PDA

View Full Version : The Problem With the BCS


yourfavestoner
09-07-2010, 10:45 AM
This is something my friend and I were discussing while watching the Boise/Va Tech game yesterday.

The computers get blamed for nearly all of the BCS rankings problems. After all, how can a computer fairly judge all 117 eligible schools and determine who deserves to play in what game?

I say the opposite. How can we let incredibly biased media members and coaches have such an influential impact on the rankings and determine who plays in what game? The computers have no favorites. They may have different formulas, but each team is judged without bias, emotion, or how much attention they've received or how many times they've had televised games.

After USC complained their way into an AP National Championship (of which LSU was robbed, BTW. But hey, at least they won the game that mattered and got the crystal trophy), the media members and coaches used it as a launching point to have the BCS formula rewritten in order to more heavily weigh the human vote.

None of these voters watch every game, every weekend. Very few, if any, vote impartially (especially coaches, whose best interests are with their TEAM and not with being a fair voter). What games they choose to watch heavily factor in on where they place a team.

So what do you guys think? We're unlikely to get a playoff system anytime soon, and nobody seems satisfied with the current system? How could we make it better?

I say eliminate the preseason poll completely. There's no need to even start ranking teams until October, at the earliest. Also, I'm still ok with the coach and media polls, but I think they should have a much, much smaller influence in the BCS formula than the computer rankings.

FUNBUNCHER
09-07-2010, 11:11 AM
Totally agree that teams should not be officially ranked until later in the season.

Smooth Criminal
09-07-2010, 11:19 AM
The only reasonable solution is a playoff, that is the only way to make sure ensure that every team gets a shot at the title.

I'd keep the polls, take the top 8 and seed them into a playoff bracket. Sure, making the finals would have kids playing 2 extra games, but thats more money for the greedy bastards so they should like it.

It makes it fair for everyone, and gives even more significance to running the table in the playoffs after surviving the regular season. And it doesn't really diminish the regular season much because it is still very difficult to finish the regular season in the top 8.

Since they want to be stubborn for whatever reason, keep it how it is. I like the computer's level of involvment, because they humans can take into account factors the computer doesn't.

And I don't mind the preseason rankings, as long as they're fluid. Theres no reason Bama should be #1 until they lose just because they started #1. The preseason rankings are just to create hype and get hits before college season starts.

P-L
09-07-2010, 12:46 PM
Exactly, the computers are so much less biased than the human voters. The fact that we can possibly have three or four deserving title contenders and only two are chosen, mostly based on who a bunch of guys who only watch one or two games per week want to see play.

Halsey
09-07-2010, 12:51 PM
The computers starting coming under fire because the media wanted 11-1 USC to be in the Title game over 12-1 LSU and OU a few years ago. The problem wasn't the computers. They simply picked 12-1 teams over an 11-1 team.

Smooth Criminal
09-07-2010, 01:33 PM
The computers starting coming under fire because the media wanted 11-1 USC to be in the Title game over 12-1 LSU and OU a few years ago. The problem wasn't the computers. They simply picked 12-1 teams over an 11-1 team.

Sucks for USC, the Pac 10 should have had a title game and is moving to having one.

TACKLE
09-07-2010, 01:46 PM
Totally agree YFS. I think the coaches poll is every bit as the media poll. Not only their bias towards their own team, but their ignorance (of other teams). I mean how closely Urban Meyer paying attention to how Iowa is doing, or how closely is Joe Paterno following TCU? How can we expect the coaches to be able to make the most educated national rankings when their job is focus almost exclusively on the teams on their schedule? The reality is we can't.

Smooth Criminal
09-07-2010, 01:51 PM
I've read alot of coaches just have an assistant do the poll anyway. The human polls are very biased. If we went to a more computer oriented poll it would make strength of schedule more relevant.

hockey619
09-07-2010, 02:20 PM
There are a million reasons to go back and forth on this, so ill just bullet everything and just skim it quick:

8 team playoff: what if there are two or three teams vying for that last spot? someone is still gettin screwed. bowls get screwed up and possibly slightly less money comes in (why theyre so scared to do it). absurd thought that the regular season will become less important.

