BCS Replaced with Playoff is a Good Move

[OU_Sooners75]

OK, how do we "know" Bama didn't have an off night when they lost their game? What you are saying is if Bama had lost to anyone else that they would have deserved a shot at LSU. Bama and Ok State both lost a game as did Stanford. Shouldn't matter to whom they lost to. Heck some people are even saying take the top 4 teams and throw them in a playoff...but that would have eliminated Oregon who beat Stanford and won their common conference. One main reason Oregon is eliminated from that scenario is because they scheduled LSU in the OOC and Stanford played San Diego State, Duke, and Notre Dame. There's just as many problems with a small playoff, if not more when you double or quadruple the size of the tournament, to deal with the way college football is currently organized.

And as far as "did OU have ESPN on their side in 2008"...the answer is a resounding no. Take off your blinders on this situation and think back to all the ESPN pumping Texas the last few weeks of the season. You're crazy if you don't think they weren't in Texas' corner. I would guess 1 out of 5 (and I think I'm being pretty liberal with that) were on OU's side.

Maybe you should take off your retard cap for a moment and understand there were obviously enough people in the media, and ESPN, that voted OU high enough to be #1 in the final BCS standings.

[rekamrettuB]

Maybe you should take off your retard cap for a moment and understand there were obviously enough people in the media, and ESPN, that voted OU high enough to be #1 in the final BCS standings.

Did you not say this?


That is my biggest problem with the BCS...all you have to do is have ESPN on yourside and as long as you do not lose too many games, you are in the BCS title game!

I just proved that it wasn't the case with Texas 2008. It's not as media driven as you make it out to be. ESPN was all over Texas winning "head to head" and it didn't matter. People have their own opinions when voting.

[MeMyself&Me]

The way I remember it (not going back to look up the details), Texas gained ground on OU in the human polls due to ESPN campaigning. If so, ESPN appeared to influence votes even if the influence wasn't enough in that example. I have a problem with that influence too. I just don't see it as an argument for a tournament.

[OU_Sooners75]

The way I remember it (not going back to look up the details), Texas gained ground on OU in the human polls due to ESPN campaigning. If so, ESPN appeared to influence votes even if the influence wasn't enough in that example. I have a problem with that influence too. I just don't see it as an argument for a tournament.

I guess my bigest argument isn't so much the BCS itself, but that it allows a major human bias to be 2/3 of what determines who gets to play in a national championship game.

IMO, if an organization wants to crown a champion, then do so by merit of play, not by influence of those that have an agenda, or monetary gain, to a champion or game.

The best way to ensure that there is a minimal human influence, outside of actual play of games, is by a playoff or tournament.

We are all okay with it when it comes to NBA, NFL, NHL, NCAA BB (both men and women), College baseball, soccer, wrestling, softball, volleyball, lacrosse, high school football, all other divisions of cfb, drag racing, etc. Yet we are not okay with it in the biggest division in cfb?

Why? Because corruption has had a very deep hand in ensuring the bowl system stays in place.

The broadcasting giants, namely ESPN, has ended up shelling out a ton of money to show college football. And in doing so, they have influenced the champion outcome.

If that is not an acceptable argument for creating a tournament/playoff, then I don't know what is.

If the BCS is actually the best way, then they need to do some major modifying of the system.

Suggestions:

1. Only conference champions can be one of the two (or 4) teams in the championship game (or plus one playoff).
2. No human poll involvement.
3. If human involvement is required to make a ranking, then it is 1/2 of the weight of the formula, not 2/3.
4. If rankings are the determining factors, then a selection committee, not rankings alone, should have the final say. The selcetion committee then must form their decisions on a set of rules, along with an RPI type of system to counter any bias made by a ranking system.

those are just some of my suggestions if the BCS wishes to continue the way it has now since 1998.

[OU_Sooners75]

Did you not say this?



I just proved that it wasn't the case with Texas 2008. It's not as media driven as you make it out to be. ESPN was all over Texas winning "head to head" and it didn't matter. People have their own opinions when voting.

