Toggle sidebar

MY BCS/Playoff Proposal

B

BamaBrass

Suspended
Feb 14, 2004
994
27
52
50
Ringgold, GA
I'm sure everyone has their own ideas for a playoff. Here's mine.

Keep the current BCS in place. I know alot of people hate but I'm OK with it.

Cut the SCHEDULED regular season to 10 games. Have all 120 ranked in the BCS after their 10 games. Have 1 play 120, 2 play 119, and so on with teams 1-60 play a home game versus teams 61-120. This would give every team an 11 game season and might add some more intrigue to college football. Keep all conference championship games in place.

Only 32 Bowls. Team 5 would play team 8, teams 6 and 7 would play each other in "BCS" bowls. As for the second tier teams, have team 9 play team 16, team 10 play team 15 and so on. For the lower tier bowls, have team 17 play team 30 and so on.

1 plays 4 in a bowl, 2 plays 3 in a bowl on New Year's Day. The winners play in the Championship game the following week.

I know it probably has some holes in it. Dissect away! :wink:
 
TERRIBLE IDEA! THIS IS POINTLESS. Why would you want the 1 v.s. 120 something and so forth on, it is wasted effort. Doesn't give us what we really want.

Better solution would be Keep everything in place, top six compete for BCS Championship. Top two gets bye. 3 v.s 6 4 v.s 5

Winner of 3 v.s. 6 plays against 1 and 4 v.s. 5 against 2. and so forth on. This would add additional 2 games.

Another option:

1. v.s. 4 2 v.s. 3 and winners get to play in National Championship. All games would be played on home field except for BCS. what we would be creating a mini-play off and it will eliminate lot of conflicts that we had this season.
 
My sloution ? Win all of your games :) College football is the best because it's about perfection . Some years there have been 3rd place teams who have felt they deserved a shot , but those have been very few and far between . And there will never be a 4th place , or lower , team that should have a shot at playing for anything of consequence .
 
This is a great idea!! Everyone gets a chance to play in the tournament, I love it! Maybe both bands can get together at halftime of every game and play "Kumbaya." while the fans hold hands in the stands.

Best idea I've heard yet.
 
I've got a better idea, let's implement every single idea that everyone has. We'll try them out, one by one for the next few hundred years then decide after that which one we liked best.

Or, we can stop our playoff idolatry and realize the BCS is by far the best system going in terms of actually putting the two best teams in the game. It did it again this year, so why do we keep trying to come up with ways of ruining it?
 
The frustrating part of the current system is that so many of the arguments could be solved by adding on one game. Have 1. LSU vs. 4. Stanford in one bowl game and 2. Bama vs. 3. Okie St. in the other, then the winners meet for all the marbles. That would solve pretty much every argument almpst every year, and all you have to do is add one game. I personally don't want to replace the BCS system at the moment, but when it is replaced I hope it is something simple like this.
 
bamabomber said:
The frustrating part of the current system is that so many of the arguments could be solved by adding on one game. Have 1. LSU vs. 4. Stanford in one bowl game and 2. Bama vs. 3. Okie St. in the other, then the winners meet for all the marbles. That would solve pretty much every argument almpst every year, and all you have to do is add one game. I personally don't want to replace the BCS system at the moment, but when it is replaced I hope it is something simple like this.
Click to expand...
It wouldn't though. Utah in 2008, Boise St. in 2009 (along with leaving out the second best team in the country, Florida), etc... I mean I had to hear so much about Utah in 2008 that I got sick of it and a plus one still leaves them out. The reality is any system is going to leave people out, and the idea that if you just add enough the teams left out won't have much to complain about is both illogical, but speaks to tossing so many teams into the process that you end up redoing the regular season.

As it is, a plus one only increases the chances of rematches, which is what I've heard so many people complain about this year. For instance, in 2008 we would have seen a rematch of the Alabama and Florida game (all but insured given seeding), and the other game (Oklahoma vs Texas) would have been a rematch to. So yeah, let's give everyone more rematches to stop their complaining about... rematches.

It all sounds good in theory, but actually go look up how this all plays out and it doesn't seem to great.
 
KrAzY3 said:
I've got a better idea, let's implement every single idea that everyone has. We'll try them out, one by one for the next few hundred years then decide after that which one we liked best.

