college football

[imac_21]

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.

I never said the BCS was determining who would play for the title. I said you were still using the BCS. For some ridiculous reason you said you weren't.

Well, there are more than 32 teams in college football. There are approximately 120 teams in div 1. So to ask how any team would be left out is silly. You're leaving 88 teams out.

But let's play this out. You have 120 teams in 8 divisions. That creates eight 15 team conferences.

So the first thing you've done is created a situation where teams will not play everyone in their conference. This means you could have a situation where 5 or more teams have 2 losses and you need a tie breaker. What if you have an undefeated team, two 1 loss teams and four 2-loss teams, but the 2 loss teams didn't all play each other? How do you decide who doesn't make it?

Furthermore, what if one conference finishes as outlined above, but another conference is much tighter? Say Conference B has its best team at 8-3 and it's 4th place team is 6-5. That conference will have 4 teams in the 32-team round that have worse records than a team in Conference A that didn't qualify.

On an aside, I assume you stick to the 11 game season, so no team will play it's entire conference. Will teams play outside their conference? If they will, then that's even less conference games for them. If they play all 11 games within the conference, then the BCS ranking for teams that qualify for your 8-team playoff are pointless because no teams will have common opponents.

Maybe the 8-3 team in Conference B, or even the 6-5 team, is better than the 11-0 team in Conference A. With no teams playing outside the conference, we'd never know. Who was better in 1993: The New York Yankees or the Atlanta Braves? Both finished second in their division, the team that beat them in the division played in the World Series. Can we say which of those teams is better? You've created the same situation.

So what you have done, is taken a situation that leaves 1, maybe 2 teams upset and created one where 20 teams can be complaining about the system.

Also, how do you create your conferences? Are they regional?

 

[imac_21]

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.

Does it really put the best against the best? Did that happen in March Madness last year with the UConn vs Butler final?

 

[Flyingiguana]

15 team confs with 2 divisions, much similar to how some confs are now. teams play within their division. tie breakers determined by games outside of their conf, etc.

if a team cannot come top 2 in their div (which makes 4 teams per conf going to a conf playoff), they do not deserve a chance at the national title. looking at this year. lsu and alabama would most likely make it in with arkansas out. is arkansas better than most other teams? absolutely, but they're not top 8 material, which is the ultimate goal

 

[imac_21]

15 team confs with 2 divisions, much similar to how some confs are now. teams play within their division. tie breakers determined by games outside of their conf, etc.

if a team cannot come top 2 in their div (which makes 4 teams per conf going to a conf playoff), they do not deserve a chance at the national title. looking at this year. lsu and alabama would most likely make it in with arkansas out. is arkansas better than most other teams? absolutely, but they're not top 8 material, which is the ultimate goal

So each conference will have unbalanced divisions. Perfect. You have a 7 team division and an 8 team division.

And now it's top 2 in each division? So let's look at the SEC West this year. Well, the top 3 teams in the country are all in the same division. If the season were to end today, you would be leaving #3 Arkansas out in favour of #12 South Carolina.

I'd go on, but your system is leaving the 3rd best team in the country out of a playoff system that incorporates 32 teams. Somehow I'm supposed to accept that this is better because the team's that deserve a chance to win, get that opportunity.

Actually, I will go on. Using the big conferences (SEC, Big 10, Big 12, PAC 12, ACC, Big East) you have left out Arkansas in favour of 3-loss Baylor, 5-loss Wake Forest, 3-loss Virginia, 3-loss Rutgers, 3-loss Louisville, 3-loss Cincinatti, 5-loss UCLA, 2-loss Michigan, 2-loss Oregon, 2-loss Wisconsin, 2-loss Penn State and depending on the conference they go in 3-loss ND and 3-loss BYU.

Nice, fair system. You're using the exact same reason for justifying your horrible system as the BCS has used to justify it's system.

You also forgot to explain how you would determine your conferences. I'm assuming you'd do it regionally.

BTW, you said Arkansas isn't top 8 material, but you're excluding them from the top 32. Is Rutgers top 32 material but Arkansas not? How do we know Arkansas is not top 8 material? What happens if they win against LSU? Then LSU could drop to 3rd in the division. Is LSU not worthy of your system if they lose to Arkansas? Is Alabama not worthy of your top 32?

