college football

[Flyingiguana]

to summarize what i wanna see...small 2 game playoff within a conference to determine the final 8. if a team can't get out of their conf, they don't deserve to win a national championship.

 

[imac_21]

hopefully at some point they go with a playoff style system. best thing is create 8 conferences and have the top 2 teams from each play for the conf title. then have an 8 team playoff ranked by bcs standings. or even extend it to top 4 teams instead of 2 for the conf title. so that would put 32 teams in the playoffs.

You mean this piece of crap?

a. It still uses the BCS.

b. What happens if the best team in one conference is 7-4 and another conference has it's 3rd best team at 10-1? Does the 7-4 team deserve a shot at the national title and a 10-1 team doesn't?

Problem not solved.

 

[Flyingiguana]

no it doesn't use the bcs. u have to win your conference or u don't have a chance. it makes the regular season meaningful, but not too meaningful like it is now where one loss can throw you out without a chance at redemption.

alabama would have a chance, just as georgia would. but if lsu can go through a 4 team sec playoff undefeated then they move on. alabama and georgia would have blown their chance while a team in say the big ten still has a shot. not to mention i think michigan could take alabama in a head to head.

so your hypothetical 10-1 team that came 3rd, had the same chance as any other school. they blew it in the first phase of the playoffs.

imo it is the best way to handle 100 or so teams in a league. it's a similar model to what goes on in junior hockey. 3 leagues, 3 champions and a 4th 'host' team that rotates each year.

 

[hunzworth]

I only used godaddy as an example. I don't watch college football. I don't believe in the most important games being played during the regular season. It's dumb if you're a good team and have 1 off day and lose to someone you weren't supposed to kills your chances for a championship. GB won the SB as a wild card. If it were college FB rules they wouldn't have even gotten close to the big game. GB didn't find their rhythm until mid way through the season. You can't just throw out a team because of a single loss. Extremely flawed system.

Doesnt the exact same thing happen just about every year in every sport with a playoff?

 

[imac_21]

no it doesn't use the bcs. u have to win your conference or u don't have a chance. it makes the regular season meaningful, but not too meaningful like it is now where one loss can throw you out without a chance at redemption.

alabama would have a chance, just as georgia would. but if lsu can go through a 4 team sec playoff undefeated then they move on. alabama and georgia would have blown their chance while a team in say the big ten still has a shot. not to mention i think michigan could take alabama in a head to head.

so your hypothetical 10-1 team that came 3rd, had the same chance as any other school. they blew it in the first phase of the playoffs.

imo it is the best way to handle 100 or so teams in a league. it's a similar model to what goes on in junior hockey. 3 leagues, 3 champions and a 4th 'host' team that rotates each year.

It doesn't use the BCS? You said

have an 8 team playoff ranked by bcs standings.

That uses the BCS!!!!!

And the 3rd place 10-1 team didn't qualify for your playoffs. They finished 3rd in their conference. The 7-4 team won their conference though.

Why should 7-4 get a shot at the playoffs, but 10-1 not?

 

[Flyingiguana]

the 10-1 team does get a shot. there is a playoff system for each individual conference. if a team cannot win that first playoff bracket for their conference championship, they do not move on to the next round.

that next round of 8 conference champions IS NOT DETEREMINED BY BCS. i did not say it was.

 

[imac_21]

the 10-1 team does get a shot. there is a playoff system for each individual conference. if a team cannot win that first playoff bracket for their conference championship, they do not move on to the next round.

that next round of 8 conference champions IS NOT DETEREMINED BY BCS. i did not say it was.

yeah, you said the top TWO teams play for the conference title. I said the THIRD place (that's not top 2) is 10-1.

Here,

First place: 11-0
Second place: 10-1
Third place: 10-1

That 3rd team doesn't get in your conference playoff.

You said "then have an 8 team playoff ranked by BCS standing."

How are you going to say that you didn't say that? It's quoted multiple times in here, plus your ORIGINAL post with it is here for all to read.