So ESPN didn't influence the voters this past year? They didnt influence the voters in 2007? They didn't influence the voters in 2008? They didn't influence the voters in 2003? They didnt influence the voters in 2004? They didnt influence the voters in 2006?

Gotcha!

[Scott D]

I am pro-playoff....but I can answer this question.

They are scared of change. They think the bowl system adds more to the regular season than a playoff would. They think that a playoff would mean more meaningless games during the regular season (though the teams will still be playing the same conference games as they do now).

Another thing they think is that it is too many games and too much time from school...though during a playoff, school will be on christmas break. And that the kids in high school may have played 15 to 16 games depending if they made a good run into the playoffs.

And finally, no other sport division has a bull crap system of determining a champion like the top division of college football, and they would like it to remain that way.

Has nothing to do with change at all. I don't care if they expand the current playoff system at all. Just as soon as playoff proponents can agree on something (which they'll never do, other than the current playoff needs to be expanded) then I'm willing to listen. Until then, it's pie in the sky especially in regards to further expansion which the money trail has already proven would move faster than they think it would.

Christ, I don't care if they expand the playoff, stay with the same thing now, or go back to pre-bcs methodology. That's where opinions differ, you want specific change, I don't give a crap what the change is as long as it doesn't end up being detrimental.

[rekamrettuB]

So ESPN didn't influence the voters this past year? They didnt influence the voters in 2007? They didn't influence the voters in 2008? They didn't influence the voters in 2003? They didnt influence the voters in 2004? They didnt influence the voters in 2006?

Gotcha!
Did I say that? If so, point it out. What I said was it's not as media driven as you think. If it were then OU wouldn't have played in 2003 or 2008. You already backed off your original statement that "all you have to do is have ESPN on yourside and as long as you do not lose too many games, you are in the BCS title game!" by throwing in voters and other media into your retort. And if you think ESPN has some stroke now to influence the voters then they are probably going to have as much or more influence on who participates in this fantasy tournament everyone has this magic, perfect formula for.

[MeMyself&Me]

I guess my bigest argument isn't so much the BCS itself, but that it allows a major human bias to be 2/3 of what determines who gets to play in a national championship game.

IMO, if an organization wants to crown a champion, then do so by merit of play, not by influence of those that have an agenda, or monetary gain, to a champion or game.

The best way to ensure that there is a minimal human influence, outside of actual play of games, is by a playoff or tournament.

We are all okay with it when it comes to NBA, NFL, NHL, NCAA BB (both men and women), College baseball, soccer, wrestling, softball, volleyball, lacrosse, high school football, all other divisions of cfb, drag racing, etc. Yet we are not okay with it in the biggest division in cfb?

Why? Because corruption has had a very deep hand in ensuring the bowl system stays in place.

The broadcasting giants, namely ESPN, has ended up shelling out a ton of money to show college football. And in doing so, they have influenced the champion outcome.

If that is not an acceptable argument for creating a tournament/playoff, then I don't know what is.

If the BCS is actually the best way, then they need to do some major modifying of the system.

Suggestions:

1. Only conference champions can be one of the two (or 4) teams in the championship game (or plus one playoff).
2. No human poll involvement.
3. If human involvement is required to make a ranking, then it is 1/2 of the weight of the formula, not 2/3.
4. If rankings are the determining factors, then a selection committee, not rankings alone, should have the final say. The selcetion committee then must form their decisions on a set of rules, along with an RPI type of system to counter any bias made by a ranking system.

those are just some of my suggestions if the BCS wishes to continue the way it has now since 1998.

First two paragraphs, we're on the same page. From then on we differ.

I do like suggestions 1 and 2 though.

[8timechamps]

Has nothing to do with change at all. I don't care if they expand the current playoff system at all. Just as soon as playoff proponents can agree on something (which they'll never do, other than the current playoff needs to be expanded) then I'm willing to listen. Until then, it's pie in the sky especially in regards to further expansion which the money trail has already proven would move faster than they think it would.

