The BCS Mess

[Wise One]

Well let's see, Alabama is undefeated. Texas beat Oklahoma. Oklahoma destroyed Texas Tech who beat Texas. So Cal lost to Oregon State who was embarrassed by Penn State. Florida lost to Mississippi who lost to Wake Forest who lost to Navy who lost to...........

Let's use the computer and disregard what took place on the field. Let's use the asinine opinions from people who at best see less than half the games played.

Let's listen to coaches who don't have the balls to call this what it is..


BULLSHIT

Now we have teams who are compelled to run up the score and take a chance on hurting a player in a game that has long been decided. That's pure insanity. The argument that money is driving it don't wash either. A 4 or eight team playoff would make even more money easily. If the Rose Bowl is holding this thing up than cast them adrift.

To John Swofford who wanted a playoff before he became the head of the BCS, shame on you. You have lost my respect and have become a pawn for the college presidents.

 

[Collin]

#1) It's already settled "on the field." The top two teams earn their spots by winning their games, and they earn the championship by beating the other.

#2) There would be enormous controversy about who got in to a 4, 8, or 16 team playoff. Pretending that a playoff would suddenly end all that is either naive or just plain stupid.

 

[Powerbait]

#1) It's already settled "on the field." The top two teams earn their spots by winning their games, and they earn the championship by beating the other.

I agree to an extent, but what if PSU, USC, Texas and Alabama all go undefeated this year. It was a possibility, it obviously didn't happen, but it could have happened. It may happen one day, similar things have happened in the past, the reason there were split national championships.

So, a playoff will eliminate the argument over who really was the best more than the BCS because they proved it against the best. Of course you may have a situation like last year where UGa was probably better than LSU, but didn't get into the SEC title game because of tiebreakers. You may also have a situation where a team like Boise State or Utah would get left out because of autobids to conferences like the Big East or the ACC this year.

#2) There would be enormous controversy about who got in to a 4, 8, or 16 team playoff. Pretending that a playoff would suddenly end all that is either naive or just plain stupid.

But, you're right, it wouldn't be controversy free. And there is also the possibility that the team that is the best doesn't win it all because they had an off game. But that is possible in a one shot game as well. I think a playoff would be way more fun, but I like the BCS more than the way it was before the BCS. At least teams know what they have to do to get to the title game.

I just wish that they took the top 10 teams in the BCS standings to the BCS bowls, instead of giving autobids and allowing the bowls to pick the teams that they want.

 

[wossa]

collin is a fucking idiot and his "There would be enormous controversy about who got in to a 4, 8, or 16 team playoff" is probably the most worthless statement of all of his blowhard know it all worthless statements.

The big "controversy" over teams that didn't get into a 16 team playoff would all come from teams that would NEVER have had a shot at a national championship under the current farcical system. So while teams could argue for days about how they were robbed of their chance, how could any of those teams have ever had a chance in the media poll tourney?

Only collintheretard (crown him ) will be able to argue this one.

 

[Collin]

I agree to an extent, but what if PSU, USC, Texas and Alabama all go undefeated this year.

That kind of thing is possible, but it's also why teams are now scheduling more tough non-conference opponents than ever, which I think you'll agree is a good thing. Georgia hadn't played a decent non-conference opponent on the road in decades, but realized that they probably needed to if they wanted to contend for a national title, so they scheduled Arizona State (not great, but better than nothing). Meanwhile Ohio State and USC have been doing that every season for the same reasons. If you have the same number of losses as someone else, you earn your spot by playing tougher teams. Institute a playoff of 8 or more teams and there's no more incentive to play anything but cupcakes, plus there will still be tons of controversy about who gets those final spots.

similar things have happened in the past, the reason there were split national championships.

True, and those weren't the end of the world. Each fan base still claims their share of the title and they don't consider it any less of an honor than winning one outright. Playoffs wouldn't be better for the schools, the players, or the fans, they're about certain selfish people who just want to be entertained on television.

