Playoff System....

hammb · Post by **hammb** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 9:21 am

BGFalcons232 wrote: there is no system that will even the playing field for all the conferences in division 1-A. unless scholarships are reduced even further, which i do not advocate, the larger conferences will continue to get the best talent to dominate any possible playoff. and as long as scholarships are capped at where they are now, mid-majors will get just enough talent to fear the major conferences into not scheduling them. there's no winning if you're a team like BG.

However, if you had a model such as we're talking about, the money from the tournament would be divided among all the conferences, and not just the big 6 (or in this year 7) conferences. Now, certainly we cannot expect us to overcome all those years of being considered small ball, but that extra money sure doesn't hurt.

Of course I don't think BG or any other mid-major team really has a legit chance at winning the tournamnet, but the same was said about Villanova in the hoops tourney in the 80's. Last year's Miami team certainly would've had a chance at making some noise. I would prefer to see a system where we don't have to say, "Oh they wouldn't have stood a chance against a real team" and instead we can actually SEE them match up against one another.

I think creating a tournament at the end of the season opens up more equality in Division1A football. You give all teams a theoretical chance of winning a championship. You give all conferences access to major dollars at the end of the season. At the very least you get a legit championship team, rather than one that the media or coaches feel is the best.

Of course this will never happen, and the biggest reason is point #2 above. They don't want to share that money with the other conferences.

Lord_Byron · Post by **Lord_Byron** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 10:44 am

Warthog wrote:
Lord_Byron wrote:It's sports and it's fun to be a fan. Any attempt at creating a "scientific method" of determining a champ makes it a little less fun to me.
Isn't the BCS a scientific formula used to determine who should play for the national championship? :shrug:

Correct. That's why I love the fact that the BCS is an abject failure at determining whatever it is they determine.

NWLB · Post by **NWLB** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 10:47 am

I don't understand how this could be desirable when you even admit there isn't any real chance of a mid-major winning the tournament. A tournament might be crafted that provides for equal representation, but if there is no point to doing it, why end post-season play for the rest of the teams? I've heard the counterpoint that the other bowls would survive, but I personally don't believe it. If anything the major conferences would fill all the bowls that do survive for decades, and the mid-majors get stuck with a single hopeless game in a unneeded tournament.

I sat and enjoyed watching the 1992 Las Vegas Bowl last night, and thought about last years Motor City Bowl. Nothing about a tournament loss, or a once every 20 year win in a tournament, makes me want to trade those memories or the thrill of my team winning. Those games were pure magic to a fan like myself. That means something.

Maybe BG or Miami could have knocked off a first round team in some tournament last year. The odds are those teams would have been poorly seeded, and lost by an inch. I get my upset thrills in the early OOC games, and maybe a bowl game. I don't need, nor want to give up what we have just to "make noise."

Schadenfreude · Post by **Schadenfreude** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 10:58 am

NWLB wrote:I don't understand how this could be desirable when you even admit there isn't any real chance of a mid-major winning the tournament.

Well, I don't admit that.

I think Utah would have a shot this year.

I think Miami would have had a shot last year.

Schadenfreude · Post by **Schadenfreude** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 11:02 am

hammb wrote:Of course this will never happen, and the biggest reason is point #2 above. They don't want to share that money with the other conferences.

I don't think it's even about sharing money. It's about entrenched interests, and whether or not to allow the financial gap to close.

I firmly believe a playoff would generate more money... so much more that BCS conferences might be able to come out ahead, even while sharing such a large percentage with the others.

But if the others got that infusion of cash, the gap would further close, making I-A more competitive as a whole.

NWLB · Post by **NWLB** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 11:02 am

Utah, this year, maybe if strange things happened, like USC getting an unexpected injury, upset in a middle round, and leaving Utah against lower seeds than expected. And even then, I would consider it an outside chance much like their basketball teams chance in that tournament a few years ago. Sure, maybe, if so many things fall into place as to make it as good as impossible.

Trading what we have for a once-in-a-hundred-year chance, isn't worth it.

CincyFalcon · Post by **CincyFalcon** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 11:36 am

The biggest problem with a tournament is that it devalues the importance of a regular season. With a postseason tourney teams would be able to drop a game or so in the regular season yet still be ok to make the tournament. The most viable alternative to the BCS Problem is the plus one system. Where after the bowl games are played out two teams play a final game to determine the overall champion if neccessary. This could also be in the form of a 4 team tourney. When talks of 16 teams are thrown around it seems a little unneccessary and would reward teams who should not be rewarded. For example: the top 16 BCS this year

1 USC
2 Oklahoma
3 Auburn
4 Texas
5 California
6 Utah
7 Georgia
8 Va Tech
9 Boise State
10 Louisville
11 LSU
12 Iowa
13 Michigan
14 Miami
15 Tennessee
16 Florida State

The bottom half of this list has no right to be playing for the National Championship. If the team doesn't make the top of the BCS they should not be eligible for the Natl. Champ regardless of conference. Why should teams who were already defeated this season by top teams have the opportunity to play them again for a Natl. Championship Texas(Okla), Va Tech(USC), Cal(USC), Georgia(Auburn), LSU(Auburn)??

hammb · Post by **hammb** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 12:05 pm

[quote="CincyFalcon"]. If the team doesn't make the top of the BCS they should not be eligible for the Natl. Champ regardless of conference. [quote]

Your entire post is based on this premise, which I don't believe in for a second. Anyone who wins the championship of their conference should be given an opportunity to win the national championship. By saying they don't deserve a shot unless they're in the top of the BCS you just perpetuate the idea that the BCS rankings are a viable formula to decide who is "worthy" of competing for the national title.

