I am one of the very few people that are fans of the current system. I have always supported it, and always will. All of the concerns that have been presented here have been my worries. Currently the only things I have gathered that people hate about the BCS are the facts that its "unfair" and it isnt a true national championship. I sit on the other side of the fence. College football, to me at least, is the only sport with a true national championship. Every year, 1 plays 2. In college basketball you could win the national championship without winning a single regular season game. That would never happen, but the fact that it could is ludicrous. To address the fact that the bcs is unfair, people make an even less compelling argument. If the BCS is truly an unfair system, then why would you want to use it to determine the 4 teams in a plus one? The BCS can never be tweaked to so that it undermines the good of the sport. There are a dozen ways a playoff can be tweaked that undermines the sport, the main one being expansion, which absolutely will happen if we get a playoff. Did anyone in the country want CBB to go to 68 teams? No, but it still happened. CFB would be at 8 or 16 within ten years
Changing the bowl system because of Alabama
- Thread starter Quicksilver
- Start date
Lots of strong feelings here. One more...
More often than not, there is not a clear cut 1 & 2. Plus 1 is a reasonable solution to the craziness that has gripped our favorite sport. I would have had no problem if we have had to play OSU last year. Much of consternation surrounding our schedule (weaker SEC than normal) was justified. Scheming aside, the only reason you'd want only champions to participate would be to eliminate conference favoritism in the polls. We don't want to award teams because of a misconception of their true strength. The opinion of the SEC is strong right now but I also remember seeing the Big 12 having three teams in the top 5 recently. That's a joke. SO, the point is...make teams 'prove it' by playing a plus 1 round. I'm fine with that. I'd also be ok with limiting the event to two teams from one conference. Three is kind of a stretch but it is quite possible to have the best two teams in one conference. Unless that conference is the big least, of course.
.
More often than not, there is not a clear cut 1 & 2. Plus 1 is a reasonable solution to the craziness that has gripped our favorite sport. I would have had no problem if we have had to play OSU last year. Much of consternation surrounding our schedule (weaker SEC than normal) was justified. Scheming aside, the only reason you'd want only champions to participate would be to eliminate conference favoritism in the polls. We don't want to award teams because of a misconception of their true strength. The opinion of the SEC is strong right now but I also remember seeing the Big 12 having three teams in the top 5 recently. That's a joke. SO, the point is...make teams 'prove it' by playing a plus 1 round. I'm fine with that. I'd also be ok with limiting the event to two teams from one conference. Three is kind of a stretch but it is quite possible to have the best two teams in one conference. Unless that conference is the big least, of course.
.I do not have a huge problem with a plus one as long as it stays that way. It wont, but that is for future discussion. The biggest problem I have with a plus one is traveling for the fans. I was at Pasadena and New Orleans, but if they were back to back weeks I likely would have gone to neither. Getting out of work for most normal people is not easy to do a few days ahead of time. Also, travel plans become extremely muddled. I do not want the college football championship game to turn into the super bowl, where only execs are able to go and their only true purpose is showing off their wealth. For most people, bowl games are a vacation, and a chance to enjoy a new city. Traveling becomes a chore when dealing with a playoff
True JM. I like Andy Staples' suggestion of making the 1st round a home game for the higher seed. It would be played mid December. The championship would then be played at it's normal time. The losers of the 1st round could still be eligible for other bowls. Especially if they won their conference. They'd have to play the first round the weekend after the conference championships.
It won't be though. That's the issue. The BCS's imperfections are largely concerning the concessions made to get all the major conferences and Notre Dame on board. They couldn't just make a 1 vs 2 game, they had to make this giant complicated thing that kept Arkansas out, and put in Clemson and West Virginia. They had to have a special provision for Notre Dame... they had to do all these things because of the politics for college football. If the BCS has been 1 vs 2 and nothing more this whole time, it would have avoided a lot of the additional criticism that is heaped upon the rest of the BCS bowl games.
I think all of us could imagine a +1 that we would all agree with, a specific scenario we would all support but that's just it! It will not be what we want, it will be what the head of conferences want and what they ultimately want more than anything else is inclusion. That's why we reached the tipping point this year, they were left out! This matter can not be resolved until every major player has inclusion. It's the reality in every major sport, ever division, every conference, to think that football will become more like those sports and be able to put the brakes on it completely unrealistic. Baseball went from a 7 game series, to a 5 game series, to a 1 game series. It only goes one direction naturally. Erosion doesn't change course naturally.
It is, and that's the biggest complaint. BCS computers. I think the BCS formula has been tweaked to the point that it works pretty darn well. The polls should play the largest role, and they did last year, but the computers step in and if for instance a team is ranked 5th or 6th in the computer polls, that should be enough to overrule the voters if they are not factoring in SoS at all. It's going to be a matter of contention though because some people want the polls to be the sole arbiter. While I hesitate to express any agreement with the Pac-12 commissioner, who is advocating for conference championships to mean more than polls, a few people with possible agendas should have something to keep them in check, and the computers do that.
That would have only been simple this year. In most years, determining the #4 team is even more difficult than the #2 team.
The same political issues would arise when it comes down to giving the SEC a 2nd team or including a team that lost it's conference championship game.