Christ, I don't care if they expand the playoff, stay with the same thing now, or go back to pre-bcs methodology. That's where opinions differ, you want specific change, I don't give a crap what the change is as long as it doesn't end up being detrimental.

And that's probably the number one hurdle we, the pro-playoff contingent, has. There are so many models floating around (from 4 team playoffs to 32 team playoffs). I, for one, would prefer a 16 team playoff. However, I would be happy with any playoff.

[MeMyself&Me]

And that's probably the number one hurdle we, the pro-playoff contingent, has. There are so many models floating around (from 4 team playoffs to 32 team playoffs). I, for one, would prefer a 16 team playoff. However, I would be happy with any playoff.

It may be your blessing too. One plan/model is an easier target for one. But also, pro-tournament people may not be so pro-tournament if the model we're headed to turns out to be a model they don't like.

[OU_Sooners75]

Did I say that? If so, point it out. What I said was it's not as media driven as you think. If it were then OU wouldn't have played in 2003 or 2008. You already backed off your original statement that "all you have to do is have ESPN on yourside and as long as you do not lose too many games, you are in the BCS title game!" by throwing in voters and other media into your retort. And if you think ESPN has some stroke now to influence the voters then they are probably going to have as much or more influence on who participates in this fantasy tournament everyone has this magic, perfect formula for.

Yeah, I know it is hard to understand for some folks, but ESPN does have a lot of influence.

When the Media, any media is pro-whatever, then they are going to get people to start believing it.

Just like the build up for the first game between Bama and LSU. The media, mainly ESPN, since they ahve a couple billion dollars tied up into the SEC, built that game up as the game of the century.

Then after the 9-3 win by LSU, Bama fell from #2 to #3 in the BCS. Why? because immediately following the game, a lot of influential people that are on ESPN decided to start talking about what if there was a rematch. About how they were the two best teams in the nation. About their defenses and crap like that.

They influenced people that voted (hell quite a few of them are voters) in the Harris Interactive poll and the Coaches polls.

They do so every year. And who can blame them? They are after ratings. However, they also have a massive investment to protect, much like they do with Texas' Longhorn Network.

[rekamrettuB]

One final question, if there is any type of tournament that has even 1 "at-large/wild-card" team, how do we remove the media's influence? A playoff/tournament will not fix this and, I'm afraid, it will make it even worse.

What's funny about the past year is any name team (OU, Texas, USC, etc) replaces Ok State and the LSU/Bama rematch doesn't happen. Now if that's not unfair, I don't know what is. But again, any non-conference champ qualifier in a playoff would produce the exact same thing.

[MeMyself&Me]

One final question, if there is any type of tournament that has even 1 "at-large/wild-card" team, how do we remove the media's influence? A playoff/tournament will not fix this and, I'm afraid, it will make it even worse.

What's funny about the past year is any name team (OU, Texas, USC, etc) replaces Ok State and the LSU/Bama rematch doesn't happen. Now if that's not unfair, I don't know what is. But again, any non-conference champ qualifier in a playoff would produce the exact same thing.

Now you're confusing me. I thought you were trying to argue there wasn't any influence by the media.

Anyway, to your first paragraph. You can remove all media influence by using a purely mathematical computer poll. You just have to figure out which algorithm is best and live with the results.

To your last paragraph, I also wish for a conference champion requirement, even with the current BCS. Bama was the best (my own subjective observation) team last year, but they didn't deserve a shot in the championship game. There's a difference between 'best' and 'deserving' and it should matter.

[jkjsooner]

Which is more weird, objective results, or the subjective people that disagree?

I'm not disagreeing with that but my opinion itself isn't enough.



In any case, as long as there's subjective component in the selection and seeding, you're effecting the outcome with subjective material. Expanding the tournament doesn't solve that issue, it just packages it differently.

Putting aside your dislike for the NCAA basketball tournament, would you say that the subjective criteria used by the selection committee impacts who eventually becomes the national champion? What if the committee chose two teams every year and those two play? Would you say that they have a much larger influence on determining who the national champion is?

It's not just packaging it differently.