My solution: A Flexible Playoff

How it works: After the last weekend of the season, while taking computer polls and people polls into account, a committee meets (idk who, someone can help fill this in) and decides on the number of teams who are vying for the National Title
1) an undefeated team is in the playoff. no ifs ands or butts
2) the committee votes on how many teams should be in (the USC/Texas Bush/Young year would be just two for example because they were the only two undefeateds and were clearly and visibly head and shoulders above the competition)
3) 8 teams is the MAX. if its six, top two teams according to the computers get a bye. if its 8 teams, allow one weekend of no NC tourney games so the players can take finals. 4 teams just plays out over two or three weeks (to allow teams rest)
4) if two+ teams have the same record, points allowed while playing the top 4 teams on their schedule is the tie breaker (to not encourage running up the score or discourage teams from playing their backups in blowouts against crap teams). strength of schedule could be the second tiebreaker to encourage teams to actually challenge themselves.
5) teams not involved in the tourney play bowl games as usual.


Im sure im missing some of the finer points but i can add them.

But what do you all think?

JoeJoeBrown
09-07-2010, 02:24 PM
I could rant for days on this. The system is broken and will only be fixed with a playoff.

Sometime in the not too distant future, the conferences will control the playoff, as there will be something like 4 conferences of 16 teams. Each winner plays for the NC. The rest of the schlub teams will be left to whine.

Conferences will slowly add schlub teams if they prove themselves worthy, leading to unbalanced conferences. Whoopidee doo.

Look for the first step to happen after the Big12 completely implodes.

Smooth Criminal
09-07-2010, 02:35 PM
There are a million reasons to go back and forth on this, so ill just bullet everything and just skim it quick:

8 team playoff: what if there are two or three teams vying for that last spot? someone is still gettin screwed. bowls get screwed up and possibly slightly less money comes in (why theyre so scared to do it). absurd thought that the regular season will become less important.

My solution: A Flexible Playoff

How it works: After the last weekend of the season, while taking computer polls and people polls into account, a committee meets (idk who, someone can help fill this in) and decides on the number of teams who are vying for the National Title
1) an undefeated team is in the playoff. no ifs ands or butts
2) the committee votes on how many teams should be in (the USC/Texas Bush/Young year would be just two for example because they were the only two undefeateds and were clearly and visibly head and shoulders above the competition)
3) 8 teams is the MAX. if its six, top two teams according to the computers get a bye. if its 8 teams, allow one weekend of no NC tourney games so the players can take finals. 4 teams just plays out over two or three weeks (to allow teams rest)
4) if two+ teams have the same record, points allowed while playing the top 4 teams on their schedule is the tie breaker (to not encourage running up the score or discourage teams from playing their backups in blowouts against crap teams). strength of schedule could be the second tiebreaker to encourage teams to actually challenge themselves.
5) teams not involved in the tourney play bowl games as usual.


Im sure im missing some of the finer points but i can add them.

But what do you all think?

Way I look at it is if there is an 8 team playoff and you allow yourself to be close and miss out its probably your own fault. Not like were ever gonna see 9 teams go undefeated and have one really get screwed.

P-L
09-07-2010, 02:43 PM
Way I look at it is if there is an 8 team playoff and you allow yourself to be close and miss out its probably your own fault. Not like were ever gonna see 9 teams go undefeated and have one really get screwed.
Exactly. We've seen three teams make a case for a national championship. Hell, last year we saw four. You might even argue five or six (the LSU/OSU year). However, we've never seen nine teams with a legitimate national championship case.

JHL6719
09-07-2010, 02:44 PM
This is something my friend and I were discussing while watching the Boise/Va Tech game yesterday.

The computers get blamed for nearly all of the BCS rankings problems. After all, how can a computer fairly judge all 117 eligible schools and determine who deserves to play in what game?

I say the opposite. How can we let incredibly biased media members and coaches have such an influential impact on the rankings and determine who plays in what game? The computers have no favorites. They may have different formulas, but each team is judged without bias, emotion, or how much attention they've received or how many times they've had televised games.