So, a playoff will eliminate the argument over who really was the best more than the BCS because they proved it against the best.

No, it would just mean that they were better on that day. Appalachian wasn't a better team than Michigan last year. Similarly, an 8-3 that beat an undefeated team in a playoff wouldn't have had a better year. Plus sooner or later you'd get that scenario where a team that beat someone during the regular season, and maybe beat them badly, would then lose during a playoff. Are the Falcons a better team than the Panthers this year because they won the second of the two match-ups? No. You value both games equally and then judge their respective quality based on what they did the rest of the season.

And there is also the possibility that the team that is the best doesn't win it all because they had an off game.

More than possible, it's the most likely outcome in any single elimination tournament with multiple rounds. Look at MLB, the NFL, or the NBA. The "best team" usually doesn't win. The "best team" has the best individual chance of winning, but the field is always a better bet than one favorite. And yes, you're right about that being true for the BCS as well. Florida over OSU is a good example. Most people pretend now that Ohio State didn't deserve to be in that game because most people are stupid and can't remember anything longer than thirty seconds ago, but that OSU team was being talked about as one of the greatest of all-time. They absolutely crushed their opponents all season, including (then #2) Texas in Austin. They had one bad night against Florida and suddenly they didn't deserve to be there when absolutely no one said that before the game.

I think a playoff would be way more fun

It would get huge TV ratings during the playoff, but it would also hurt interest in the regular season. That kind of thing is why I can understand if casual college football fans prefer a playoff. If you don't follow one particular team then maybe you don't care much about the regular season, and a playoff would certainly provide more drama at the end.


wossa:
Shut up. No one cares or has ever cared what you think. Meanwhile people do care what I think because I'm not an inbred, bubble-brained moron like you. You're stupid and I'm brilliant. Deal with it.

 

[Clay]

I gotta be honest, I'd rather see a top tier team play a cupcake early in the season and then have to play a must-win game in a playoff system than I would a decent regular season matchup and then they mail it in against some mid tier team in a meaningless bowl game.

 

[Powerbait]

I gotta be honest, I'd rather see a top tier team play a cupcake early in the season and then have to play a must-win game in a playoff system than I would a decent regular season matchup and then they mail it in against some mid tier team in a meaningless bowl game.

The way the BCS argues the system is that the whole season is a playoff. That is what Collin's argument is and it makes the regular season more meaningful. It has certainly made football more exciting than it was in years past, and has me watching games I would never have watched before because of the implications.

The only thing that bugs me about no playoffs is that there are about 5-6 teams that are on the same level and could beat each other any given Saturday. And then there are teams like Utah that would need an act of God to get a shot at the title. But, the flip side is, there would still be undeserving teams in the playoffs, such as the BE and ACC champ this year, that could keep a team like TTU out of the playoffs.

The BCS certainly isn't perfect, and I would personally prefer a playoff system, but I know why they don't do it. I know that the best team wont always win a playoff format, and it opens up the door for the best team to have an off day, but I think the best team is going to win more often than not. And, the lesser bowls would be wrecked by a playoff.

 

[Collin]

I gotta be honest, I'd rather see a top tier team play a cupcake early in the season and then have to play a must-win game in a playoff system than I would a decent regular season matchup and then they mail it in against some mid tier team in a meaningless bowl game.

If it's a top tier team then they aren't playing a mid tier team in their bowl game.

 

[Clay]

I was thinking "not top 10" but you're right, mid tier was the wrong term to use.

There's still a lot of meaningless games though.

 

[Collin]

There's still a lot of meaningless games though.

Generally between mediocre teams. The BCS has done a very good job of matching teams of similar quality. In fact, those two weeks of bowl games are BY FAR my favorite part of the sports season, although moving the big games later and later into January is ruining that.

In any case, I wish I had thought of that gambling point earlier because it's a superb illustration of the fact that the "best team" rarely wins a playoff. If Vegas almost always has the field with a better chance than any favorite, then clearly the "best team" isn't expected to win.