[rekamrettuB]

Now you're confusing me. I thought you were trying to argue there wasn't any influence by the media.

Anyway, to your first paragraph. You can remove all media influence by using a purely mathematical computer poll. You just have to figure out which algorithm is best and live with the results.


Again, I never said "wasn't any". It's just not as prevelant as most think. If it was, then OU plays in two less NCs in the 2000s. Whether I was arguing against it or not, it's a fair question if that is someone's main concerning about the current system. As far as removing the human element...it won't happen. Too much money in it. It's all about money. That's why there isn't a playoff now and that's why there will be an expanded playoff beyond what everyone can tolerate when keeping the regular season more meaningful than any other sport.

[jkjsooner]

Heck some people are even saying take the top 4 teams and throw them in a playoff...but that would have eliminated Oregon who beat Stanford and won their common conference. One main reason Oregon is eliminated from that scenario is because they scheduled LSU in the OOC and Stanford played San Diego State, Duke, and Notre Dame..

Some points:

Had OSU and Alabama lost an additional game, Stanford would have been in the national title game. If this is a criticism of a playoff then you need the point the finger right back at the BCS as well.

Tradition has always favored selecting teams with fewer losses. If we're going to follow traditional methods - and you playoff opponents love to keep the tradition - then Stanford would be the deserving team.

Every team who has a loss lost to someone. By your argument ISU deserves more consideration that OSU. It's about the full body of work not the results of one game. Losing two games harms Oregon's body of work.

Oregon was punished for playing and losing to LSU. When you play a tough OOC game it's a risk/benefit proposition. You don't get to claim the benefit without accepting the risk. Had Oregon beaten LSU and lost to USC, that win over LSU would have easily pushed them into the title game.

[jkjsooner]

It may be your blessing too. One plan/model is an easier target for one. But also, pro-tournament people may not be so pro-tournament if the model we're headed to turns out to be a model they don't like.

That is true. I wouldn't favor every playoff scenario I've heard.

On the other hand, the playoff opponents wouldn't have the opportunity to pick and choose parts of different playoff proposals to make their points.

[rekamrettuB]

Some points:

Had OSU and Alabama lost an additional game, Stanford would have been in the national title game. If this is a criticism of a playoff then you need the point the finger right back at the BCS as well.

Tradition has always favored selecting teams with fewer losses. If we're going to follow traditional methods - and you playoff opponents love to keep the tradition - then Stanford would be the deserving team.

Every team who has a loss lost to someone. By your argument ISU deserves more consideration that OSU. It's about the full body of work not the results of one game. Losing two games harms Oregon's body of work.

Oregon was punished for playing and losing to LSU. When you play a tough OOC game it's a risk/benefit proposition. You don't get to claim the benefit without accepting the risk. Had Oregon beaten LSU and lost to USC, that win over LSU would have easily pushed them into the title game.

Please include and read my entire post:


There's just as many problems with a small playoff, if not more when you double or quadruple the size of the tournament, to deal with the way college football is currently organized.


All us "anti-playoff" folk are saying is the problems still exist and compound because you bring more teams into the fold. Just for the record, I'm not anti-playoff if there's some guarantee (and there won't be) that the field would remain at 4, and no more than 8. But one thing you said about Oregon's scheduling is what we will see less and less of...good solid OOC games. There's too much downside with a small playoff and, if conference champs are automatically in (which I can't see it ever not being this way) then OOCs will become preseason tune up games.

[Scott D]

Please include and read my entire post:



All us "anti-playoff" folk are saying is the problems still exist and compound because you bring more teams into the fold. Just for the record, I'm not anti-playoff if there's some guarantee (and there won't be) that the field would remain at 4, and no more than 8. But one thing you said about Oregon's scheduling is what we will see less and less of...good solid OOC games. There's too much downside with a small playoff and, if conference champs are automatically in (which I can't see it ever not being this way) then OOCs will become preseason tune up games.