After USC complained their way into an AP National Championship (of which LSU was robbed, BTW. But hey, at least they won the game that mattered and got the crystal trophy), the media members and coaches used it as a launching point to have the BCS formula rewritten in order to more heavily weigh the human vote.

None of these voters watch every game, every weekend. Very few, if any, vote impartially (especially coaches, whose best interests are with their TEAM and not with being a fair voter). What games they choose to watch heavily factor in on where they place a team.

So what do you guys think? We're unlikely to get a playoff system anytime soon, and nobody seems satisfied with the current system? How could we make it better?

I say eliminate the preseason poll completely. There's no need to even start ranking teams until October, at the earliest. Also, I'm still ok with the coach and media polls, but I think they should have a much, much smaller influence in the BCS formula than the computer rankings.



The problem with the BCS is that TWICE already teams have played in the national championship game that didn't even win their own conference...

Both times it was Big-12 teams getting in that didn't even win the Big-12 conference...

The computers won't be influenced by all the hype from the media... only the media voters... SOS will always win out in the end...

I believe the computer had undefeated Boise rated the same as 10-3 Oregon last year...

Smooth Criminal
09-07-2010, 02:47 PM
Exactly. We've seen three teams make a case for a national championship. Hell, last year we saw four. You might even argue five or six (the LSU/OSU year). However, we've never seen nine teams with a legitimate national championship case.

The LSU OSU year was crap. I still can't believe OSU lost to Illinois and got put in a title game, basically just because of the market.

Smooth Criminal
09-07-2010, 02:49 PM
I believe the computer had undefeated Boise rated the same as 10-3 Oregon last year...

Then its definitely in everyone best interest to have a strong schedule, which should only go to further improve college football.

MiWolves
09-07-2010, 04:49 PM
Well... while a playoff system seems ideal but, we have to realize that these athletes are still students at the same time. The games will basically rape them scholarly.

Smooth Criminal
09-07-2010, 06:03 PM
Well... while a playoff system seems ideal but, we have to realize that these athletes are still students at the same time. The games will basically rape them scholarly.

These playoff games would be during their christmas breaks, time they typically have off anyway.

Sniper
09-07-2010, 06:24 PM
Well... while a playoff system seems ideal but, we have to realize that these athletes are still students at the same time. The games will basically rape them scholarly.

Seems to work out well for every other level.

descendency
09-07-2010, 06:30 PM
While they might be biased, Media members can look at that game last night and determine that Boise State just wasn't impressive in their win. It looked more like VT just f***ed themselves for a quarter and then Boise St didn't even look like they belonged. VT outscored Boise by 2TDs after giving up 17 (and should have given up more had it not been for great defensive play the first screwup)

I actually like the BCS the way it is, but think there needs to be some improvements. If anything, I think there should be big penalties for teams who play non-BCS teams or "teams not likely to be worth anything".

edit: It's hard to quantify "impressive" without legitimizing "running up the score"

LSU doesn't need to play Louisana Lafeyette. Nor does Ohio State need to play Toledo, nor does USC need to play San Jose State. Those games could be Florida, Texas, Boston College.

phlysac
09-07-2010, 08:12 PM
Somethings not right with the human element if two closely matched and Top-25 teams play a competetive game that goes into overtime with the home team winning.The losing team drops completely out of the rankings.

Meanwhile an unranked team beats up on an FCS school and moves into the Top-25.

What incentive is there for a team to play a tough non-conference schedule when defeating cupcakes has nearly as much reward and far, far, far less risk?

JHL6719
09-07-2010, 08:48 PM
Somethings not right with the human element if two closely matched and Top-25 teams play a competetive game that goes into overtime with the home team winning.The losing team drops completely out of the rankings.

Meanwhile an unranked team beats up on an FCS school and moves into the Top-25.

What incentive is there for a team to play a tough non-conference schedule when defeating cupcakes has nearly as much reward and far, far, far less risk?


I don't know... How the hell did Alabama lose 7 first place votes after beating up on a cupcake? One of Boise's cupcakes to be exact... that everyone is so impressed by them beating every year. I would love to know what those 7 media voters saw in week one that prompted them to believe that Boise was more deserving of the #1 ranking than Bama...