The BCS rankings are flawed, so why should we use them to determine a champion? The rankings are biased too heavily towards those teams that have a lofty preseason ranking. Think about it. If Auburn had been ranked higher than Oklahoma at the beginning of the year, before having played a single game, they would be the team in the championship game. So, essentially, your regular season has been meaningless for them anyhow, since they weren't ranked high enough at the beginning of the year. The BCS rankings are not about how well you do as a team, but about how well those ahead of you do. It is nearly impossible to gain ground, without a team above you losing, that just doesn't make sense, IMO.

If you continue to use the model I've been discussing, 11 conference champs, and 5 at large bids, you still have a fairly valuable regular season. If you used the BCS standings to fill at large (I'd use a committee, but for this sake) you'd have at large teams of Texas, Cal, Georgia, LSU, and Iowa. You take the conference champs & these 5. I'd say most teams in this year's bracket would prove a viable threat to one another. UT & North Texas would likely not be very good opponents, but I think every other Mid Major Champ could hold their own (Boise, Utah, Louisville).

By giving them an automatic berth you up the value of a conference championship, and open the tournament to all conferences. It's not perfect, but I think its far superior to what we have today.

NWLB · Post by **NWLB** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 12:06 pm

The "Plus-one" idea may be the only concept I could consider agreeing too.

My feeling is that if the Plus-one idea did get approved, it would lead other bowls to create their own mini-tournaments. This would happen for the same reason the NCAA does not actually have power to stop new bowls. Unless the added bowl game were taken over by the NCAA and declared the offical and final title game, you would see the MCB, GMAC bowls send their winners to a Toronto bowl for some kind of title. Not a national title, but whatever sponsored one you could think of.

In truth, I'm not sure the NCAA could stop such games from developing if they were pushed on the topic anyway.

Schadenfreude · Post by **Schadenfreude** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 12:15 pm

CincyFalcon wrote:The biggest problem with a tournament is that it devalues the importance of a regular season.

This problem is solved through automatic bids.

The most viable alternative to the BCS Problem is the plus one system.

This is the worst possible idea.

I don't believe for a second that Utah would be allowed to play in the plus one game.

Why further legitimize the lousy BCS system? Why further legitimize the idea of a national championship?

I'm not in favor of a NCAA-sanctioned playoff -- but a playoff would be greatly preferrable to the plus-one idea. The BCS would be even more empowered to be gatekeepers of the supposed national title. It would further delegitimize the MAC every other non-BCS league... for eternity.

NWLB · Post by **NWLB** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 12:55 pm

Yes, we must not allow for the continued oppression of the football proletariat!

Bowls are the opiate of the people!

MID MAJORS OF THE WORLD UNITE!!!!!

NO PLAYOFF, NO PEACE!!!! NO PLAYOFF, NO PEACE!

Warthog · Post by **Warthog** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:13 pm

CincyFalcon wrote:The most viable alternative to the BCS Problem is the plus one system. Where after the bowl games are played out two teams play a final game to determine the overall champion if neccessary.

First of all, how could you possibly say "if necessary"? Are you going to cancel the game if there is already only one undefeated team?

Second, this year sets up as the perfect example to show the flaw of the plus 1 idea. Say the teams would still be matched up as they are today. Then one of the three undefeated teams gets a better deal because they don't have to play another undefeated team. But what if the team not in the matchups of undefeateds gets upset? Ooops, then we will have an extra game where an undefeated team plays another team that has already lost. Does that make any sense?

In another scenario, teams go back to their previously aligned bowls and then we play the "+ 1" game. What if all three undefeateds all win? Then you still have three teams trying to fill two slots. Just doesn't work.

C'mon folks, face it. The only time the BCS system works is if there are only two undefeated teams and they are both from power conferences and they both were expected to do well before the season started. Otherwise, we sit here every season and complain about how stupid this whole thing is.

transfer2BGSU · Post by **transfer2BGSU** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:32 pm

Warthog wrote:[C'mon folks, face it. The only time the BCS system works is if there are only two undefeated teams and they are both from power conferences and they both were expected to do well before the season started.

WRONG!

The BCS works each year. It pits #1 vs. #2 in a bowl game. That is what it was designed to do.

hammb · Post by **hammb** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:46 pm

transfer2BGSU wrote:
Warthog wrote:[C'mon folks, face it. The only time the BCS system works is if there are only two undefeated teams and they are both from power conferences and they both were expected to do well before the season started.
WRONG!

The BCS works each year. It pits #1 vs. #2 in a bowl game. That is what it was designed to do.

By that logic it cannot fail. It pits the #1 in the BCS standings versus the #2, but there are plenty of arguments about who those teams are, hence they keep tweaking it year in/year out.

If the stated goal of the BCS is to pit #1 & #2 in the BCS standings against one another it will succeed every year in which the game is not cancelled due to some strange circumstance. I thought when it was originally conceived the goal was to create a more unified national champion, and that has clearly not been achieved too many times.

Warthog · Post by **Warthog** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:52 pm

transfer2BGSU wrote:
Warthog wrote:[C'mon folks, face it. The only time the BCS system works is if there are only two undefeated teams and they are both from power conferences and they both were expected to do well before the season started.
WRONG!

The BCS works each year. It pits #1 vs. #2 in a bowl game. That is what it was designed to do.

OK, guess I should have said...The only time the BCS system works IN DETERMING A TRUE UNDISPUTED NATIONAL CHAMPION FOR DIV I-A COLLEGE FOOTBALL is if there are only two undefeated teams and they are both from power conferences and they both were expected to do well before the season started.