ADVERTISEMENT

Why I liked the BCS....

Mar 14, 2003
70,385
25,388
113
I know it was flawed in a few ways, but I think the BCS system would still be best for a four team playoff. Why do I say that? Because the computer rankings could give a crap what your "name" is, what your offense looks like, etc....

It just analyzed the available information and gave you their rankings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NashvilleHawk
WHO drives the metrics behind the computer analysis? I would rather drive a smaller group of people to accountability. I guess no system is perfect but a field of the power 5 conference winners and 3 wildcard entrees seems logical to me but even with that you will have the politics of the 3 wildcard spots and the seedlings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: seoulhawk
I liked it when the conferences had their bowl tie ins and everyone voted at the end of the year. Most of the time it was pretty clear who the champion was. When it wasn't clear, it was fun to discuss.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nelly02
A computer is only as good as the guy who programmed it with his own bias towards what's important.

Break up the B12, go to 4 16 team conferences, and there's your 8 team playoff. First round is conference championship games.
 
Take a look at the computer rankings composites. They really do not vary that much from the selection committee rankings. Iowa is still #9, the top 4 is the same, and the top 15 is the same with only a few little positioning differences. Iowa is ranked as high as #1 in six computers but as low as #33 in one.

I am another one who likes the idea of completely eliminating the human or computer elements. B1G, SEC, PAC, and ACC do a championship tournament with their conference champions as automatic qualifiers. Sorry no Big12 or Notre Dame, see how quickly those schools find other conferences.
 
I know it was flawed in a few ways, but I think the BCS system would still be best for a four team playoff. Why do I say that? Because the computer rankings could give a crap what your "name" is, what your offense looks like, etc....

It just analyzed the available information and gave you their rankings.

Good idea... give two-thirds the weight to the human polls to take out the subjectivity
 
There won't ever be a way that everyone likes. The BCS had it's flaws, just voting after the season had it's flaws, the current system has it's flaws. Even going to a conference champs only situation has flaws. What happens in the event where like we could have this year, Ole miss gets in with 2 losses but you leave out a Memphis team who beat them? Can you truly say that you have the 4 best teams in the Playoff group? I don't know what the right answer is but if it's supposed to be the best 4 teams in the playoff I don't want to see a year where Iowa gets left out as a 1 loss team because we lose on a questionable call in the title game but a 2 or 3 loss conference champ gets in over us because well they won the ACC or SEC or whatever when we are a better team.
 
There won't ever be a way that everyone likes. The BCS had it's flaws, just voting after the season had it's flaws, the current system has it's flaws. Even going to a conference champs only situation has flaws. What happens in the event where like we could have this year, Ole miss gets in with 2 losses but you leave out a Memphis team who beat them? Can you truly say that you have the 4 best teams in the Playoff group? I don't know what the right answer is but if it's supposed to be the best 4 teams in the playoff I don't want to see a year where Iowa gets left out as a 1 loss team because we lose on a questionable call in the title game but a 2 or 3 loss conference champ gets in over us because well they won the ACC or SEC or whatever when we are a better team.

Good idea... instead of playing games to determine the playoff field we should go back to a subjective system in which pollsters just pick the best team
 
You enlarge the playoff, you put a lot of bowls out of business eventually. I have a feeling that's the ultimate reason why they are limiting this to 4.

Those bowl folks running their own shows I'd think have a lot of pull with the NCAA.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bogiecock
This won't cut the drama. The only way to cut drama is if they find a way to make it strictly conference champions.

Yep even with an eight team and three wild cards you still have drama. Is MSU which didn't win its division a wild card, or do you take Iowa which won its division but got blown out in the conference championship game. Do three SEC school make it cause they are in the sec?
 
8 team playoff. Conference champions of the power 5 conferences plus 3 wild cards. And no Notre Dame unless they join a power 5 conference.
What if there are some years where the conference champion has multiple losses... say a 7-3 Duke teams upsets an undefeated FSU in the conference title game. I dont mind every power 5 conference getting an auto bid but some years that could be awful
 
I think the committee system is a good one. Computers ARE used, but they're used the way weather models are used by meteorologists-- a useful tool, but one that should be scrutinized and not unconditionally accepted. Should a one-loss Alabama really be #1 over all the unbeaten as two computers have it? Should Baylor (the team with the worst SOS out of all the unbeatens) really be #3 as Sagarin has it?

My biggest worry with the committee systems is that with so few individuals holding all the power, does bribes/corruption become an issue?
 
BCS sucked. The only thing that needs changed is making the playoff bigger so media bias and more fringe teams get in. You shouldn't go undefeated in modern CFB and not get a chance at a championship.
 
What if there are some years where the conference champion has multiple losses... say a 7-3 Duke teams upsets an undefeated FSU in the conference title game. I dont mind every power 5 conference getting an auto bid but some years that could be awful
That's what you get in college basketball. UConn a couple of years ago prime example. Had to win their conference tournament to get into the dance, and now they are the best team in the country after three weeks of good basketball, after 5 months of dog vomit during the season
 
That's what you get in college basketball. UConn a couple of years ago prime example. Had to win their conference tournament to get into the dance, and now they are the best team in the country after three weeks of good basketball, after 5 months of dog vomit during the season

Biggest point though: they had to settle it on the field. All of those teams they beat had the chance to prove they weren't good enough...but couldn't...on the court where it matters.
 
