Playoff System....

[Warthog]

[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.

WRONG!!!! From bcsfootball.org: Welcome

The Bowl Championship Series was established before the 1998 season to determine the national champion for college football while maintaining and enhancing the bowl system that's nearly 100 years old.

Established to determine the national champion for college football... It doesn't say match the #1 and #2 teams in their rankings. Ask Auburn fans if they think the BCS is determining the national champion? go back to last year and ask USC fans and see what they say. The BCS determines their version of a national champion, but not one that even just a majoirity of people would agree is the true national champion.

[transfer2BGSU]

doesn't say match the #1 and #2 teams in their rankings.

Then who do they choose? Looks like #1 vs. #2 to me....

http://bcsfootball.org/index.cfm?page=faq

What were the results of past BCS National Championship games?

Last season, No. 2 LSU defeated top-ranked Oklahoma for the BCS national championship in the Nokia Sugar Bowl.

In 2003, No. 2 Ohio State upset No. 1 Miami, 31-24, in double overtime in what many regard as one of the greatest college football games in history.

In 2001 BCS No. 1 Miami defeated BCS No. 2 Nebraska, 37-14, in the Rose Bowl before a sellout crowd of 93,781.

In 2000 top-ranked Oklahoma defeated No. 2 Florida State, 13-2, in the FedEx Orange Bowl.

In 1999 No. 1 Florida State beat second-ranked Virginia Tech, 46-29, in the Nokia Sugar Bowl.

In the first BCS title game in 1998, No. 1 Tennessee defeated No. 2 Florida State, 23-16, in the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl.

[hammb]

Then who do they choose? Looks like #1 vs. #2 to me....

He is showing you that the BCS does in fact have a more grandly stated goal than pitting #1 vs #2. They state their goal is to determine a champion. Of course they're flawless at pitting #1 & #2 in their own rankings against one another. They couldn't possibly fail at that, barring some unforeseen circumstance that cancels the game.

They are, in fact, failing at their own stated goal of determining the national champion.

[Warthog]

Then who do they choose? Looks like #1 vs. #2 to me....

He is showing you that the BCS does in fact have a more grandly stated goal than pitting #1 vs #2. They state their goal is to determine a champion. Of course they're flawless at pitting #1 & #2 in their own rankings against one another. They couldn't possibly fail at that, barring some unforeseen circumstance that cancels the game.

They are, in fact, failing at their own stated goal of determining the national champion.

Thanks for explaining that Hammb. I thought the distinction was obvious, but I am just an idiot, so who knows. My point was that the BCS does NOT have as its goal to matchup the #1 and #2 teams in their rankings. It is to determine a national champion which they do by creating a ranking system and then having the top two ranked teams play each other.

Given that their goal is to determine a national champion, they could also accomplish that by setting up a playoff system, but apparently they choose not to do that.

[CincyFalcon]

As for the BCS system we have a system that has worked but does need a little tweeking. Incorporating a large scale tournament inviting 16 teams is not the answer. The most teams I could even see as a possibility is 4 or 6 with byes. Why invite, how some posters have recommended, the Iowa, Georgia, Va Tech and Cal's of the world?? They have already been beaten in the regular season by teams who have proven superior to them.

For you Buckeye fans ( not that I am one of them) what would the worth of, several years ago having to possibly playing Michigan again in order to get towards their goal of a Natl. Champ.? I know its a great rivalry and always a good game but what would the importance be if the teams would come in undefeated in November only having to play again later in the year? The teams could theoretically rest players, not play stars to avoid injury, which goes back to my initial argument of devaluing the regular season.

I understand the argument being made that mid-majors deserve a chance at the Natl. Championship but lets be honest, how realistic is the chance of a North Texas doing anything in a tourney besides wasting time? I am a BG grad and would love the chance to see them play in a Natl. Champ. game but I have realized that all the stars need to be aligned in order for it to happen. Maybe with a 6 team tourney the stars would be aligned this year with Utah.

Remember my idea, Cal and Texas are gone from the mix due to an earlier loss which leaves OKLA, USC, Auburn, and Utah. Sorry Boise St, not your year, and Louisville, you should have beaten Miami. With these four team you have your plus one game. Auburn vs. OK and USC vs. Utah.

[Warthog]

I understand the argument being made that mid-majors deserve a chance at the Natl. Championship but lets be honest, how realistic is the chance of a North Texas doing anything in a tourney besides wasting time?