To add to that, using the conference champion only model means that you still have to reduce the original field so that the conferences fit into that scenario. Look at the FCS model if you want, originally it was a good model (pre-recent expansion) But for it to be viable you need to limit the amount of conferences involved. Is that not what has us partially in the "pickle" we're in with this argument now? The exclusion of "lesser" conferences in the overall process. I still say you're going to have to either create a new top tier, to exclude some of these schools, or find a way to force them down into FCS. A field of 120 teams is too much. 10 Conferences is too many and would force a field of 12 (4 1st round byes) not to mention that as has been pointed out allows the media to get their paper champions in via two at large spots. There's no way you'll get the "Big 5" plus ND to downsize to 4 total conferences (not including the Big lEast in the Big "5") 8x is right in the aspect that a true model would be 8 teams, but that would still require FBS going from 120 to 96 teams.Personally I don't think it should be that difficult to get rid of 24 programs, but every single one of those 24 will fight tooth and nail to remain in the FBS.

With the way the system is now, it'd be a logistical nightmare to set up a true "playoff" scenario.

[MeMyself&Me]

I'm not disagreeing with that but my opinion itself isn't enough.




Putting aside your dislike for the NCAA basketball tournament, would you say that the subjective criteria used by the selection committee impacts who eventually becomes the national champion? What if the committee chose two teams every year and those two play? Would you say that they have a much larger influence on determining who the national champion is?

It's not just packaging it differently.

Considering NCAA basketball tourney is played at neutral sights throughout the tourney, it's not a very good comparison.

[jkjsooner]

Please include and read my entire post:

All us "anti-playoff" folk are saying is the problems still exist and compound because you bring more teams into the fold. Just for the record, I'm not anti-playoff if there's some guarantee (and there won't be) that the field would remain at 4, and no more than 8. But one thing you said about Oregon's scheduling is what we will see less and less of...good solid OOC games. There's too much downside with a small playoff and, if conference champs are automatically in (which I can't see it ever not being this way) then OOCs will become preseason tune up games.

I did read your entire post. I don't buy that the problem is compounded. The problem generally exists at the fringe - the #4 vs #5/6, or the #8 vs #9/10. There would be more teams in the playoff but not more that are right around the fringe. In addition, the argument become less meaningful as you move down the rankings. Maybe the #9 team beat the #8 team but frankly their argument rings about as hollow as bubble teams in the NCAA basketball tournament. All of them had their opporunities to finish higher in the rankings (as opposed to Auburn in 2005 or even TCU a year ago.)

If you set up the criteria for making the playoffs correctly you can encourage tough OOC games. In fact, I'd argue the opposite of what you just said. In today's game, if you lose you very well might be out of contention. That doesn't encourage playing tough OOC competition at all.

[Scott D]

I did read your entire post. I don't buy that the problem is compounded. The problem generally exists at the fringe - the #4 vs #5/6, or the #8 vs #9/10. There would be more teams in the playoff but not more that are right around the fringe. In addition, the argument become less meaningful as you move down the rankings. Maybe the #9 team beat the #8 team but frankly their argument rings about as hollow as bubble teams in the NCAA basketball tournament. All of them had their opporunities to finish higher in the rankings (as opposed to Auburn in 2005 or even TCU a year ago.)

If you set up the criteria for making the playoffs correctly you can encourage tough OOC games. In fact, I'd argue the opposite of what you just said. In today's game, if you lose you very well might be out of contention. That doesn't encourage playing tough OOC competition at all.

I thought we established that rankings are the crux of failure in choosing anything.

[rekamrettuB]

I did read your entire post. I don't buy that the problem is compounded. The problem generally exists at the fringe - the #4 vs #5/6, or the #8 vs #9/10. There would be more teams in the playoff but not more that are right around the fringe. In addition, the argument become less meaningful as you move down the rankings. Maybe the #9 team beat the #8 team but frankly their argument rings about as hollow as bubble teams in the NCAA basketball tournament. All of them had their opporunities to finish higher in the rankings (as opposed to Auburn in 2005 or even TCU a year ago.)

If you set up the criteria for making the playoffs correctly you can encourage tough OOC games. In fact, I'd argue the opposite of what you just said. In today's game, if you lose you very well might be out of contention. That doesn't encourage playing tough OOC competition at all.

