BCS......standings..........

[CamaroSkooter]

You don't think a 1-loss team deserves to win a championship, however, if all teams have lost 1 game then you're okay with it? What kind of logic is that?

I totally support a system like the one Legend outlined. At the end of the season, the top 8 teams in the BCS poll go to the four major bowl games while all of the other bowl games go on just like they do now. The winners of those top four bowl games go on to the "final four" (like in basketball) and then the winners of those two games go on to the national championship game.

No matter what system is used to determine a national champion, there will always be people who say it's flawed. But this system sounds like a pretty solid method. As it sits right now, the national champion contender every year just has to be from a power conference and win all its games. This leaves open the entire debate about cupcake non-conference opponents. Okay, fine. But as it sits right now the voters and computers will never put a Boise State, TCU, or Utah in the NC game if there are multiple undefeated teams from the power conferences left. Is it right? Maybe, maybe not. But this tourney thing can fix that debate.

I just don't understand what your reasoning is as to why the current BCS system is better than a tourney method. Or maybe you have your own idea of what sort of method should be used to determine a national champion every year. I'm pretty sure everyone here is all ears

[CamaroSkooter]

Oh, and congrats to all the Oregonisms

[2010-1SS-IBM]

Originally Posted by CamaroSkooter

You don't think a 1-loss team deserves to win a championship, however, if all teams have lost 1 game then you're okay with it? What kind of logic is that?

If everyone has lost at least one game, you pretty much have to do a playoff to figure out who's best. If you've got a mix of undefeateds and one and two loss teams, you can toss the one and two loss teams out; they've already lost.

Originally Posted by CamaroSkooter

I totally support a system like the one Legend outlined. At the end of the season, the top 8 teams in the BCS poll go to the four major bowl games while all of the other bowl games go on just like they do now. The winners of those top four bowl games go on to the "final four" (like in basketball) and then the winners of those two games go on to the national championship game.

But how do you figure out who the top 8 are? Rankings, just like the one we have now that favors big-conference teams over teams with better records? Just like the one we have now that favors early losses over late season ones?

You know the rankings are gamed, right?

I totally don't support using the top 8 teams in the poll because almost every year has at least 1 two-loss team in the top 8. I'm sorry, if you've lost 2 games in the season you're not a top 8 team.

Originally Posted by CamaroSkooter

No matter what system is used to determine a national champion, there will always be people who say it's flawed. But this system sounds like a pretty solid method. As it sits right now, the national champion contender every year just has to be from a power conference and win all its games. This leaves open the entire debate about cupcake non-conference opponents. Okay, fine. But as it sits right now the voters and computers will never put a Boise State, TCU, or Utah in the NC game if there are multiple undefeated teams from the power conferences left. Is it right? Maybe, maybe not. But this tourney thing can fix that debate.

There's nothing solid about an 8 team single elimination tournament. For one thing, using 8 teams is completely arbitrary, so a lot of teams who are just as good will be left out. Second, the BCS ratings are borked. Third, 8 teams are about twice as many as needed to figure out the national champion; there's usually only 3 or 4 teams tops left undefeated at the end of the year.

Originally Posted by CamaroSkooter

I just don't understand what your reasoning is as to why the current BCS system is better than a tourney method. Or maybe you have your own idea of what sort of method should be used to determine a national champion every year. I'm pretty sure everyone here is all ears

I don't think I've defended the BCS system yet, except to say that bowl games are pretty good consolation prizes for one and two loss teams.

I've already said what I'd like; include only undefeated teams in the playoff. If you like, make teams who score low(er) on strength of schedule play each other to "qualify" for the playoff.

[CamaroSkooter]

Originally Posted by 2010-1SS-IBM

If everyone has lost at least one game, you pretty much have to do a playoff to figure out who's best. If you've got a mix of undefeateds and one and two loss teams, you can toss the one and two loss teams out; they've already lost.

We're trying to come up with a system that will work every year. You can't have different systems depending on how many or if any teams are undefeated

I think the BCS rankings should be worked on to make strength of schedule much more important.

If everyone knows that they'll only allow undefeated teams into the tourney, then everyone's going to schedule division 3 teams to give themselves a fighting chance.

I think the rankings should reward a team for having the guts to play the tough out of conference teams. Strength of schedule should reflect this. I don't know how they calculate strength of schedule, but it ought to be simple and easy enough that a caveman can do it...

[2010-1SS-IBM]

Originally Posted by CamaroSkooter

We're trying to come up with a system that will work every year. You can't have different systems depending on how many or if any teams are undefeated

I think the BCS rankings should be worked on to make strength of schedule much more important.

If everyone knows that they'll only allow undefeated teams into the tourney, then everyone's going to schedule division 3 teams to give themselves a fighting chance.