Then why does the NCAA basketball tourney invite Hampton, Canisius, Winthrop, Coastal Carolina, Manhattan, etc? They are not gonna win six games either, but at least that have there moment in the sun. For crying out loud, Kent was in the Elite 8 not long ago and blew the game against Indiana to get to the Final 4. Why shouldn't North Texas, Boise State, Toledo, Utah, etc also get a shot at the national title even though it is unlikely they would win? Because it is a game and anything could happen on any given day, that is why.

[NWLB]

But this IS NOT BASKETBALL. And basketball already has the NIT. Conferences already have their darned tournaments. That sport doesn't lend itself to "moments" like a Bowl game.

Losing the last game of the year isn't how I want to end every tenth season. I want a fair chance at a bowl, to see a decent game, and more often than not, for my team to win. The tournament some people think is such a great thing, would cost us those moments, in exchange for a season ending loss that only reminds us of what we can't do.

[ab1994]

that's what this guys suggests...

http://www.strugglingsportsreporter.com/

despite a lack of details of how this proposed system would work, it would be pretty comical if all the "mid majors" had the cojones to do something like this...

[Warthog]

But this IS NOT BASKETBALL. And basketball already has the NIT. Conferences already have their darned tournaments. That sport doesn't lend itself to "moments" like a Bowl game.

Losing the last game of the year isn't how I want to end every tenth season. I want a fair chance at a bowl, to see a decent game, and more often than not, for my team to win. The tournament some people think is such a great thing, would cost us those moments, in exchange for a season ending loss that only reminds us of what we can't do.

Moments? What be these "moments" you speak of? Tyus Edny driving the length of the court in 3 seconds to score to lift UCLA on it's way to a national championship is not a "moment"? Valpo drawing up a play so that the coaches son can drain a three pointer at the buzzer to upset a much higher seeded team is not a "moment"?

And what is the significance of winning that last game of the season? Once the season is over you remember what happened through out the year. But is you want to dwell on a season ending loss, well then that can be used as motivation to work harder in the off-season to make sure you win in that situtation next year.

Nathan, I just don't see the logic in any of your reasoning. :shrug:

[Warthog]

that's what this guys suggests...

http://www.strugglingsportsreporter.com/

despite a lack of details of how this proposed system would work, it would be pretty comical if all the "mid majors" had the cojones to do something like this...

I really like that idea. Instead of playing in Mobile, Detroit, New Orleans, etc., all these bowls that match up non-bcs schools (or in the MCB's case, a seventh place BCS team) could sponsor games at the host schools. Make slots for each of the non-BCS conferences champs (5) and then add three or six (have these six play opening round games to get to 8 teams total) teams. They could even invite a team like Auburn that got left out of the BCS championship and give them a chance to beat three more decent teams just to show the BCS that they are deserving of a national title shot. Or maybe Cal would be a better invitee after being left out of the BCS mess all together.

Of course this is another scenario that will never happen. bBt if we are gonna be subjected to a Bowl game in San Jose featuring Troy vs Northern Ill, wouldn't it be better if it was part of a tournament and actually meant something rather than just a meaningless, unattended game that noone cares about? I am sure the attendance would be higher if that game was held in Troy or Dekalb than it will be in San Jose.

[Schadenfreude]

that's what this guys suggests...

http://www.strugglingsportsreporter.com/

despite a lack of details of how this proposed system would work, it would be pretty comical if all the "mid majors" had the cojones to do something like this...

I really like that idea. Instead of playing in Mobile, Detroit, New Orleans, etc., all these bowls that match up non-bcs schools (or in the MCB's case, a seventh place BCS team) could sponsor games at the host schools. Make slots for each of the non-BCS conferences champs (5) and then add three or six (have these six play opening round games to get to 8 teams total) teams. They could even invite a team like Auburn that got left out of the BCS championship and give them a chance to beat three more decent teams just to show the BCS that they are deserving of a national title shot. Or maybe Cal would be a better invitee after being left out of the BCS mess all together.

Of course this is another scenario that will never happen. bBt if we are gonna be subjected to a Bowl game in San Jose featuring Troy vs Northern Ill, wouldn't it be better if it was part of a tournament and actually meant something rather than just a meaningless, unattended game that noone cares about? I am sure the attendance would be higher if that game was held in Troy or Dekalb than it will be in San Jose.

This can't (and shouldn't) happen for the same reason that a BCS playoff game should not be added at the end of the season. It's working outside the system. It allows a group of teams or conferences to be the gatekeeper to the supposed "championship" instead of the NCAA itself.

[Warthog]

that's what this guys suggests...

http://www.strugglingsportsreporter.com/

despite a lack of details of how this proposed system would work, it would be pretty comical if all the "mid majors" had the cojones to do something like this...