All Bama did was skull **** one of Boise's conference cupcakes with backups and 3rd stringers from the 2nd quarter on....

Meanwhile, VT after spotting Boise 17 points and taking their best shot, STILL almost won the game... and we can sit here and talk all night about one play here or one play there that would've done it...

AntoinCD
09-08-2010, 04:53 AM
I think realistically any system that is put in place will be flawed in some way. I like the idea of an 8 team playoff the best but there will still be problems.

Will the playoffs be seeded?

Does 8 play 1, 7 play 2 etc. Because if so then there will still be the problem with the seedings being biased. Last year a lot of people argued that either TCU or Boise should have been number 2 but they ended up 3 and 4, meaning in essence they would face better teams in the playoff structure than Texas who ended up ranked 2.

The last spots in will also be based off biased systems.

While we can all agree that there is a minimal chance of there being more than 8 legitimate national championship contenders, it is harder to argue that teams from aroung 6-10 are easily separated. For example if there are 4 undefeated teams, four one loss teams and two 2 loss teams in the top ten it may seem easy to leave out the two 2 loss teams. But would, for instance, one loss Miami be in the playoff over 2 loss LSU?

As long as there is a poll of media, coaches etc the chance of the end result being biased will always be there and may not be resolved.

diabsoule
09-08-2010, 01:20 PM
I agree that the preseason poll should be eliminated and would go so far as to eliminate a coaches poll. The coaches of all of these teams have so much more on their plates than to sit down and rank teams without showing some kind of bias for their own.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
09-08-2010, 01:27 PM
I think realistically any system that is put in place will be flawed in some way. I like the idea of an 8 team playoff the best but there will still be problems.

Will the playoffs be seeded?

Does 8 play 1, 7 play 2 etc. Because if so then there will still be the problem with the seedings being biased. Last year a lot of people argued that either TCU or Boise should have been number 2 but they ended up 3 and 4, meaning in essence they would face better teams in the playoff structure than Texas who ended up ranked 2.

If they're the best team in the nation, that won't matter.


The last spots in will also be based off biased systems.

While we can all agree that there is a minimal chance of there being more than 8 legitimate national championship contenders, it is harder to argue that teams from aroung 6-10 are easily separated. For example if there are 4 undefeated teams, four one loss teams and two 2 loss teams in the top ten it may seem easy to leave out the two 2 loss teams. But would, for instance, one loss Miami be in the playoff over 2 loss LSU?

As long as there is a poll of media, coaches etc the chance of the end result being biased will always be there and may not be resolved.

I'd much rather see the 9th place team get left out than the 3rd place team.

BuddyCHRIST
09-08-2010, 01:28 PM
The whole idea of the coaches poll mattering a joke, these guys dont pay attention to everyone. They might glance at a couple box scores but its basically just about whether or not you win.

MidwayMonster31
09-08-2010, 01:41 PM
The biggest problem I have with the coaches poll is that there are way too many agendas. Conferences make more money by having 2 BCS teams instead of 1. There is more reason for the Vanderbilts, Iowa States, Indianas and Washington States of the world to vote higher for their conferences. Coaches have better things to do than to decide who's better between 24 and 25.
As far as the computers go, it's the only way to really use an objective ranking, so I don't have much of a problem with it.
I also don't like preseason rankings. It gives teams a completely unnecessary inside track based on how they did the year before. This applies to Boise State this year. The biggest example of this was 2004-2005 when USC and Oklahoma held on to #1 and #2 the entire year. Auburn never had a chance that year. Another one was 2006, the only reason Notre Dame got into the BCS was because they were #2 to start the year.
I would prefer an 8 team playoff. The first round can be home field, the semifinals and NC can be on a neutral site.

BeerBaron
09-08-2010, 01:48 PM
Assuming a playoff system isn't going to happen, here are a few things I'd do to try and fix the current system.

1.) No coaches poll, no media poll, no computers. Assemble a committee like they do for the NCAA Basketball tournament, have them analyze as thoroughly as possible all of the weekends' games, and then rank the teams appropriately.

2.) No rankings until at least 1/3 of the way into the season...preferably even halfway through the season.