Or, we can stop our playoff idolatry and realize the BCS is by far the best system going in terms of actually putting the two best teams in the game. It did it again this year, so why do we keep trying to come up with ways of ruining it?
Click to expand...

Yep.

Nothing like a computer ranking a team #2, having that team lose to a 28-point underdog...and the computer STILL ranking that same team #2 RIGHT AFTER that defeat.

Nebraska was not the best alternative in 2001. Not even close.

Oklahoma had no business there in 2003.

Or 2008.

Kansas State nearly became a #1 team in the AP that didn't even qualify in 1998.

And your earlier argument about how the regular season means everything is fraudulent as well since it would have been better for LSU
to lose (and avoid Georgia and have the extra rest).

Only in the BCS is nonsense like that even possible. To call it the best way is ludicrous on its face.

Give me the old eyeball test without a computer if we're just going to match up who we think the 2 best teams are anyway.
 
KrAzY3 said:
It wouldn't though. Utah in 2008, Boise St. in 2009 (along with leaving out the second best team in the country, Florida), etc... I mean I had to hear so much about Utah in 2008 that I got sick of it and a plus one still leaves them out. The reality is any system is going to leave people out, and the idea that if you just add enough the teams left out won't have much to complain about is both illogical, but speaks to tossing so many teams into the process that you end up redoing the regular season.

As it is, a plus one only increases the chances of rematches, which is what I've heard so many people complain about this year. For instance, in 2008 we would have seen a rematch of the Alabama and Florida game (all but insured given seeding), and the other game (Oklahoma vs Texas) would have been a rematch to. So yeah, let's give everyone more rematches to stop their complaining about... rematches.

It all sounds good in theory, but actually go look up how this all plays out and it doesn't seem to great.
Click to expand...

Which is why I said it would solve most problems, not all problems. I do agree with what you are saying to a certain extent, but you can't deny a better system of operation just beacause it's not going to be perfect every few years.
 
bamabomber said:
Which is why I said it would solve most problems, not all problems. I do agree with what you are saying to a certain extent, but you can't deny a better system of operation just beacause it's not going to be perfect every few years.
Click to expand...
I've studied virtually all scenarios for the entire life of the BCS. A plus one has a much higher probability of doing things people claim to dislike (allowing in non-conference champs, rematches, still leaving out undefeated teams, allowing in completely unworthy teams) than it has of actually improving things. Generally speaking, the best a plus one can hope to do is give us as good a game as the BCS gives us. The idea basically is that in order to fix the two or three times that the BCS might have actually left out the second best team, we have to allow for a process that lets in, on an almost annual basis a team that clearly doesn't have a claim to being the top team (like Stanford this year). That's a high cost to pay in my mind.

Our affinity for a playoff is not based on it actually giving us the best teams in championship games, or as champions it not based on logic but rather than the process does the thinking for us. People don't even think to question the ridiculous champions a playoff crowns because we believe so much in the process, we question the BCS for the exact reason it works so well, thinking does go into it!
 
selmaborntidefan said:
Yep.

Nothing like a computer ranking a team #2, having that team lose to a 28-point underdog...and the computer STILL ranking that same team #2 RIGHT AFTER that defeat.

Nebraska was not the best alternative in 2001. Not even close.

Oklahoma had no business there in 2003.

Or 2008.

Kansas State nearly became a #1 team in the AP that didn't even qualify in 1998.

And your earlier argument about how the regular season means everything is fraudulent as well since it would have been better for LSU
to lose (and avoid Georgia and have the extra rest).

Only in the BCS is nonsense like that even possible. To call it the best way is ludicrous on its face.

Give me the old eyeball test without a computer if we're just going to match up who we think the 2 best teams are anyway.
Click to expand...
I don't see how it's fraudulent.

Let's say we had beaten LSU. Then we would've played UGA for the SEC and would be facing LSU in the BCSCG.

Seems like a wash.

And the 'extra rest' argument seems lacking IMO since the game is a month out from the SECCG.
 
KrAzY3 said:
I've studied virtually all scenarios for the entire life of the BCS. A plus one has a much higher probability of doing things people claim to dislike (allowing in non-conference champs, rematches, still leaving out undefeated teams, allowing in completely unworthy teams) than it has of actually improving things. Generally speaking, the best a plus one can hope to do is give us as good a game as the BCS gives us. The idea basically is that in order to fix the two or three times that the BCS might have actually left out the second best team, we have to allow for a process that lets in, on an almost annual basis a team that clearly doesn't have a claim to being the top team (like Stanford this year). That's a high cost to pay in my mind.