 

[Jikkle]

I would say the most realistic solution is to take the top 4 BCS teams, do a final 4 with the first rounds being the major bowl games (Orange, Rose, etc), and than the winner of those two games meet for the championship.

Deserving teams would still be left out but obviously there is no perfect solution and I think a Final 4 style of playoffs is a good compromise by having a playoff system that gives a couple more teams a chance but keeping that bowl feel intact.

 

[Flyingiguana]

yeah, you said the top TWO teams play for the conference title. I said the THIRD place (that's not top 2) is 10-1.

Here,

First place: 11-0
Second place: 10-1
Third place: 10-1

That 3rd team doesn't get in your conference playoff.

You said "then have an 8 team playoff ranked by BCS standing."

How are you going to say that you didn't say that? It's quoted multiple times in here, plus your ORIGINAL post with it is here for all to read.

i said top 2 maybe top 4.

note 'ranked by'. bcs standing doesn't determine who gets into the top 8, the teams have to win their conference. then the bcs ranks who is 1, who is 2, who is 3, who is 4, who is 5, who is 6, who is 7 then who is 8. does that spell it out for your little pea-brain?

 

[Flyingiguana]

I would say the most realistic solution is to take the top 4 BCS teams, do a final 4 with the first rounds being the major bowl games (Orange, Rose, etc), and than the winner of those two games meet for the championship.

Deserving teams would still be left out but obviously there is no perfect solution and I think a Final 4 style of playoffs is a good compromise by having a playoff system that gives a couple more teams a chance but keeping that bowl feel intact.

the bowl system is the biggest problem.

 

[imac_21]

I would say the most realistic solution is to take the top 4 BCS teams, do a final 4 with the first rounds being the major bowl games (Orange, Rose, etc), and than the winner of those two games meet for the championship.

Deserving teams would still be left out but obviously there is no perfect solution and I think a Final 4 style of playoffs is a good compromise by having a playoff system that gives a couple more teams a chance but keeping that bowl feel intact.

The main problem people have with the BCS is deserving teams being left out. This doesn't solve that problem.

 

[imac_21]

i said top 2 maybe top 4.

note 'ranked by'. bcs standing doesn't determine who gets into the top 8, the teams have to win their conference. then the bcs ranks who is 1, who is 2, who is 3, who is 4, who is 5, who is 6, who is 7 then who is 8. does that spell it out for your little pea-brain?

Yes it does. You are using the BCS system in your playoffs.

Also, you said maybe top 4. If it's top 2, you have left out a 10-1 team in favour of a 7-4 team.

If it's 4 teams per conference, then what kind of record is the 4th place team going to have in the conference with the 7-4 team?

Your silly plan has more holes in it than the the back wall at a shooting range.

 

[Flyingiguana]

it would give 32 teams a chance at a championship by putting them in a playoff system. there would be no bcs style ranking system saying who has a chance to play for the national championship. the teams determine who makes the playoffs by winning games.

explain to me how that is silly?

 

[Jikkle]

The main problem people have with the BCS is deserving teams being left out. This doesn't solve that problem.

As I noted though there is no solution and there are some deserving teams that will be left out. But just because you can't fully solve the problem doesn't mean you shouldn't come up with a better system.

My reasoning behind the top 4 is:

a) NCAA is never going to drop the bowl system because it's way too much money for them. So by making the first rounds of the playoffs bowl games you still keep that bowl feel and keep everybody happy.

b) By having the first round be bowl games you put together better and more compelling matchups and you build up more hype and discussion and you're more likely to get the causal fan to watch. I mean as a fan would you rather the Fiesta bowl be 9 Oklahoma vs Connecticut or number 1 LSU vs 4 Oklahoma St for a chance to go the championship game?

The system would be good for NCAA's look and especially pockets. And while it won't completely satiate fans it still would make them happier since more deserving teams have a shot at it and the right to have an opportunity to win the championship will feel more earned than given like it is now.

 

[imac_21]

it would give 32 teams a chance at a championship by putting them in a playoff system. there would be no bcs style ranking system saying who has a chance to play for the national championship. the teams determine who makes the playoffs by winning games.

explain to me how that is silly?