3.) Teams are no longer allowed to play 1-AA teams. All opponents must be 1-A schools.

4.) At least one game a year will be an out of conference game determined by the previous years results. Now, what do I mean? Think of the NFL....you play your division 6 games, one other division in your conference 2 home/2 away, then one division from the other conference 2 home/2 away. That leaves 2 games that you play against the teams who placed in their division where you placed in yours the previous season. So, for the NCAA, what I'd do is have the conferences rotate which other conference they play, and have the top 6 teams in each from the previous year play the team that placed in the same spot in the other conference. For example, one year it could be Big 10 vs. Pac 10. The team who won the Big 10 will play a neutral field game vs. the team who won the Pac 10. The 2nd places would also do the same...and so forth. It can end after the top 6 or so to make up for the conferences not all having the same amount of teams. This way, every team will face at least one reasonable opponent of relatively equal talent level every year out of their conference.

5.) Ya know what? **** it.....teams are no longer in charge of making their own schedules period. Have it handled by a scheduling committee like pro sports do.

6.) Once Boise is in the Mountain West, that conference gets an automatic bid.

Just a few ideas that I think would ease it up....

JRTPlaya21
09-08-2010, 03:59 PM
Bravo my friend! Bravo.

JHL6719
09-08-2010, 06:49 PM
I agree that the preseason poll should be eliminated and would go so far as to eliminate a coaches poll. The coaches of all of these teams have so much more on their plates than to sit down and rank teams without showing some kind of bias for their own.


Saban voted Ohio St. #1 with his preseason coaches vote...

keylime_5
09-08-2010, 07:08 PM
if they did a playoff and the conference champs got an automatic spot, then the only thing left to human voters would be the at-large teams and if they seeded teams. The conference champs I assume would get seeds and they could do a draw like the world cup does to take away the human component in the matchups. That would have less human voting factor than the BCS ever would. That said I am not that big a fan of having a playoff in college football.

keylime_5
09-08-2010, 07:08 PM
Saban voted Ohio St. #1 with his preseason coaches vote...

indeed. and I think Tressel voted alabama #1 with his. Coaches don't want the bullseye on their back of a #1 ranking.

BeerBaron
09-08-2010, 07:09 PM
if they did a playoff and the conference champs got an automatic spot, then the only thing left to human voters would be the at-large teams and if they seeded teams. The conference champs I assume would get seeds and they could do a draw like the world cup does to take away the human component in the matchups. That would have less human voting factor than the BCS ever would. That said I am not that big a fan of having a playoff in college football.

Please make your 10000th post explaining this one.

P-L
09-09-2010, 09:49 AM
Saban voted Ohio St. #1 with his preseason coaches vote...
Alright, now let's see who he votes for the week before bowl selection.

keylime_5
09-09-2010, 10:19 AM
Please make your 10000th post explaining this one.

it hurts the importance of the regular season and takes away from the longstanding tradition of the big bowls. I don't like hurting that anymore than I like hurting the importance/tradition of the OSU/UM rivalry by adding an uneccesary conference championship game to the Big Ten. I wouldn't be totally against a playoff, but I don't like how it fits into college football compared to basketball or pro football, etc.

BuddyCHRIST
09-09-2010, 11:22 AM
it hurts the importance of the regular season and takes away from the longstanding tradition of the big bowls. I don't like hurting that anymore than I like hurting the importance/tradition of the OSU/UM rivalry by adding an uneccesary conference championship game to the Big Ten. I wouldn't be totally against a playoff, but I don't like how it fits into college football compared to basketball or pro football, etc.

I use to have this view, but the BCS is watering down college football by making scheduling decent OOC games unnecessary. Now this is a bad weekend to mention this, but more and more teams won't be playing these tough OOC games. UF doesn't even think about doing it, all you have to do is survive an easy schedule and be ranked high in the preseason. To me, it does way more to hurt the integrity of CFB than a playoff would.

I also don't think it would water down regular season games at all, I mean you would still be looking at the top 8 probably having 2 losses at the most. Its not like the NFL where they can get in at 9-7. Not to mention rivalries will always be huge in CFB, no playoff will diminish that.