 

[h-hour]

Without looking back through too many posts on this, the way I'd like to see the playoff system set up is to use the formula used now and take the top 32in the nation and go from there.

If that means leaving out the MAC champion or the Sun Belt champion then so be it. I could even see doing something where teams ranked 33-48 have a NIT style playoff.

 

[imac_21]

Without looking back through too many posts on this, the way I'd like to see the playoff system set up is to use the formula used now and take the top 32in the nation and go from there.

If that means leaving out the MAC champion or the Sun Belt champion then so be it. I could even see doing something where teams ranked 33-48 have a NIT style playoff.

That's a 5 week tournament. When does it start? Does the team at 32 really warrant a spot? That team would be Northern Illinois right now. Is there really a point in them playing LSU?

 

[Rathman44]

That's a 5 week tournament. When does it start? Does the team at 32 really warrant a spot? That team would be Northern Illinois right now. Is there really a point in them playing LSU?

i'd go with a 16 team (bcs ranked but with no automatic conference bid) tourney. that's a 4 game tourney. same amount of playoff games as nfl teams (minus the bye teams of course). tons of money, more games, play for the right to earn the championship against the best. simple and feasible. make each playoff game a bowl game, while rotating the final 4 and elite games around amongst the major bowls (rose, orange, fiesta, etc). i might actually watch some of those bowls now...

btw, i'm still waiting on a suggestion from you imac... do you want to keep the system as is??? or do you like just ripping on everyone else's ideas rather than coming up with an idea of your own? i'm honestly curious as to what you think needs to happen. it'd be more interesting than listening to you bitch about others' ideas.

 

[Flyingiguana]

So each conference will have unbalanced divisions. Perfect. You have a 7 team division and an 8 team division.

And now it's top 2 in each division? So let's look at the SEC West this year. Well, the top 3 teams in the country are all in the same division. If the season were to end today, you would be leaving #3 Arkansas out in favour of #12 South Carolina.

I'd go on, but your system is leaving the 3rd best team in the country out of a playoff system that incorporates 32 teams. Somehow I'm supposed to accept that this is better because the team's that deserve a chance to win, get that opportunity.

Actually, I will go on. Using the big conferences (SEC, Big 10, Big 12, PAC 12, ACC, Big East) you have left out Arkansas in favour of 3-loss Baylor, 5-loss Wake Forest, 3-loss Virginia, 3-loss Rutgers, 3-loss Louisville, 3-loss Cincinatti, 5-loss UCLA, 2-loss Michigan, 2-loss Oregon, 2-loss Wisconsin, 2-loss Penn State and depending on the conference they go in 3-loss ND and 3-loss BYU.

Nice, fair system. You're using the exact same reason for justifying your horrible system as the BCS has used to justify it's system.

You also forgot to explain how you would determine your conferences. I'm assuming you'd do it regionally.

BTW, you said Arkansas isn't top 8 material, but you're excluding them from the top 32. Is Rutgers top 32 material but Arkansas not? How do we know Arkansas is not top 8 material? What happens if they win against LSU? Then LSU could drop to 3rd in the division. Is LSU not worthy of your system if they lose to Arkansas? Is Alabama not worthy of your top 32?

if arkansas cannot beat lsu or alabama they do not deserve a shot at the top 8. there will be years where a seattle seahawks type get in, but that's the way it goes. the big east is extremely weak and the sec is stacked. let the teams within the division battle it out during the season, then battle it out in their conference.

that means one team gets out of the sec and they would get the 1st seed based on bcs rankings. most likely playing a team that was weak during the season, like the big east champion. assuming notre dame is in the big east it could end up being notre dame or some cinderela story from another conference. the sec team would crush notre dame or a similar team anyways imo.

there isn't going to be a perfect system. but a playoff system where teams need to win within their conference is the best way to handle a 100 team league.

David Shaw of Stanford Cardinal says BCS is 'flawed' - ESPN

i agree that it is flawed as the article states. basically with my playoff system you would end up with a number of excellent storylines before u even get into the top 8

acc: virginia tech should end up playing clemson
big 12: wide open between 4 teams, and those teams have the offense to beat an sec team
big east: a joke, possibly notre dame would get out if they joined it
big ten: i think michigan is the best of the bunch and would be a nightmare to play against robinson
pac 12: i consider this to be a poor mans big 12. good offenses, but doubt they could take an sec team down
sec: sec west is a 3 horse race
then u have the wac and the mac and all the other conferences that would round of the above divisions. tcu and boise look like the only decent ones, but neither really even have a shot at the bcs under the current format.

 

[imac_21]

i'd go with a 16 team (bcs ranked but with no automatic conference bid) tourney. that's a 4 game tourney. same amount of playoff games as nfl teams (minus the bye teams of course). tons of money, more games, play for the right to earn the championship against the best. simple and feasible. make each playoff game a bowl game, while rotating the final 4 and elite games around amongst the major bowls (rose, orange, fiesta, etc). i might actually watch some of those bowls now...

btw, i'm still waiting on a suggestion from you imac... do you want to keep the system as is??? or do you like just ripping on everyone else's ideas rather than coming up with an idea of your own? i'm honestly curious as to what you think needs to happen. it'd be more interesting than listening to you bitch about others' ideas.

That system makes a degree of sense, but I think the bowls would be strongly against it. I don't know that the Rose for example would want to give up its ties to the PAC 12 and Big 10. I also think the big bowls would be reluctant to take such a back seat. They all happen in week 1 of the playoffs if I understand you correctly. The season continues for about another month after that.

I don't have a big issue with the current system. Of course it can be improved, but I don't think it's nearly as bad as most seem to think. I also don't think any playoff system that I have run across solves the major beefs people have with the BCS.

If someone wants to fix the system, and is going to make all kinds of noise about how wrong the BCS is for college football, they should have a workable fix. When the proposed fixes are as hole-filled as the ones I have seen (not just here, but everywhere) don't fix the holes people complain about.

Flyingiguana has presented a system that puts 32 teams in the playoffs. None of those 32 teams are Arkansas, who is currently ranked 3rd in the country.

 

[imac_21]

if arkansas cannot beat lsu or alabama they do not deserve a shot at the top 8. there will be years where a seattle seahawks type get in, but that's the way it goes. the big east is extremely weak and the sec is stacked. let the teams within the division battle it out during the season, then battle it out in their conference.

that means one team gets out of the sec and they would get the 1st seed based on bcs rankings. most likely playing a team that was weak during the season, like the big east champion. assuming notre dame is in the big east it could end up being notre dame or some cinderela story from another conference. the sec team would crush notre dame or a similar team anyways imo.

there isn't going to be a perfect system. but a playoff system where teams need to win within their conference is the best way to handle a 100 team league.

David Shaw of Stanford Cardinal says BCS is 'flawed' - ESPN

i agree that it is flawed as the article states. basically with my playoff system you would end up with a number of excellent storylines before u even get into the top 8

acc: virginia tech should end up playing clemson
big 12: wide open between 4 teams, and those teams have the offense to beat an sec team
big east: a joke, possibly notre dame would get out if they joined it
big ten: i think michigan is the best of the bunch and would be a nightmare to play against robinson
pac 12: i consider this to be a poor mans big 12. good offenses, but doubt they could take an sec team down
sec: sec west is a 3 horse race
then u have the wac and the mac and all the other conferences that would round of the above divisions. tcu and boise look like the only decent ones, but neither really even have a shot at the bcs under the current format.

If Arkansas doesn't get in, and UCLA does, your system sucks. It's that simple.

And now you're promoting storylines? Shouldn't the system be about getting the best teams on the big stage?

I'm still waiting for you to outline your 8 conferences.

 

[Flyingiguana]

why the heck would i go that far? i got better things to do than to aline 100 teams into divisions.

the whole point is to determine the best team. if a team cannot win their conference of 15, they do not deserve to move on. if ucla can beat 2 of stanford, usc or oregon in the pac12 playoffs then they deserve a shot since they earned it. that's 3 top 25 teams above ucla with 2 being top 10.

basically u can think of it as a series of conf championships with an added bonus where each conf sends their best to compete for the national championship.

 

[imac_21]

why the heck would i go that far? i got better things to do than to aline 100 teams into divisions.

the whole point is to determine the best team. if a team cannot win their conference of 15, they do not deserve to move on. if ucla can beat 2 of stanford, usc or oregon in the pac12 playoffs then they deserve a shot since they earned it. that's 3 top 25 teams above ucla with 2 being top 10.

basically u can think of it as a series of conf championships with an added bonus where each conf sends their best to compete for the national championship.

I'm not asking for each team in that would be in each conference. I want to know if it's regional, based on current conferences or what. Will you at least attempt to balance the strength of conferences to try to avoid the catastrophe of taking UCLA over Arkansas this year?

If the point is to determine the best team, you don't take a team not in the top 25 over a team in the top 3. It's that simple. Taking UCLA over Arkansas is a worse system than the BCS. Defending that system is retarded.

 

[Flyingiguana]

well that is how it goes. a ranking system is flawed. it is better for the teams to play. if arkansas cannot beat lsu and alabama, then they're out. there will always be years where one team gets in because of a weak division.

are u saying the nfl should use a ranking system?

 

[imac_21]

well that is how it goes. a ranking system is flawed. it is better for the teams to play. if arkansas cannot beat lsu and alabama, then they're out. there will always be years where one team gets in because of a weak division.

are u saying the nfl should use a ranking system?

I'm not saying anything about the NFL. I'm saying your system, where the 3rd best team in the country doesn't get in to a tournament for 32 teams is seriously flawed.

 

[Flyingiguana]

the actual tournament is 8 teams.

the 32 teams is conf championships. some years there will be a certain division with say 3 good teams. one team gets left out because they were outplayed within their division.

with the current system, arkansas is out. as is other teams with 1 loss. is alabama better than oklahoma state? are they better than virginia tech? heck, can they even beat boise or tcu? at least with my conf playoff system those questions do not go unanswered.

 

[imac_21]

the actual tournament is 8 teams.

the 32 teams is conf championships. some years there will be a certain division with say 3 good teams. one team gets left out because they were outplayed within their division.

with the current system, arkansas is out. as is other teams with 1 loss. is alabama better than oklahoma state? are they better than virginia tech? heck, can they even beat boise or tcu? at least with my conf playoff system those questions do not go unanswered.

Is Arkansas better than Oklahoma State? Are they better than Virginia Tech? Can they beat Boise or TCU?

In your stupid system those questions remain unanswered.

Also, we won't find out if Bama can beat those teams. We may only find out if they can beat one of them.

Bama may not make your tournament. They would have to beat LSU.

So you've got a tournament that doesn't let the 3rd best team in the country play in the final 32, and excludes two of the best 3 from the final 8.

Well done. You solved the BCS issue in the most idiotic way imaginable. I honestly don't think anyone could come up with a worse system without trying to fuck everything up.

 

[Flyingiguana]

if alabama or arkansas cannot beat lsu to win the sec, then they aren't national champions. if lsu goes on to lose then they're just nothing more than regular season material. i think lsu and bama lack the offense to take a big 12 team. arkansas is not on the same level as lsu or bama. they'll be a 2 loss team after friday and won't be #3.

if u think my system is bad then u must think every pro league in north america has a bad way to determine the best team.

 

[Flyingiguana]

to add one more thing.

currently, arkansas doesn't have a chance to play for the national championship at #3.

 

[imac_21]

I think your system is horrible. I also think it's quite different from other leagues. Unless you're aware of a league that has 8 different conferences or divisions and only allows the first place team from each of those divisions into the playoffs.

You're allowing 8 of 120 teams into the playoffs. Baseball allows 8 of 30, NFL allows 12 of 32, NHL and NBA each allow 16.

Don't compare your silly system to other sports. The only one that comes close is MLB, which has been talking about adding another wild card to each league.

 

[Hangman]

I hate the current BCS. They need to improve the formula that determines rank. How, I don't know, but I am sure some smart statisticians know what to do to improve it.