I have. Multiple times. But why should I expect you to understand when you say you would use the BCS to seed, then say you wouldn't use the BCS.

As for other silly things:

1. You've created a 5 week playoff system
2. You have done nothing to solve the problem of leaving deserving teams out

So you haven't really solved anything.

 

[imac_21]

As I noted though there is no solution and there are some deserving teams that will be left out. But just because you can't fully solve the problem doesn't mean you shouldn't come up with a better system.

My reasoning behind the top 4 is:

a) NCAA is never going to drop the bowl system because it's way too much money for them. So by making the first rounds of the playoffs bowl games you still keep that bowl feel and keep everybody happy.

b) By having the first round be bowl games you put together better and more compelling matchups and you build up more hype and discussion and you're more likely to get the causal fan to watch. I mean as a fan would you rather the Fiesta bowl be 9 Oklahoma vs Connecticut or number 1 LSU vs 4 Oklahoma St for a chance to go the championship game?

The system would be good for NCAA's look and especially pockets. And while it won't completely satiate fans it still would make them happier since more deserving teams have a shot at it and the right to have an opportunity to win the championship will feel more earned than given like it is now.

The problem is that there are not always 4 deserving teams.

Last year's top 3 were Auburn, Oregon and TCU. The problem lies in that there was no consensus #4. The BCS said Stanford and the AP says Wiconsin. How do you choose the 4th team?

2009 had a consensus top 4, but still left out undefeated Boise State.

2007 had 11-1 OSU at the top, but 2 through 7 were all 2 loss teams, 8 was a 1 loss team and 9 was a 2 loss team. 10 was undefeated.

2006 had 5 1 loss teams in the top 6 with 2 loss LSU at 4.


There's also the 2004 situation with the 3 undefeateds where Auburn was left out. There was a generally accepted considerable drop from 3 to 4, but 4 and 5 were quite close (to the point that there was a new #4 following bowl games).

Basically, it's rare to have a consensus top 4. Much like it's rare to have a consensus top 2.

A top 4 doesn't solve anything. Most years you're either leaving a deserving team out, or including an undeserving one.

If the season ended today, the BCS would put LSU, Bama, Arkansas and Ok State in. Are those the consensus top 4 teams in the country? No, Stanford is #4 in the AP poll.

 

[Flyingiguana]

I have. Multiple times. But why should I expect you to understand when you say you would use the BCS to seed, then say you wouldn't use the BCS.

As for other silly things:

1. You've created a 5 week playoff system
2. You have done nothing to solve the problem of leaving deserving teams out

So you haven't really solved anything.

the bcs doesn't determine who gets to play for the national championship. how is that hard to understand? it has absolutely no bearing on who's in and who's out.

how would any team be left out when 32 teams get into the playoff format? with 4 teams from 8 conferences you would end up with about the same number of bowl games that there is currently.

there has to be some sort of playoff system. because a computer generated power ranking system based on the regular season will always create doubt. playoffs don't create doubt in any sport.

 

[tallglassofwater007]

I don't think a playoff determines the best team, but at least it puts the best against the best in a tournament. And then it's who played the best that day. I don't mind the BCS bowl system really. The only thing is that if you lose late you are penalized far more than if you lose early. But I guess everyone knows that going in.

I'm a USC guy so I will use them for an example. In the past they would lose a game later on so they drop and don't have a chance to get back. Like when they lost to Oregon State with a banged up Sanchez. Ohio State gets in with 1 loss and LSU had 2. Then USC goes and destroys a team in the Rose Bowl so who's to say that they weren't the best team that year?? But like I said...they all know going in that you can't let down late in the year and lose.

 

[Flyingiguana]

how else would you get a true champion without a playoff system?

 

[Rathman44]

i'll go with imac's plan...wait what was that again??

haha, what a hater. lots of complaining but i'm not hearing any solutions.

to say that a playoff system doesn't determine the best team is to ignore the very essence of sports.