I think the rankings should reward a team for having the guts to play the tough out of conference teams. Strength of schedule should reflect this. I don't know how they calculate strength of schedule, but it ought to be simple and easy enough that a caveman can do it...

So basically, toss the season out the window and heavily favor the SEC, Pac 10 and Big Ten teams. Sounds just like what we had before the BCS.

[Legend]

If this was the system this year...you'd have Oregon, Auburn, TCU, Boise State, Utah, Alabama, Nebraska and Oklahoma currently sitting in the BCS Championship picture...Oregon would play Oklahoma, Auburn would play Nebraska, etc, etc...how about that Boise St vs Utah match up at the 4 vs 5 game?? Nice!

....the next 4 or 5 has Wisconsin, LSU, Ohio State, Missouri, Stanford and Michigan State as likely movers...a lose by one of the current top 8 would allow one of these teams to slide in...what if LSU came in at #8 and put Oregon vs LSU as a match up? Nice!

...to me, this seems to have the best promise of crowning a "TRUE" national champion!

Yes your traditional BCS conferences are there...but so are a couple of non-traditional conferences and it opens the door for those non-traditionals to schedule harder and challenge for a spot in the top 8!

The problem would be...over time would the rankings be worked or tweaked to help out those BCS conference schools so the Boise St's of the world wouldn't make the top 8? I'd hope not...reward top performers and in turn, you'll have better regular season games!

I think 8 schools is perfect...only 1 additional game for the two teams in the championship, money is still there with so much more on the line for the 4 big bowl games...not just a win but win and play on...as well as being fair...let the current system that sets the #1 and #2 teams set the 8 team playoff...no wondering and guessing who will be there...it's posted early and final BCS rankings in Dec decides the playoff picture!

IDK honestly how to fix it but the current system, while tons better than years ago, still does not provide a true champion. Only way to do that is set a field and let them play it on the field instead of on paper...then you are the champion!

[Legend]

Originally Posted by 2010-1SS-IBM

So if team A goes undefeated, including beating team B in the regular season, but loses to a 2-loss team B in the "championship" game, you'd be ok with team B getting the trophy? When team A has the better record?

That's thinking like the current BCS...in the end it's who won the game, not who has the best record!

There would be years where a 2 loss team makes the 8...I'm not sure that 2 loss team beats an undefeated, ranked #1 by the BCS...sorta like the NCAA tourney, a 16-seed has never beat a 1-seed.

It would be cool to watch though...and lay claim to the Rose or Sugar or other top bowl!

[2010-1SS-IBM]

Originally Posted by Legend

That's thinking like the current BCS...in the end it's who won the game, not who has the best record!

That's contradictory. You get the best record by winning all your games.

If you lose in the regular season, why should you be in the playoffs? The playoffs in college should only exist to resolve who the best of the unbeatens is.

In the current system, the regular season matters. So much so that losing a single game in the regular season usually means you're out of the championship hunt. That's the way it should be, IMHO.

Put it this way, suppose the NFL instituted a second round of playoffs after the super bowl. The super bowl winner gets a bye, but essentially has to win another set of playoffs in order to be crowned champion.

That's how I feel about college playoffs.

[Legend]

No, no, no...you're back to the same thing you were saying earlier...only unbeaten teams get a shot. What do you do if there are no unbeaten teams....or only one? What if the only unbeaten team is a "Boise St" like team and ranked 5th...they never get a shot instead a 1 loss team plays an undefeated team...and what if the 1 loss team wins? Give it to the other teams or make them play again?

Seems you are only thinking of the current system...you have think beyond.

[bigearl]

1 huge hurdle you'll never get past is there are so many teams that a championship becomes very hard to manage.

Idea #1:
Regionals, 4 regions geographically determined to maximize fan travel.
Each region gets a playoff (bowl)
Each region winner then goes to a tournament for champ.
-this will have a huge amount of friction from the big money that puts on the bowls.

Idea #2
Keep things basically as they are, but
6 in conference, 6 ooc games
Instead of careful backroom negotiations on who will play you in OOC, randomize it.
You can still say some team has a weak conference schedule, but then every team would
Those negotiated OOC games are a big part of the problem now IMHO, plus no one would be able to knock anyones OOC schedule- it just is what it is.

[2010-1SS-IBM]

Originally Posted by Legend

No, no, no...you're back to the same thing you were saying earlier...only unbeaten teams get a shot. What do you do if there are no unbeaten teams....or only one? What if the only unbeaten team is a "Boise St" like team and ranked 5th...they never get a shot instead a 1 loss team plays an undefeated team...and what if the 1 loss team wins? Give it to the other teams or make them play again?

Seems you are only thinking of the current system...you have think beyond.

