much different than what we have now? Ohio State and KU played two of the weakest OOC schedules and both ended up just a couple of plays away from being in the title game (or still having a shot). It's not like there's a lot of incentive to play a great OOC schedule as it is.

[SoonerBBall]

Boise State is WAC. Utah is Mountain West.

You got me there, I guess I was thinking of a different school.



The point isn't whether or not they had a choice in their schedule, the point is that even after undefeated Boise knocked off the Big XII champions, they still weren't "good enough" to make it to a title game. You're trying to make it sound like it's reasonable for these mid-majors to schedule teams that will be impressive enough to get them into the Top 2. But Boise was still #5 behind two 2-loss teams last year after going undefeated and beating the Big XII champs.

So how are they supposed to try? You can't know years ahead of time who is going to be good enough to get you into the Top 2.

A&M was a good call. They couldn't know A&M would be down. North Carolina and Arizona on the other hand. Those weren't attempts at scheduling good opponents.

Look at Hawaii 2008. Florida is on that schedule. If you schedule a perennial power like that, even if it is just a name (see us with Miami this year) you are going to get some votes.

Still, though, I wish we could change the BCS as I have mentioned earlier. The computers are usually pretty high on undefeated mid-majors and that would help them a lot.


In 2003, it would appear that any team who went undefeated with a win over Oklahoma would be deserving of a #2 ranking. But, apparently, that wasn't the case in 2006.

Why should it? 2003 Oklahoma and 2006 Oklahoma were vastly different teams, so wins over those teams would count differently, both in voters minds and in the computers.

[TopDawg]

A&M was a good call. They couldn't know A&M would be down. North Carolina and Arizona on the other hand. Those weren't attempts at scheduling good opponents.

It depends largely on when those games where scheduled, but...yeah, Arizona and NC weren't great attempts.


Look at Hawaii 2008. Florida is on that schedule. If you schedule a perennial power like that, even if it is just a name (see us with Miami this year) you are going to get some votes.

Why should it? 2003 Oklahoma and 2006 Oklahoma were vastly different teams, so wins over those teams would count differently, both in voters minds and in the computers.

These two comments go straight to my point. I'm not saying that a victory over 2003 Oklahoma should count the same as a victory over 2006 Oklahoma...but if back in 2003 Boise State would've said "We need to get some powerhouses on our schedule so we can prove to the nation that we are for real" and they scheduled then #4 Utah and #3 Oklahoma for 2006, it still wouldn't have been enough for them to make it into the Top 5.

Boise State didn't schedule perennial power Oklahoma in 2006, but they played and beat them. It still wasn't enough to get them into the Top 2...or even the Top 4. So good job, Hawaii, for scheduling Florida...but good LUCK in getting into the Top 2...even if you're undefeated.

[Collier11]

Why should it? 2003 Oklahoma and 2006 Oklahoma were vastly different teams, so wins over those teams would count differently, both in voters minds and in the computers.


one underachieved and one overachieved, youre right there!!!

[SoonerBBall]

Not true. With automatic berths to the conference champions, there could be a big advantage to playing a good OOC foe to help prepare you for some tough conference games.

Besides...even if what you say is true...how is it much different than what we have now? Ohio State and KU played two of the weakest OOC schedules and both ended up just a couple of plays away from being in the title game (or still having a shot). It's not like there's a lot of incentive to play a great OOC schedule as it is.

Ahh, but remember, I'm wanting to change the BCS from its current state. I want SOS incorporated explicitly or bonuses given for beating ranked teams. I want good OOC games. Also, in any other year, Ohio State would be ranked 8th or below. They have just benefited from all the other teams being just as mediocre.

[Collier11]

Ahh, but remember, I'm wanting to change the BCS from its current state. I want SOS incorporated explicitly or bonuses given for beating ranked teams. I want good OOC games. Also, in any other year, Ohio State would be ranked 8th or below. They have just benefited from all the other teams being just as mediocre.


I agree with incorporating SOS as I have said previously, but you are going to have to put more weight into good road wins and good conf wins because as many have stated, these schedules are done years in advance and you never know when a good team may start to suck, ala Miami!

[TopDawg]

Ahh, but remember, I'm wanting to change the BCS from its current state. I want SOS incorporated explicitly or bonuses given for beating ranked teams. I want good OOC games. Also, in any other year, Ohio State would be ranked 8th or below. They have just benefited from all the other teams being just as mediocre.

That's fine. I'm all for restructuring the BCS. But you said that a playoff would leave us with no reason for scheduling tough OOC games and I offered a reason it would.

[SleestakSooner]

The problem with scheduling strength for schools from non-BCS conferences is that due to the strenth of schedule component in the computer rankings most teams in the major conferences will also try to get stronger opponents on their calendars. This leaves teams from the independents (excluding Notre Dame) and mid-majors to piece together a normally weak schedule each and every year.

Even if a team was lucky enough to have the schedule strength adequate to garner attention, most voters (the human component) would say, as you seem to be here, that a mid-major team still doesn't deserve a chance to play for it all.

If they want to declare a true championship they will need some way to eliminate these factors and afford ALL teams in the division an opportunity to win. Until then it is and will remain a Mythical National Championship decided by a biased system set into place by the powers that be.

[TMcGee86]

That's fine. I'm all for restructuring the BCS. But you said that a playoff would leave us with no reason for scheduling tough OOC games and I offered a reason it would.

However, the opposite could occur, the smaller conferences especially would definitely not want to schedule a powerhouse in pre-conf games as all they have to do is win their sorry conf, so why risk injury in the pre-season, instead just destroy some creme puffs, run through your crappy conference and get an auto berth to the playoffs.


One way to combat this would be to only offer auto-bids to the small conferences if they are ranked in the top 25 at the end of the season.

This would prevent teams like Central Michigan from landing a playoff bid despite being 7-5, only becuase they won their conference.

[Scott D]

This talk is funny.

Look playoff proponents. There are 3 groups of people you have to convince, and it's highly unlikely that you'll ever convince them.

1. James E. Delany - Big 10 Commissioner (unfortunately most powerful entity in College Football)
2. Rose Bowl Committee
3. Thomas C. Hansen - Pac 10 Commissioner

[PLaw]

If we used my playoff sytem,we would be playing Missou for the Big 12 playoff berth.

Bingo!

We are so darn close to a playoff that it is painful and unfair at the same time. Three BCS conferences have championship games.

If the Pac-10 added two teams (Boise St / Hawaii???), then they could have a CCG. If the Big 11 added a team (ND, Cincy, Pitt??) then could have a CCG. Finally, the Big East would need to add 4 or 5 teams to get to 12. To show we are not limited, get the WAC and C-USA to 12 teams. All of a sudden, there are 96 of the 117 Div 1 teams in the hat.

The 8 conference champs are in the play-off. ND would either join a conference or play the other 20 teams left out in the cold. That way they could crown themselves a MNC and add to their storied lore.

The first three weeks of the season wouldn't be very meaningful, but the same drama would be there for the rest of the season. You have to win your division and then your conference to have a shot at a true National Championship.

Under that scenario, how many more skins do think Switzer would have on the wall??

BOOMER

[MI Sooner]

What always shocks me, is how people fail to realize that THERE'S A PLAYOFF RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (do exclamation points count as an argument?)

Just like basketball. The pollsters and computer rankings take the place of the ADs on the selection committee (who use the RPI).

Now, maybe the playoff should be expanded. I really wish the number of teams could be determined after the regular season and conference championship games (as a side note, the bitching about CCGs really annoys me too. No one complained that NCAA tournament bids are based on conference tournaments, which, until recently, not all conferences had). In 2005, it was obvious that two was the right number of teams (UT and USC). in 2000, why have a playoff at all? We played a difficult schedule and were the only undefeated team. This year, 12 teams may deserve a shot. I used to advocate that six teams get in, because I couldn't envision a scenario in which the number seven team has a legitimate gripe that they're number one. I don't care as much if number two is the team that gets screwed. No matter where you have the cutoff, the first team out will complain.