Take a look at this past year since it's fresh on everyone's minds. 7 thru 11 (if you wanted to just throw the top 8 BCS folk in it was:

Boise 11-1
KState 10-2
South Carolina 10-2
Wiscy 11-2
Va Tech 11-2

That's 5 teams for 2 spots.

Wanna go with top 16 teams? Teams ranked 12 thru 23 looked all about the same to me each with 2 or 3 losses (besides Houston). That's where the "media influence" or these deserving teams being left out gets compounded.

And ask Auburn and Texas how those "tough" OOC schedules worked out for them.

[SoonerPride]

I did read your entire post. I don't buy that the problem is compounded. The problem generally exists at the fringe - the #4 vs #5/6, or the #8 vs #9/10. There would be more teams in the playoff but not more that are right around the fringe. In addition, the argument become less meaningful as you move down the rankings. Maybe the #9 team beat the #8 team but frankly their argument rings about as hollow as bubble teams in the NCAA basketball tournament. All of them

You have got to be kidding.

Instead of arguing that a one-loss team got left out you multiply that by the number of two-loss teams who all will whine about getting screwed. It's not that they ranked #9 or #10. All teams with similar records will feel they are getting hosed.

You exponentially make the problem worse.

[OU_Sooners75]

I like the NAIA model...kind of bias too it though....

16 teams all being conference champions.

Thats it...no more no less.

[OU_Sooners75]

I other words, the NCAA should step in and take control over it.

Of course any actual decisions will be from the presidents of the schools, but the NCAA should mediate at least.

That said, I am actually starting to think it should be made up of conference champions, no more and no less. So the size of the playoff would be determined on how many conferences there are.

If that wont work, then they need to split D-1A up into two divisions. Big and Small. Big would be the ACC, Big East (not so sure anymore), Big 10, Big 12, SEC, and PAC-12.

For this playoff, the conference champions are put into a 6 team playoff. No more no less.

If a school is independent (i.e. ND) they have no shot at a national championship unless they wish to make it part of the small schools to give them 6 teams as well.

Making a playoff system or format should not be hard at all. The problem is the corruption that the Bowl committees have had over the Presidents and ADs for a very long time.

[rekamrettuB]

Now you're seeing the light my friend. As I've said "as college football is currently structured". Break it all down and start over and you could have a very good regular season and post season. But be careful with the "conf champ only". You do that and it's cream-puff city on the OOCs. OOC games will be time to build depth for the conference games. Who cares if you go 0-3 in OOC games?

[OU_Sooners75]

Now you're seeing the light my friend. As I've said "as college football is currently structured". Break it all down and start over and you could have a very good regular season and post season. But be careful with the "conf champ only". You do that and it's cream-puff city on the OOCs. OOC games will be time to build depth for the conference games. Who cares if you go 0-3 in OOC games?

On the contrary.

I think if it is conference champs only, you will see more and more games played against top 10 teams. We see a few as it is now, but we would see a lot more home and homes against the Bamas, floridas, FSUs, USCs, Oregons, etc.

And that my friend would make the regular season a lot more fun to watch...Moreso than watching OU dismantle Florida A&M or UTEP, or Ball State!

[rekamrettuB]

On the contrary.

I think if it is conference champs only, you will see more and more games played against top 10 teams. We see a few as it is now, but we would see a lot more home and homes against the Bamas, floridas, FSUs, USCs, Oregons, etc.

And that my friend would make the regular season a lot more fun to watch...Moreso than watching OU dismantle Florida A&M or UTEP, or Ball State!

Why would teams schedule tougher schedules? What's the advantage? I used to think this because results really wouldn't matter. But the more you think about it the less sense it would make to schedule those. And, even if it did motivate teams to schedule tougher, OU's scheduling would remain constant. OU isn't going to replace a Fl AM and UTEP with FSU and Bama and have those two with Notre Dame. There's no reason to risk injury and there's 1000 reasons to build depth during those games.