BeerBaron
09-09-2010, 12:03 PM
it hurts the importance of the regular season and takes away from the longstanding tradition of the big bowls. I don't like hurting that anymore than I like hurting the importance/tradition of the OSU/UM rivalry by adding an uneccesary conference championship game to the Big Ten. I wouldn't be totally against a playoff, but I don't like how it fits into college football compared to basketball or pro football, etc.

Why do the playoffs not hurt the importance of the regular season in oh....every other sport anywhere ever? You still have to actually play well enough to make the playoffs, and in college football, with an 8 team playoff, any more than 1 loss could mean you missing the playoffs entirely. You're still going to need to play very well all season long.

JHL6719
09-09-2010, 12:39 PM
Alright, now let's see who he votes for the week before bowl selection.


Well obviously he should vote for the SmurfTurf SpudStuds....

After all, they'll be undefeated...

LizardState
09-09-2010, 01:04 PM
8-team playoff makes the most sense. It retains the post-New Yrs. big bowl system intact & evenly distributes the bowl $.

Currently more & more teams finish undefeated from scheduling cupcakes or total conference domination by a single team, whatever. And currently in the game of musical chairs, some undefeated team gets screwed, like Auburn a few yrs. ago.

The elite programs & conferences have too much clout as special interests now, that's why a Boise St. has the chance of a snowball in hell of finishing #1 if there are 2 or more other undefeated teams.

P-L
09-09-2010, 02:32 PM
it hurts the importance of the regular season and takes away from the longstanding tradition of the big bowls. I don't like hurting that anymore than I like hurting the importance/tradition of the OSU/UM rivalry by adding an uneccesary conference championship game to the Big Ten. I wouldn't be totally against a playoff, but I don't like how it fits into college football compared to basketball or pro football, etc.
The regular season isn't that important when a team can win every single game and still not get the chance to compete for the title.

keylime_5
09-09-2010, 03:27 PM
it's more important than if a team can lose 5 games and still have a chance to compete for a title.

villagewarrior
09-09-2010, 03:43 PM
Division I college basketball has a playoff. Division I-AA, II, III and the NAIA have a playoff. Each of the NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, and MLS have a playoff. Every sport except for NCAA Division I football has a playoff. Instituting a playoff would solve every problem. The BCS would be eliminated, the institutions would make buku cash, and actual champions would be crowned having fought for it on the field.

The hubbub about the players being "students first" (which is a farce by the way, as evidenced by the conference expansion talk) is ridiculous. Student-athletes in every other level of collegiate athletics are able to handle a playoff and class at the same time.

BeerBaron
09-09-2010, 03:46 PM
Division I college basketball has a playoff. Division I-AA, II, III and the NAIA have a playoff. Each of the NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, and MLS have a playoff. Every sport except for NCAA Division I football has a playoff. Instituting a playoff would solve every problem. The BCS would be eliminated, the institutions would make buku cash, and actual champions would be crowned having fought for it on the field.

The hubbub about the players being "students first" (which is a farce by the way, as evidenced by the conference expansion talk) is ridiculous. Student-athletes in every other level of collegiate athletics are able to handle a playoff and class at the same time.

You sum this up well. +rep sir.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
09-09-2010, 03:50 PM
it's more important than if a team can lose 5 games and still have a chance to compete for a title.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_FOIrYyQawGI/TC0thVs0DoI/AAAAAAAAC3w/AfRWy2zTqPo/s1600/StrawMan.jpg

5 loss teams won't be in the top 8.

P-L
09-09-2010, 04:15 PM
it's more important than if a team can lose 5 games and still have a chance to compete for a title.
How would a 7-5 make it high enough in the polls to get spot in an eight team playoff?

keylime_5
09-09-2010, 04:20 PM
the ACC champion automatic qualifier has been a 4 loss team in two different occassions since they expanded to 12 teams. It's not impossible that a team can lose 4 or 5 games and win the conference......and if you get a spot in the playoffs you have a chance to win a NC.

