So now the BCS is open to change, like a 4-team playoff?

The "wait for the playoffs" deal in basketball is because the field is so big. If there's only 12 or 16 teams, it's hard to KNOW that you'll be in at #15. You can argue all you want about being "the best 2 loss team," but I'd rather that than argue about who the #1 team is.

 

Thank you!

 

True, but you never hear those teams claim they are the true champion after the playoffs.

 

But often as not the team that wins the tournament isn't really the best team, they just happened to get hot at the right time. So...playoffs aren't exactly great for choosing the best team either, and actually I'd argue the way football does it is actually better at that.

 

It would stop alot of the whining we have to hear about......

 

Wager on that?

The only whining it would stop is from those peeps that feel their life is somehow lacking because we don't have a football playoff.

 

Not to be devil's advocate, but there are now 68 teams invited to the NCAA mens basketball tournament.

Linky

 

...and soon there'll be 72, then 76 or 80, then 100. Football would end up the same way.

 

Pretty much, I am reminded of an old politics quote:

So, like government, there will never be a final form of postseason play in any college sport, but rather, learn from past problems and continue to improve the system to be the most fair.

They used to name national champions before the bowl games.

They used to just vote on a champion, rather than have a championship game.

Hopefully now, we will also add "They used to vote on who would play in the championship game, rather than have teams play to earn a spot in the game."

 

Yep...too much money involved not to. BBall tourney started at 8 teams and expanded to 16 in 1950. Between 1974 and 1985 there were 7 expansions to 64 teams.

 

Plus one wouldn't have been enough .. Problems with Plus 1 this year are as follows:

1) Stanford was ranked #4 in the BCS but lost to Oregon and Oregon won the conference. -- Room to whine there.

2) LSU beats Stanford soundly due to a lack of ability to stop the run, Alabama rolls oSu, we have the exact same result on the field.

 

The only whining about not making the field of 68 comes from fans of the school ranked 69th, hardly a broad spectrum of the college basketball world. The same cannot be said about the debate over which 1-loss team should have been chosen to play LSU. Yeah, there is are polls and an algorithm but it still comes down to a beauty contest run by ESPN.

Now that the BCS championship has been exposed as little more than a stage for the SEC to preen for the rest of the great unwashed, the backroom boys are falling all over themselves saying they are willing to stage a playoff. Once more, the colleges are going to allow their fate (and money that rightfully should be going to them since they provide the product) to be controlled by a handful of men whose only interest is in lining their own pockets. Bend over, here it comes.

 

And from 1985 to 2001 there was 1 expansion to 65 teams. From 2001 to 2010 there was 1 expansion to 68 teams.

I think they may be done for a bit now.

 

Well the main problem is it isn't the top 68 teams in the tourney. It's a bunch of rinky dink teams in it seeded 15-16a/b. It's the equivalent of a 16 team playoff with all conference champions qualify. This year Northern Illy, LaTech and Arky State would have qualified while teams like Arkansas, Boise, Oregon, USC (ignore the ban), KState, Michigan, Michigan State, South Carolina, Va Tech, Georgia, etc would have stayed home. How you determined it would be debated but if there was a playoff in college football I would like to see it be the top x number of teams regardless of conference championships.

 

For now but what I'm saying is the football tourney would go the same way. Where would it stop? 16? 32? It's a slippery slope.

 

Which might explain why Beebe is no longer the Big < XII commish.

 

As usual, I am of 2 minds on this. On the one hand, the old subjective selection of the mythical national champ by polls only was at least honestly subjective. In many years, colorable arguments could be made for more than one team. On the other hand, a playoff would determine a "champion" in a more objective way. What I do NOT like is this current 2-team playoff system that often (not always) produces a subjective champ under the guise of an objective champ. Increasing the field to 4 teams lessens the likelihood of significant error in assessing who the best teams are for a playoff. It's still subjective, but less so than the present system.

To digress: What's the point of saying that the "best" team doesn't always win a tournament? If you really believe that, then you should certainly to go back to the polls-only days. If you think tournaments are unreliable indicators of best-ness, the only way to determine the best team is to do it like the European soccer leagues do it, and how baseball used to do it: Whoever wins the most in a season-long, league-wide, round robin is the best. But that it clearly impractical with college foootball.

 

Ok, then let's make it a repechage format before the final 2 teams face off in a best of 7. Any injury to a player must be healed to the satisfaction of the team of the injured before the next game can be played. No academic ineligibilities can be declared once the season begins. A format like this would remove a small percentage of the woulda/coulda bitchers but extend each championship season to be finalized years after it began, kind of like the correspondence chess championships.

 

What's funny is....the BCS cut this deal they have with The Rose, Orange, Fiesta and Sugar Bowl Committees to get the deal they have now.

If any of you seriously think they aren't gonna have a whole lot to say about changing things to a Playoff....you have rocks in your head. Those 4 are going to want to be involved in whatever system there is and they will expect to make as much if not more money from whatever is decided on. Then you have the other Strong Bowls who if the new system didn't involve them or if it took away their Conference deals....they will also have a say and be looking for something that brings them the same money or more.

We all would love to see a system that would come a bit closer to picking a more realistic and maybe even deserving winner every year but really....even if you think some other schools should have at least had a chance to play for all the marbles....there is no way that the BCS Formula really didn't work. The undefeated Team played a Team capable of beating them and it happened. That's College Football. You can be hot 12 games in a row....and then when all the big lights and cameras are rolling and it's for the Crystal Ball and bragging rights and a buttload of money.....you end up empty handed and watching a Team you beat earlier in the year walk away with the prize that everyone else thought you would take home easily.

Alabama is going to remain the 2011-2012 Season National Champions not matter what happens from here on out as far as the BCS and all these Bowls and Conferences are concerned.

All the rest of this will probably end up in the NCAA Suggestion Box that is every Blog, Website and Message Board on the internet.

 

Bring on a playoff, can't believe so many want to hang onto the stone age. If the "bowl system" was all that great the pros would have them, as would high schools. Good grief.

A teenage memory that has stuck with me for 30+ yrs: OU finishing #3 in '78, '79, and '80. I just knew if there was any kind of playoff OU could have won a few more NCs.

I still won't belive it till I see it; for some weird reason the college presidents have been opposed to it, while at the same time giving their blessings to perpetually expanding the bball tourney... frustrating...