6 teams would be perfect.

Five conference winners and one wild card. Let the committee decide between a second SEC team and Notre Dame in years where they are good. Force their bias to pick a side to man love.

Top two seeds get a free pass to semi finals.
 
You simply can't have anything larger than 8 teams if ever. And sorry, but like in every other sport, the teams that had the better regular seasons don't always get a chance to win a title (think NL central this year perhaps as well as the UConn basketball example above).

The easiest way to do this is to re-align into four super conferences and have two divisions within each. Like another poster said above, the first round is the conference championship game. Then we have the semifinals and somehow seed the final four accordingly.
 
WHO drives the metrics behind the computer analysis? I would rather drive a smaller group of people to accountability. I guess no system is perfect but a field of the power 5 conference winners and 3 wildcard entrees seems logical to me but even with that you will have the politics of the 3 wildcard spots and the seedlings.

yeah, there would certainly be debate about the 3 wildcard spot in that scenario, but at that point if you feel that you got snubbed....tough s**t, win your damned conference and punch your ticket.
 
You simply can't have anything larger than 8 teams if ever. And sorry, but like in every other sport, the teams that had the better regular seasons don't always get a chance to win a title (think NL central this year perhaps as well as the UConn basketball example above).

The easiest way to do this is to re-align into four super conferences and have two divisions within each. Like another poster said above, the first round is the conference championship game. Then we have the semifinals and somehow seed the final four accordingly.

-Signed football teams in FCS, DII, DIII. Hell, every division other than the one we are talking about.
 
-Signed football teams in FCS, DII, DIII. Hell, every division other than the one we are talking about.

Ok, cut the season down to just 11 games total and it would work to expand the playoff. Otherwise, you'd have players playing over Christmas break or all the way into late January. But you're correct it could happen if we got rid of a lot of non-conference games (and the associated revenue, wait?)
 
I think they could more than make up for the lost revenue of a home game with North Texas that nobody cares about with the TV money of a new playoff structure. As long as all the p5 schools got a cut.
 
Ok, cut the season down to just 11 games total and it would work to expand the playoff. Otherwise, you'd have players playing over Christmas break or all the way into late January. But you're correct it could happen if we got rid of a lot of non-conference games (and the associated revenue, wait?)

If the team is in a bowl game in January they are practicing over Christmas break right now anyway, heck there are bowl games on Christmas eve.
 
I know it was flawed in a few ways, but I think the BCS system would still be best for a four team playoff. Why do I say that? Because the computer rankings could give a crap what your "name" is, what your offense looks like, etc....

It just analyzed the available information and gave you their rankings.
I thought the BCS always had 2 of the best 4. It should have been kept and used for seeding the playoff.
 
You simply can't have anything larger than 8 teams if ever. And sorry, but like in every other sport, the teams that had the better regular seasons don't always get a chance to win a title (think NL central this year perhaps as well as the UConn basketball example above).

The easiest way to do this is to re-align into four super conferences and have two divisions within each. Like another poster said above, the first round is the conference championship game. Then we have the semifinals and somehow seed the final four accordingly.
Then you have the situation where the divisions are not equal. Maybe you have the 2 best teams in the conference are in the same division. Maybe even the three best. So then do you rebalance the divisions every year to make sure the 2 best teams in the conference are in different divisions? Every seems pretty sure that the B10 West is somewhat inferior to the East this year. Or any year for that matter.
 
Then you have the situation where the divisions are not equal. Maybe you have the 2 best teams in the conference are in the same division. Maybe even the three best. So then do you rebalance the divisions every year to make sure the 2 best teams in the conference are in different divisions? Every seems pretty sure that the B10 West is somewhat inferior to the East this year. Or any year for that matter.

I'm not sure why this would make a difference. When determining a champion it doesn't matter if the two best teams play week 1, conference championship, or title game. The championship game in sports is not always the two best teams. In an ideal world you would love to see the best teams advance in a bracket perfectly but that will never happen.

With the current alignment I think it has to be a 6 team playoff. 5 major conference champions and 1 at large conference champ, ND can join a conference or watch on TV.
 
There needs to be more computer input. The way the committee thinks (and their bias) will be tempered by the computer.
 
There needs to be more computer input. The way the committee thinks (and their bias) will be tempered by the computer.
 
They simply need to expand the playoffs to 16 teams, The Champions of the power 5 conferences, Notre Dame, One wildcard birth for one of the other flashy offensive teams from the Big 12 and of course 9 SEC teams that Jeff Long get's to choose. The games should all be played on SEC sites because they have the most rabid fan base in the country. Seedings will be based on recruiting rankings, If those are disputed the #1 seed automatically defaults to Alabama because Nick Saban is, Well, Hell he's Nick Saban.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SDHawkDoc
You enlarge the playoff, you put a lot of bowls out of business eventually. I have a feeling that's the ultimate reason why they are limiting this to 4.

Those bowl folks running their own shows I'd think have a lot of pull with the NCAA.

Not sure I buy that.
Why would the detroit crapfest, the idaho freeze your a** off, etc. be any less relevant than they already are?
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT