defending the BCS

[757Hokie83]

i posed this question on the main board...but so far no one has really answered...so what do you all think...

looking forward to next season, if we do not finish up with 2 undefeateds...which argument will be used to determine the match up? since they like to forget some of these arguments when it is detrimental to the case for the team they want in?

-the entire body of work
-passing the eyeball test
-regular season is the playoff
-other

 

[ckhokie]

You mean who won the SEC?

In all seriousness, I don't see major changes happening. Really, when you look at the past BCS NCG matchups, for the most part, the correct 2 teams were in the game - even if the games weren't close, save maybe Auburn in 04. If we're not going to a playoff or at least a +1 and it really is only going to be 2 teams playing in a final game, the current BCS system isn't that bad.

 

[VT_Football_Fan]

I'd say the entire body of work. In which case LSU is this years NC.

 

[m477hokie]

I agree with you about the whole body of work idea VTFF, but I have to say, when you include the dominance of last night's shutout, Alabama has a better body of work. They eventually shut out the only team they lost to, and no shred of doubt. Btw I hate both of the teams, i'm not a closet alabama fan haha

 

[757Hokie83]

I agree with you about the whole body of work idea VTFF, but I have to say, when you include the dominance of last night's shutout, Alabama has a better body of work. They eventually shut out the only team they lost to, and no shred of doubt. Btw I hate both of the teams, i'm not a closet alabama fan haha

but im talking about selecting who goes to the championship...cant use their performance last night

 

[TheRobotDevil]

You know my stance hokie the human voting system has major flaws.The coaches poll is corrupt due to conflict of interest.The media has their own bias and allegiances as well.I do think body of work should be a major factor and the best way to gauge body of work us the computer poll shock had Okie state second.I am a big fan of bringing in a playoff format but at the very least they need to make things more black and white .Until something is done there are no true champions just a winner of a popularity contest the bcs may as well ditch the crystal ball for a tiara and a sash that says NCAA prom queen.

 

[bigesse16]

You know my stance hokie the human voting system has major flaws.The coaches poll is corrupt due to conflict of interest.The media has their own bias and allegiances as well.I do think body of work should be a major factor and the best way to gauge body of work us the computer poll shock had Okie state second.I am a big fan of bringing in a playoff format but at the very least they need to make things more black and white .Until something is done there are no true champions just a winner of a popularity contest the bcs may as well ditch the crystal ball for a tiara and a sash that says NCAA prom queen.

That's why any system you use cannot be dependent to the polls. Unfortunately, I do not see an alternative, unless we move to super conferences and set up a playoff involving conference champions.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

That's why any system you use cannot be dependent to the polls. Unfortunately, I do not see an alternative, unless we move to super conferences and set up a playoff involving conference champions.

I'm in favor of playoffs or super conferences hell I would even prefer a point system to what they have now the current system is a joke

 

[ACC_HOKIES]

I believe that the BCS NC Game should be the top two conference champions and/or independents based on the entire body of work. To me the "champions" criteria is particularily important, because it is proof positive of accomplishment. To not win your own conference means you DESERVE nothing. The second best conference champion has EARNED the right to be called a "champion." An important point that is often overlooked: "Best" does not always equal "Champion".

Alabama is the MNC under this system, and I will give them their due. We can not and should not punish them for taking advantage of the opportunity they were given. The meaningful discussion for this year ended the moment the matchup was announced.

 

[Hokie200proof]

I've never heard a compelling reason against a 16-team, all D1 conference-inclusive playoff. First two rounds held at higher seed's home field. The semis and final held at the usual BCS spots.

Arguments against that hold no water:
A: The season would be too long (and with that, more kids would get hurt and they would all miss more school).
Rebuttal: The season would only be longer for 16 teams, or to put it another way - less than 15% of the teams that compete in D1A. Even less would be playing more than one extra game only two teams in the country would play a 16 game season. There's also PLENTY of time from conference championship week until the first (and now second or third) week of January when the BCS title game is played to fit in the playoff. As for missing school, football teams wouldn't miss any more school than your average college basketball team. With their travel schedules they miss class all the time, even more so in March.

A: I like the bowls. Playoffs would eliminate bowls.
R: They don't have to. Keep all of the crappy bowls. Hell, even invite the losers from the first two rounds to play in a bowl if you like. This would only eliminate the (already meaningless) major bowls and replace them with a playoff.

A: If you do away with bowls, advertisers, NCAA, school, all involved, etc, would lose money.
R: I don't believe it. How? For starters, you'd be involving mid-majors and lesser-known conference in the BCS picture for the first time. Secondly, you'd be pitting the major conference against each other more often and more directly (assuming the at-large selection committee doesn't just choose 5 teams from the SEC). There would be even greater interest in the semi-final and final games as they would all matter, unlike the current BCS bowls outside of the NC game. Also... most smaller bowls actually COST schools that participate in the end. Even after the payout of the Aloha Bowl, you still had to fly your team, your coaches, your support staff, maybe your band, etc. to freaken Hawaii. So did your fan base.

A: It would make the regular season meaningless.
R: Really? You mean most Hokie fans wouldn't give a crap about beating Miami, UNC, GT, UVgAy, FSU, Clemson, etc, unless it seriously altered our post-season placement? And we wouldn't travel to neutral sites to play Bama, Boise? Those games would matter even more. To even have a chance at going to the playoffs you'd need a nearly perfect season. You can't tell me the season has the same magic after "The Dream is Over Week". A playoff would (maybe) allow you to still compete after one fuck-up.

I believe it speaks for itself, but there's so many people who are used to the same piece of crap bowl season we have that they don't realize that there could be something even greater. Think of it... we could be filling out 16-team brackets in early December. That would be awesome.

 

[bigesse16]

I'm against a playoff that big. For one thing, extending the schedule is a bigger concern than you are making it out to be. Just because it's only a few teams playing in it, most likely, those teams have players most likely to play in the NFL. Playing 1, 2, 3, or 4 more games increases the likelihood for an injury to occur just for that season. If a team is routinely playing in a playoff, then their players could play an extra 16 games (unlikely), but 10 games is not out of reach. That is almost another season played.

I also don't know when you'd schedule the playoff. Bowls are played in the middle of the week because it's better TV ratings than on Saturday and its during the holidays, so most programming is on break. But as we have seen for ourselves, games played during the week are much harder to travel to. And picking location is difficult too because if we can't agree who should play in a game, how are we going to use the same method to pick where the game is supposed to play. What I mean is, if we complain about the #1 and #2 teams playing on a neutral field, why is it fair for the #1 and #2 teams to have homefield advantage? It seems to compound the problem with the polls, if you ask me. I'm sure Oklahoma State and Stanford would love the opportunity to play against LSU and Alabama in a playoff, but not if they had to travel to Tuscaloosa and Baton Rouge. And even after that, are you going to play the semi final game and the championship game on neutral fields? Where and when because that again is alot of travel you'd expect two teams to make during an already expensive time of the year.

I doubt we'll ever see a playoff with more than 8 teams in it.

 

[NickVT10]

The only true way to crown a champ is a playoff. The coaches poll is the worst thing in sports. The AP poll is better than the coaches poll.

 

[ACC_HOKIES]

A post season play off would easily set up the bowls to shift to the beginning of the season (one of your 12 regular season games). I'd argue the ability for sponsors to host games in Boston, New York, Chicago, etc. FAR exceeds what the bowl season currently provides. It would allow every bowl to play lip service to hosting the top teams in the country, and the hype could exceed any current bowl matchup. Remember the hype for the LSU-Oregon, BSU-Georgia, FSU-Oklahoma games? Regardless of how the season turned out, those were epic buildups because we were all back at zero.

Would love a playoff.

 

[bigesse16]

The only true way to crown a champ is a playoff. The coaches poll is the worst thing in sports. The AP poll is better than the coaches poll.

Would you use the polls to pick teams for the playoff? And I disagree on the AP Poll being better. The media knows less about teams than the coaches do, which is pretty sad.

 

[hokiecheme11]

Would you use the polls to pick teams for the playoff? And I disagree on the AP Poll being better. The media knows less about teams than the coaches do, which is pretty sad.

Probably true, but half the time coaches don't even fill out the ballots, the SIDs do. The other half of the time, they're filling them out to further their own agenda

 

[757Hokie83]

Probably true, but half the time coaches don't even fill out the ballots, the SIDs do. The other half of the time, they're filling them out to further their own agenda

this ^

with their own games to prep for, and coach in...i would say the average coach maybe watches 1 other game per week...2 tops, and they are supposed to vote on the top 25? come on

 

[Hokie200proof]

I'm against a playoff that big. For one thing, extending the schedule is a bigger concern than you are making it out to be. Just because it's only a few teams playing in it, most likely, those teams have players most likely to play in the NFL. Playing 1, 2, 3, or 4 more games increases the likelihood for an injury to occur just for that season. If a team is routinely playing in a playoff, then their players could play an extra 16 games (unlikely), but 10 games is not out of reach. That is almost another season played.

I'll respond one at a time. Take away the 12th game that was added a few years back. For the most part, it's a meaningless game as most teams added a D1AA team that they steam-roll. Give it up. So now only the conference champs and 1st-round participants are playing 12 games or more. If a team is routinely playing in the playoffs, the risk for injury is there, but I believe the players and coaches would all agree the risk is far outweighed by the rewards. And still... less than 15% of the whole would be doing this in a given year. Just not a compelling argument.

I also don't know when you'd schedule the playoff. Bowls are played in the middle of the week because it's better TV ratings than on Saturday and its during the holidays, so most programming is on break. But as we have seen for ourselves, games played during the week are much harder to travel to.

I believe they could work this out. The playoff games will already be MUCH higher profile than the Poinsettia Bowl or the Beef O'Brady Bowl, so scheduling Saturday games shouldn't be a problem and should still reap much much higher TV ratings. If you want to have a couple on prime-time Friday night, have at it. The schedule could easily be worked out.

And picking location is difficult too because if we can't agree who should play in a game, how are we going to use the same method to pick where the game is supposed to play. What I mean is, if we complain about the #1 and #2 teams playing on a neutral field, why is it fair for the #1 and #2 teams to have homefield advantage? It seems to compound the problem with the polls, if you ask me. I'm sure Oklahoma State and Stanford would love the opportunity to play against LSU and Alabama in a playoff, but not if they had to travel to Tuscaloosa and Baton Rouge.

The seeding would be determined as it is now - BCS standings. Imperfect? Yes. But answer me this... would Stanford and OSU rather get a shot at Bama and LSU in semi-final, even if it meant playing @ Bama and @ LSU, than playing a meaningless game against each other? Just because the playoff system is in place, that wouldn't mean all controversy is removed. And controversy has its place in sports. It's entertaining. Gives 24-7 sports news something to talk endlessly over. ALSO... in a 16-team playoff, if the seeds worked out as they should, OSU, Stanford, BAMA, LSU would all have two home games against lesser seeds before meeting in the semis on a neutral site. If you're going to complain about the 5th seed being unfairly treated, that's FAR weaker an argument than the 3rd and 4th seed. You still need to draw the line somewhere.

And even after that, are you going to play the semi final game and the championship game on neutral fields? Where and when because that again is alot of travel you'd expect two teams to make during an already expensive time of the year.

Sponsorship. They semis would be held at one of the regular BCS venues - Fiesta, Sugar, Orange, Rose. The bowl locale that wasn't involved (semis and finals is only three games) would get the choice of inviting whomever wasn't in the playoffs (which would give you two teams ranked roughly where Tech and Michigan were) for a meaningless bowl game. The sponsorship for the new system would pay for most of it, if not all of it and more. Yes, the fans would need to pay to be there. I think we could find 50K (and probably thousands more) Hokies who would want to do the semis and the finals if we were there. I think we'd LOVE to have this problem. If we were in the semis and finals so often that we thought two neutral sites were a bit much, we'd be too deliriously happy to notice.

If you're going to do a playoff, I think you NEED to allow the lesser conferences in. Otherwise you're just setting yourself up for a (very warranted) anti-trust lawsuit later.

 

[Chrish1023]

I like the playoff idea, but I'm going to go with a 12 team tournament similar to the NFL where the top 4 teams get buys in the first round.

The 12 team field would be constructed thus:
-6 conference champions of the AQ conferences
-1 non AQ conference champion with the highest BCS standing
-5 at large teams that qualify based on their BCS standing. No conference is permitted to have more than 2 at large teams. No non-AQ conference shall have more than 1 team total.

Seeding:
-Seeds 1-4: The top 4 conference champions seeded based on their relative BCS
standing
-Seeds 5-12: The remaining 8 teams seeded based on their relative BCS standing

I agree with HokieProof in that one OOC game should be eliminated so that the season doesn't go on too long. I don't care what happens to the big BCS bowl games in this playoff system as I'm sure something could be figured out. I also don't think that sponsors and money would be a big concern since there would be more high profile games and the first two rounds of games would be home games so filling the bleachers shouldn't be a problem. Here is how this system would have played out this year.

1) LSU
2) OK State
3) Oregon
4) Wisconsin
5) Alabama
6) Stanford
7) Arkansas
8) Kansas State
9) Virginia Tech
10) Clemson
11) TCU
12) West Virginia

Obviously no system is perfect, but this bracket includes almost all of the teams that should be included. Plus, playoffs are AWESOME

 

[bigesse16]

I'll respond one at a time. Take away the 12th game that was added a few years back. For the most part, it's a meaningless game as most teams added a D1AA team that they steam-roll. Give it up. So now only the conference champs and 1st-round participants are playing 12 games or more. If a team is routinely playing in the playoffs, the risk for injury is there, but I believe the players and coaches would all agree the risk is far outweighed by the rewards. And still... less than 15% of the whole would be doing this in a given year. Just not a compelling argument.

What is the reward for the players? Maybe the glory, but for guys that make the game compelling, the Andrew Lucks, Robert Griffins, Trent Richardsons, etc. all these extra games do is cause a great concern for injury. That is millions of dollars that could be lost for these kids. The majority of the first rounds of the NFL draft will be playing in the playoff. If players are required to wait until their third year, then increasing their workload could severly hurt the product the NCAA is trying to protect on the field. The 15% of college football players in the playoff are the ones that matter the most. They're the ones who make a playoff enticing. By jeopardizing your product, there's a good chance that the game is less fun to watch. If Stanford, Baylor, Oklahoma State, or Alabama lose Luck, Griffin, Blackmon, and Richardson, are fans outside of those programs going to tune in? Maybe the die hard college fans like you and me, but the regular viewer probably won't. Stars have to be protected, even if they are the minority.

I believe they could work this out. The playoff games will already be MUCH higher profile than the Poinsettia Bowl or the Beef O'Brady Bowl, so scheduling Saturday games shouldn't be a problem and should still reap much much higher TV ratings. If you want to have a couple on prime-time Friday night, have at it. The schedule could easily be worked out.

Scheduling a playoff would garner higher ratings than the Beef O'Brady bowl, but would a Saturday game for the Sugar Bowl in the semi final help improve ratings to a Monday or Tuesday game? Maybe, but I think it all depends on the matchup, which is what BCS bowls are killing themselves with tie ins and AQs. If the BCS bowls were allowed to choose who they wanted, then I think the current system would have higher ratings than playoff games on Saturdays. It's the one day of the week that people just don't watch as much TV.

The seeding would be determined as it is now - BCS standings. Imperfect? Yes. But answer me this... would Stanford and OSU rather get a shot at Bama and LSU in semi-final, even if it meant playing @ Bama and @ LSU, than playing a meaningless game against each other? Just because the playoff system is in place, that wouldn't mean all controversy is removed. And controversy has its place in sports. It's entertaining. Gives 24-7 sports news something to talk endlessly over. ALSO... in a 16-team playoff, if the seeds worked out as they should, OSU, Stanford, BAMA, LSU would all have two home games against lesser seeds before meeting in the semis on a neutral site. If you're going to complain about the 5th seed being unfairly treated, that's FAR weaker an argument than the 3rd and 4th seed. You still need to draw the line somewhere.

Stanford and Oklahoma State would want a fair opportunity, not just an opportunity, which you are providing. Stanford and Oklahoma State have not played any similar opponents to LSU and Alabama, but yet they are supposed to travel to their field. I don't see why they should do that.

The NCAA tournament doesn't have opponents travel to Cameron Indoor because they know how unfair that would be. I don't think a line should be drawn for any of these teams because homefield advantage in college football is huge for any team. There's a reason why not many OOC teams are trying to schedule home and homes with VT.

Sponsorship. They semis would be held at one of the regular BCS venues - Fiesta, Sugar, Orange, Rose. The bowl locale that wasn't involved (semis and finals is only three games) would get the choice of inviting whomever wasn't in the playoffs (which would give you two teams ranked roughly where Tech and Michigan were) for a meaningless bowl game. The sponsorship for the new system would pay for most of it, if not all of it and more. Yes, the fans would need to pay to be there. I think we could find 50K (and probably thousands more) Hokies who would want to do the semis and the finals if we were there. I think we'd LOVE to have this problem. If we were in the semis and finals so often that we thought two neutral sites were a bit much, we'd be too deliriously happy to notice.

Travel to two of Arizona, Florida, California, or Louisiana in consecutive weeks during the holidays? Good luck with that.

If you're going to do a playoff, I think you NEED to allow the lesser conferences in. Otherwise you're just setting yourself up for a (very warranted) anti-trust lawsuit later.

So Arkansas State has more of a reason to be in the playoff than Arkansas because they won the Sun Belt? I think it's too difficult to do 16 team playoff for this very reason. We can't please everyone, so is the playoff to reward the best teams for their season or to give everyone a chance? Giving everyone a chance is basically extending the beginning of the season to December. We complained when we played Arkansas State at the beginning of the year, but we want to play them now since they won the Sun Belt? I doubt many sponsors will be thrilled to have to pay for those matchups.

 

[757Hokie83]

I like the playoff idea, but I'm going to go with a 12 team tournament similar to the NFL where the top 4 teams get buys in the first round.

The 12 team field would be constructed thus:
-6 conference champions of the AQ conferences
-1 non AQ conference champion with the highest BCS standing
-5 at large teams that qualify based on their BCS standing. No conference is permitted to have more than 2 at large teams. No non-AQ conference shall have more than 1 team total.

Seeding:
-Seeds 1-4: The top 4 conference champions seeded based on their relative BCS
standing
-Seeds 5-12: The remaining 8 teams seeded based on their relative BCS standing

I agree with HokieProof in that one OOC game should be eliminated so that the season doesn't go on too long. I don't care what happens to the big BCS bowl games in this playoff system as I'm sure something could be figured out. I also don't think that sponsors and money would be a big concern since there would be more high profile games and the first two rounds of games would be home games so filling the bleachers shouldn't be a problem. Here is how this system would have played out this year.

1) LSU
2) OK State
3) Oregon
4) Wisconsin
5) Alabama
6) Stanford
7) Arkansas
8) Kansas State
9) Virginia Tech
10) Clemson
11) TCU
12) West Virginia

Obviously no system is perfect, but this bracket includes almost all of the teams that should be included. Plus, playoffs are AWESOME

i like it. rep