I like 2 things about the current system; the regular season is the biggest factor in deciding who plays in the championship, and that there is a consolation prize for the also-rans (bowls).

As far as thinking beyond it, why? Ideally, the regular season should determine the champion. Since sports leagues have grown so big that there's now no way to clearly determine a champion in the regular season, you often need playoffs.

Unfortunately, most playoffs are just another season tacked on top of the original one. I don't want to see that happen in college football. Right now it's the only sport where every regular game matters. That's the way it should be.

[Legend]

Originally Posted by 2010-1SS-IBM

I like 2 things about the current system; the regular season is the biggest factor in deciding who plays in the championship, and that there is a consolation prize for the also-rans (bowls).

As far as thinking beyond it, why? Ideally, the regular season should determine the champion. Since sports leagues have grown so big that there's now no way to clearly determine a champion in the regular season, you often need playoffs.

Unfortunately, most playoffs are just another season tacked on top of the original one. I don't want to see that happen in college football. Right now it's the only sport where every regular game matters. That's the way it should be.

Excellent points...but, when there are no undefeated teams, or 1 undefeated or like a few years ago...4 or 5 undefeated teams, then you have a problem.

This year as of right now, there are 5 undefeated teams...if all 5 remain that way, who should play for the BCS?

Plus, one bad game in the regular season from a otherwise great team...and your season is gone! Add in the power conferences like the SEC and well, it's even tougher (albeit the SEC has won the last 4 BCS championships!).

I do believe the regular season means something....for seeding to the ultimate game...the national championship!

[2010-1SS-IBM]

Originally Posted by Legend

Excellent points...but, when there are no undefeated teams, or 1 undefeated or like a few years ago...4 or 5 undefeated teams, then you have a problem.

This year as of right now, there are 5 undefeated teams...if all 5 remain that way, who should play for the BCS?

Plus, one bad game in the regular season from a otherwise great team...and your season is gone! Add in the power conferences like the SEC and well, it's even tougher (albeit the SEC has won the last 4 BCS championships!).

I do believe the regular season means something....for seeding to the ultimate game...the national championship!

Those are all good points, except I'd disagree with the "one bad game" example. One bad game is good enough to exit a team from the playoffs and no one disputes that, so it should count if it happens in the regular season as well.

The thing that bugs me about playoff talk is automatic bids. A bunch of conferences are going to get them, and we'll end up with 2-loss teams in the mix. That shouldn't happen.

Ideally, the size of the playoffs should change each year according to how many teams are "true contenders" based on their record and strength of schedule. The rest of the teams go to bowls.

If we end up with 2 undefeated teams, then there's just 1 game. If we end up with 4 undefeated teams, then there's 3 games. If there's 1 undefeated and 4 1-loss teams, then the 1-loss teams have a playoff to see who plays against the undefeated in the championship. Something like that. If some of the undefeateds have a low strength-of-schedule, they can do a playoff as well.

There's already plenty of bowls played both early and late in the bowl season to enable a playoff system, just no agreement on what system would work. I think the NCAA is hesitant to implement a standard playoff system because they don't want a crappy match-up in their "championship game" half the time. Neither do I.

[Legend]

Originally Posted by 2010-1SS-IBM

Those are all good points, except I'd disagree with the "one bad game" example. One bad game is good enough to exit a team from the playoffs and no one disputes that, so it should count if it happens in the regular season as well.
can do a playoff as well.

That's the reason for a playoff...the regular season gets you to the playoff. The regular season determines your seeding...one loss should not take a Top 5 team out of the picture for a national championship!

Originally Posted by 2010-1SS-IBM

The thing that bugs me about playoff talk is automatic bids. A bunch of conferences are going to get them, and we'll end up with 2-loss teams in the mix. That shouldn't happen.

Ideally, the size of the playoffs should change each year according to how many teams are "true contenders" based on their record and strength of schedule. The rest of the teams go to bowls.

If we end up with 2 undefeated teams, then there's just 1 game. If we end up with 4 undefeated teams, then there's 3 games. If there's 1 undefeated and 4 1-loss teams, then the 1-loss teams have a playoff to see who plays against the undefeated in the championship. Something like that. If some of the undefeateds have a low strength-of-schedule, they can do a playoff as well.

I wouldn't want automatic bids either...then the same teams would be playing for the championship every year! Agree with you there for sure!

But, if the current system is used (BCS standings)...then all we are doing is expanding it!

Don't like the "If we end up with 2 undefeated teams, then there's just 1 game" or "If we end up with 4 undefeated teams, then there's 3 games" thought as each year the playoff picture would change or be unknown.

Establish the system and each team knows what must be done to get there.

I understand you not liking a playoff because it's like an extension of the regular season...but we are only talking 4 teams going beyond what is already being played.

Great dicussion though...enjoying your point of view!