P-L
09-09-2010, 04:26 PM
Well you'd have to do without automatic bid if the playoff was eight teams or less. Giving all six conference champions a spot in an eight-team playoff almost defeats the purpose.

keylime_5
09-09-2010, 04:46 PM
I cant see any way in hell that a conference champ of the big six won't automatically make a playoff spot if they went to a playoff system. 6 conference champs and 2 at larges if they only did 8 teams.

BeerBaron
09-09-2010, 07:28 PM
The conferences as we know them probably won't last much longer anyway. There is no way the Big East should have an automatic bid, and the ACC will probably go that way too unless something drastic happens since the Pac-10 and SEC will all be getting stronger the next couple seasons, and the Big 10 is going to remain relevant because of their history and influence. Plus you have Boise going to the MTW which should strengthen them up enough to deserve an automatic bid.

villagewarrior
09-09-2010, 07:43 PM
I say take the top 16. 4 week playoff. They could still get it done by the time the college season is completed now, and in all likelihood sooner.

keylime_5
09-09-2010, 09:37 PM
Why do the playoffs not hurt the importance of the regular season in oh....every other sport anywhere ever? You still have to actually play well enough to make the playoffs, and in college football, with an 8 team playoff, any more than 1 loss could mean you missing the playoffs entirely. You're still going to need to play very well all season long.

the regular season of every other sport isn't as good as it is in college football b/c you basically have to go unbeaten to win a title....and if you don't make it to the title game then playing in a game like the Rose Bowl is not a bad consolation. Winning the Rose Bowl is freakin' awesome.

I'm not against a playoff, it would be awesome to have a CFB playoffs and an undisputed champ.....I just think it will suck to kiss the tradition of bowl games good bye. If they had a playoff the bowls would be completely watered down and unimportant, no way around that at all. The Rose Bowl for instance would be just a venue for a playoff game (not the actual rose bowl game anymore) and the whole 80+ year tradition of going to the Rose Bowl to end your year would be gone.

Now since they already have a BCS Championship game that isn't really a bowl, just a championship game between #1 and #2 in a rotating venue, having a plus one after the bowls are done wouldn't be so bad in terms of keeping the tradition and having less dispute about the champ.

BeerBaron
09-09-2010, 09:43 PM
the regular season of every other sport isn't as good as it is in college football b/c you basically have to go unbeaten to win a title....and if you don't make it to the title game then playing in a game like the Rose Bowl is not a bad consolation. Winning the Rose Bowl is freakin' awesome.

I'm not against a playoff, it would be awesome to have a CFB playoffs and an undisputed champ.....I just think it will suck to kiss the tradition of bowl games good bye. If they had a playoff the bowls would be completely watered down and unimportant, no way around that at all.

Well, I have a number of issues here.

Because you pretty much have to go unbeaten to guarantee yourself a shot at at title, very few teams are willing to schedule tough out of conference games. I addressed this in the changes I'd like to see short of a playoff system in that I think games against 1-AA opponents should be eliminated and something should be done to encourage tougher out of conference games.

And there are just so many bowls already that most of them are extremely watered down. You only need to go .500 if you're from a BCS conference and you're pretty much guaranteed a spot in a low level bowl. And even the bigger bowls don't always get the best teams.....a few of the ACC and Big East winners recently have had a number of losses and weren't ranked in the top 10, yet they get to play in the "important" and "traditional" bowls.....blegh.

Give me playoffs with all the teams playing tougher schedules.

keylime_5
09-09-2010, 09:50 PM
ACC and Big East champs have always gone to those bowls though. The Big East used to a little better though since they had Miami and Va Tech and Boston College. You don't have to schedule tough OOC games, but almost all the good teams still do (except the SEC schools really, but they have a really tough league so it's not that big a deal).

It would be great and all to have a postseason with all the top teams playing each other and an unquestioned champ, no doubt. The only issue I have is that they're trying to take away or at least water down greatly a lot of the traditions that make college football so great and unique from other sports.

Paranoidmoonduck
09-09-2010, 11:32 PM
I think the college system could stand for a whole giant reform, but it's damn profitable as it is right now, so I don't expect anything like that.

That said, eliminating the preseason poll just flat out makes sense. It should happen.