I really like that idea. Instead of playing in Mobile, Detroit, New Orleans, etc., all these bowls that match up non-bcs schools (or in the MCB's case, a seventh place BCS team) could sponsor games at the host schools. Make slots for each of the non-BCS conferences champs (5) and then add three or six (have these six play opening round games to get to 8 teams total) teams. They could even invite a team like Auburn that got left out of the BCS championship and give them a chance to beat three more decent teams just to show the BCS that they are deserving of a national title shot. Or maybe Cal would be a better invitee after being left out of the BCS mess all together.

Of course this is another scenario that will never happen. bBt if we are gonna be subjected to a Bowl game in San Jose featuring Troy vs Northern Ill, wouldn't it be better if it was part of a tournament and actually meant something rather than just a meaningless, unattended game that noone cares about? I am sure the attendance would be higher if that game was held in Troy or Dekalb than it will be in San Jose.

This can't (and shouldn't) happen for the same reason that a BCS playoff game should not be added at the end of the season. It's working outside the system. It allows a group of teams or conferences to be the gatekeeper to the supposed "championship" instead of the NCAA itself.

I think that was really the guy's point. Start working outside the system to force the NCAA to come up with a better solution that includes all teams.

[Schadenfreude]

I think that was really the guy's point. Start working outside the system to force the NCAA to come up with a better solution that includes all teams.

How is this possible? The NCAA sets limits the number of games, it authorizes every post season game... etc.

[Warthog]

I think that was really the guy's point. Start working outside the system to force the NCAA to come up with a better solution that includes all teams.

How is this possible? The NCAA sets limits the number of games, it authorizes every post season game... etc.

Good question, I don't have an answer. :shrug: Maybe just broaching the subject and threatening an "alternative" to the BCS would get the NCAA thinking a little more rationally then they currently do with the BCS dollar signs floating in front of their eyes.

[NWLB]

But this IS NOT BASKETBALL. And basketball already has the NIT. Conferences already have their darned tournaments. That sport doesn't lend itself to "moments" like a Bowl game.

Losing the last game of the year isn't how I want to end every tenth season. I want a fair chance at a bowl, to see a decent game, and more often than not, for my team to win. The tournament some people think is such a great thing, would cost us those moments, in exchange for a season ending loss that only reminds us of what we can't do.

Moments? What be these "moments" you speak of? Tyus Edny driving the length of the court in 3 seconds to score to lift UCLA on it's way to a national championship is not a "moment"? Valpo drawing up a play so that the coaches son can drain a three pointer at the buzzer to upset a much higher seeded team is not a "moment"?

And what is the significance of winning that last game of the season? Once the season is over you remember what happened through out the year. But is you want to dwell on a season ending loss, well then that can be used as motivation to work harder in the off-season to make sure you win in that situtation next year.

Nathan, I just don't see the logic in any of your reasoning. :shrug:

I don't see the logic in what you suggest either.

This IS NOT BASKETBALL, print that out, post it on the monitor, so we don't confuse it with what we are talking about which is football.

To even have "that moment" of driving a court, you'd have to be in the title game, which my team won't ever see. People keep fixating on the tournament, and keep putting value on meaningless games. The only game that counts for anything is the final one, which is about what we have now with the BCS.

People need to stop skipping over the fact that things like the bowl games will die under some contrived tournament system. Even if a few are not shut down, the MAC won't see the light of day in most of those games, and we wind up taking a twenty year step backward in progress.
And what real motivation comes out of dropping a tournament game? Oh, lets work harder, so we can get wiped out in the second round no the first.

To have some oversized tournament, how many more weeks are we going to drag the season out? Are we going to drop to a ten game season to keep the schedule tight? I don't see where bowl games survive in such a setup. I don't see where a 12 game season survives in a 16 team setup. Are the entire alumni, development, presidential, and athletic staffs supposed to close shop and live out of hotel rooms for one month out of the year, during the holidays? Are the fans supposed to shell $4,000 for two people to get bussed around, assuming their team is actually in a game, which, oops, they aren't. What motivation is any of this, for the 11 MAC teams with no hope of playing?

You want a moment I care about, it is a single game, which we win. It is fourth and goal against Fresno to win the game. It is fourth and goal against Nevada to win the game. It is Harris pulling BG back ahead of NU last year. It is looking forward to whatever Omar does against Memphis.

Logic isn't the issue here. We are not a national title contender. Even talking about it is a joke. People in the MAC trying to argue for a tournament is insane given what we have, are working to get, etc. I'd rather fight to get a BCS bowl bid than worry about a bid to a tournament, which to have we would screw three or four other possible MAC bowl teams out of. As well as how we ourselves would get screwed out of post-season play 9 years out of 10 with a tournament bid.