Our affinity for a playoff is not based on it actually giving us the best teams in championship games, or as champions it not based on logic but rather than the process does the thinking for us. People don't even think to question the ridiculous champions a playoff crowns because we believe so much in the process, we question the BCS for the exact reason it works so well, thinking does go into it!
Click to expand...

Personally I agree with you, but just based on public opinion alone I do believe that we are destined for a playoff of some sort in the near future. My position is that when college football goes to a playoff system is that they stick to something simple like a +1 instead of a 16 team playoff or something along those lines. For the record though, you are preaching to the choir here.
 
selmaborntidefan said:
Yep.

Nothing like a computer ranking a team #2, having that team lose to a 28-point underdog...and the computer STILL ranking that same team #2 RIGHT AFTER that defeat.

Nebraska was not the best alternative in 2001. Not even close.

Oklahoma had no business there in 2003.

Or 2008.

Kansas State nearly became a #1 team in the AP that didn't even qualify in 1998.

And your earlier argument about how the regular season means everything is fraudulent as well since it would have been better for LSU
to lose (and avoid Georgia and have the extra rest).

Only in the BCS is nonsense like that even possible. To call it the best way is ludicrous on its face.

Give me the old eyeball test without a computer if we're just going to match up who we think the 2 best teams are anyway.
Click to expand...

I get what you're saying about LSU having to play an extra game, but I don't agree with it. Everyone was outraged that they had to play an extra game and said it was unfair that they had to. Now they're pointing to that extra game as a reason they deserve the AP title. Well which is it? Is it unfair or not? Can't have it both ways. The extra game they had to play put more hardware in the trophy case (SEC Trophy) and propelled Matheiu to the Heisman Ceremony in New York. Cry me a river all you want to about LSU having to play an "extra" game, but it definitely worked out in their favor.

Wayne State is in the DII National Championship game this weekend. They were ranked #33 in the country at 8-3 when the season ended. They were the last team selected to the playoffs, and now they're playing in the Championship game. That's ridiculous. They had no business being allowed to have a shot at the National Championship. They lost three games. Wayne State is not one of the best teams in the country, but they got hot and made the most of their situation. You can find an example of this every single year in playoff scenarios.

Rarely (if ever) will you find a team in the BCS Championship who didn't deserve to be there. << That alone is why our system is better.

Part of me agrees with you, OU shouldn't have been in the 2003 Title game, but they were certainly more deserving of playing in the National Title game than Wayne State was of being in the playoffs this year.

Both systems are unfair to an extent. But which system is more unfair? To me it's a playoff system. It's unfair to allow a 33rd ranked team who finished 8-3 a shot at the National Title over someone who went 11-0.
 
Last edited:
I was just trying to get better bowl matchups. Michigan and Va Tech getting a BCS bowl when ranked in the teens is bologna. Also, eliminate some of these bowls that few watch with teams that only win half of their games. Using the BCS system would eliminate the occurrence that Bowl games would be played by teams that only "traveled" well. It would eliminate the "at-large bid" from our vocabulary.
 
RedStar said:
Both systems are unfair to an extent. But which system is more unfair? To me it's a playoff system. It's unfair to allow a 33rd ranked team who finished 8-3 a shot at the National Title over someone who went 11-0.
Click to expand...

This is why - even though I'd like a plus one - I'm wary of it turning into this. A plus one turns into an eight team playoff, eight teams turn into 16 and 16 turn into 32. Pretty soon we've got a 64 team mess and there's a bubble game to determine the last two teams in.
 
I like the BCS system as is. The only caviat I would implement is IF there were at least 3 (or 4) undefeated teams from AQ conferences, then do a 4 team playoff (as stated earlier 1 vs. 4, 2 vs 3). Otherwise, if there is only one or 2 undefeated teams, let the current system stand. The reason for the playoff is that those teams did everything they could to get into the championship game by winning every game. IF a game was lost, then they didn't do everything they could and the current system works fine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Posts

Advertisement

Trending content

Advertisement

Latest threads

Top Bottom
Back