People need to recognize that:

1) The more teams in the playoff, the more likely that the "best team" (based on their entire body of work) won't win the championship
2) The fewer teams, the more likely that the best team is left out
3) A playoff reduces the importance of games like MU/KU (both teams would be in), but increases the importance of games like USC/UCLA (USC would be playing for a playoff berth (or is it birth?))
4) The number of teams in the playoff needs to be determined before the season starts
5) Teams from crappy conferences complicate matters. How do you know how good Hawaii is this year? Did they try to schedule tough non-conference games? How many teams need to be in a playoff for Hawaii to deserve a spot?
6) Determining the champion "on-the-field" will always help confer an air of legitimacy on the champion.
7) All the arguments about missing class, or fans not being able to make travel plans, are BULL****, and anyone advancing these arguments has an agenda they're pushing, so beware.
8) Advocates of a sixteen team playoff had better be ready to accept a three-loss Missouri team, whom we beat twice, being crowned the national champion over a previously undefeated OU team*

*Imagine we didn't lose to CU or TTU, and Missouri lost to Texas (I know they didn't play) but beat Kansas. They might get in as the 15 seed and, and OU might get upset, and MU might get hot, and I might be extremely ****ed at the stupid ****ing playoff system that allowed the best team EVAR to finish number ****ing two (are you FUKCING KIDDING ME???) behind a ****ing three loss team they beat, not once, but FUUCCKKINNG TWICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[TopDawg]

This talk is funny.

Look playoff proponents. There are 3 groups of people you have to convince, and it's highly unlikely that you'll ever convince them.

1. James E. Delany - Big 10 Commissioner (unfortunately most powerful entity in College Football)
2. Rose Bowl Committee
3. Thomas C. Hansen - Pac 10 Commissioner

Is it any less fruitful than your attempts to convince us to stop talking about it?

[TopDawg]

However, the opposite could occur, the smaller conferences especially would definitely not want to schedule a powerhouse in pre-conf games as all they have to do is win their sorry conf, so why risk injury in the pre-season, instead just destroy some creme puffs, run through your crappy conference and get an auto berth to the playoffs.

I'm not saying it wouldn't occur...I'm just offering up another point of view. It's not a forgone conclusion that a playoff would put an end to good OOC games. There are valid reasons it might and valid reasons it might not. But even if it does, it's not going to get much worse than it is right now. Do you think people will look at Kansas and Ohio State's run this year and be encouraged to schedule tough OOC games?

[Stoop Dawg]

This talk is funny.

Look playoff proponents. There are 3 groups of people you have to convince, and it's highly unlikely that you'll ever convince them.

1. James E. Delany - Big 10 Commissioner (unfortunately most powerful entity in College Football)
2. Rose Bowl Committee
3. Thomas C. Hansen - Pac 10 Commissioner

Yeah, and the Rose Bowl will never agree to any system that doesn't involve the Big 10 & PAC 10 champions playing there every year. :rolleyes:

Here's one certain way to NOT get what you want: Don't ask for it.

[Collier11]

Yeah, and the Rose Bowl will never agree to any system that doesn't involve the Big 10 & PAC 10 champions playing there every year. :rolleyes:

Here's one certain way to NOT get what you want: Don't ask for it.


Now why would you want to go and ruffle any feathers and ask people to step out of 1920 and into the new age??? :eek: :D

[Scott D]

Yeah, and the Rose Bowl will never agree to any system that doesn't involve the Big 10 & PAC 10 champions playing there every year. :rolleyes:

Here's one certain way to NOT get what you want: Don't ask for it.

Well the problem is that pretty much those 3 sets of people are holding all of the "pro-playoff" crowd hostage. They throw things out there like "Grandaddy of them all" "Prestige of the Rose Bowl" "The History of Greatness that is the 'standard' Rose Bowl". And people go "oooh, and ahhh" while the Pac-10/Big-10 crowd get an overinflated sense of self worth and how their conferences are more important than everyone else.

The Rose Bowl committee is pretty desperate to hold onto their "traditional" matchup (despite the fact that said 'tradition' is about 50 years in existence). They (the Rose Bowl) threatened to pull out of the BCS if they didn't get USC/Michigan last year. Hell, they pulled a Notre Dame and negotiated their own TV deal with ABC to separate themselves to a degree from the rest of the BCS Bowls when the winds were blowing toward Fox getting the contract.

[Stoop Dawg]

I don't honestly know who is holding who hostage and what ransom those people might want. And I don't really care, to be honest. I'm not actually lobbying the Rose Bowl committee, the SEC, the Big 10, the US Congress, or anyone else for a playoff system. I'm not getting a petition together or hiring lawyers. I'm just posting my opinions on an internet message board.

It's entirely possible that my posts are completely useless, but if that's the case, then they are right at home around here. ;)