So with all these conference commissioners expressing their desire for a playoff with only conference champions allowed in, I am to take it that Delaney would not favor Ohio State and Michigan included in a playoff when they might both finish in the top 4? If Oklahoma and Texas finish ranked 1/2, only the Big 12 champion can make the playoff, right Chuck Neinas?
Most of this nonsense is completely knee-jerk in response to the SEC's unprecedented dominance, and Alabama being the team that got the rematch, as many have said. I did not hear a peep from any conference commissioners about a playoff or a conference champion restriction after Nebraska and Oklahoma both played for national titles in the early 2000s after not winning their conference. Heck, when Nebraska did it (vs. Miami in the 2002 Rose Bowl) they didn't even win their division and they were absolutely destroyed by Colorado that year (62-36?).
Most of this nonsense is completely knee-jerk in response to the SEC's unprecedented dominance, and Alabama being the team that got the rematch, as many have said. I did not hear a peep from any conference commissioners about a playoff or a conference champion restriction after Nebraska and Oklahoma both played for national titles in the early 2000s after not winning their conference. Heck, when Nebraska did it (vs. Miami in the 2002 Rose Bowl) they didn't even win their division and they were absolutely destroyed by Colorado that year (62-36?).
that's not how it'll work. They'll say, "Do you want a playoff?" And we (the "public") will say, "Of course we do! After all, that's what's fair!". THEN, they'll "roll in" or "sneak in" or "grandfather in" clauses which will prevent rematches, prevent multiple teams from the same conference being in it, etc. Beware the "Trojan Horse"---that is EXACTLY what the "carrot"/bait of "Playoffs" will lead to.
I have no faith whatsoever that the right or best thing will be done. I'm absolutely sure the Morons That Be will come up with something I hate more than the BCS. If the stubborn mules in the Midwest & Left Coast would have just joined the old Bowl Alliance everything woulda been fine.
Turning big name bowl games into consolation prizes was a colossally stupid idea and you can thank those Rose Bowl clowns for it.
Turning big name bowl games into consolation prizes was a colossally stupid idea and you can thank those Rose Bowl clowns for it.
I would be fine with leaving the Big Ten and Pac 12 out of it altogether. Don't tell me it won't be a legitimate championship without them or the Rose Bowl. Neither of those conferences have ever been interested in competing for a championship.
^^^^^THIS! I've always said nothing can be done to the bcs to ruin college football. 1 vs 2 will always be a big game, regardless of how much you disagree with who those teams are. There's way too many things that can be done to a playoff to ruin college football.
I think the reason there's talk of change in the BCS is not so much we didn't win our division and the SEC title, but that we lost to LSU in the regular season and at home. The general movement is toward a playoff; in a playoff when you lose to another team in the playoff you're out. That's not what happened this year. From the LSU standpoint it's as if the game in BDS never happened.
That sentiment makes sense, but its very specific to this year and cant be used to justify other years. In the majority of years, they got it right and there is no debate. It really is remarkable that in a normal year, there are more teams that complain that they missed out on a field of 68 than there are teams that complain about making the national championship game. To me, that means it is doing its job.
So the logical reaction is to make the regular season even more meaningless? That's like saying, I'm mad that I spilled my glass of milk so I'm going to pour out the whole gallon. It's an irrational response.
The BCS championship game is not what made the first LSU/Alabama game mean less. Every other team losing is what did that.
Your reference to a playoff as a solution because it is lose and your out, is tinged with the illogical assumption that only playoff results should matter. The fact is, any fair playoff and Alabama is in. They made it into a 1 v 2, they belonged in a +1, or any other iteration of a playoff. How on earth does a playoff someone "fix" this imagined problem? Why would letting two other one loss teams (one of which didn't win their conference either) somehow magically right the wrongs? Besides, if the criteria should be lose and your season is over, well ok then not only Alabama, but every other team besides LSU should be out. You can't tell me that only Alabama's loss should have mattered, that's insane.
The problem here is a simple one. The criteria for winning a division or a conference does not necessarily align itself with the criteria to be a champion. While that might not make sense to some of you, look over the NCAA basketball automatic entrants. Look at the so called "conference champs" and consider how arbitrary the process is. Then, look at divisions, look at how Oregon won a conference championship with two losses, over a one loss team. The simple fact is that winning your division, or conference does not automatically make you more championship worthy than a team that did not. That's reality.
A playoff, would mean more rematches, more undoing of regular season results, not less. It's just absurd that I see a playoff put forth as a way to prevent something it would cause more of. I keep seeing it though, and I'm trying to figure out how one's mind allows this sort of illogical leap.
If we all assume that the BCS "got it right" in matching #1 vs #2 this year has that been the case since 1998 the first year of the BCS? I am sure somebody on here will do the research. IMO while the BCS may have actually "gotten it right" since it's inception by staging the NC game, it has made all the bowl games meaningless except for the extra practice time.
That's a loaded question. The best criteria we have for determining if a team is deserving is the BCS formula, so it doesn't leave us with much to check it against.
Generally speaking, the results really clarify the picture. The BCS has had 6 completely unanimous national champions. This means every selector, computer, or poll was in complete agreement. To give you an idea of this significance, prior to the BCS that has only happened 5 times since 1910. So, from 1998-2011 we have a process that's even put the math based systems in agreement six times compared to 5 times from 1910-1997. Excluding the math based systems, such as the ones that declared Utah national champion in 1998, the BCS champion has been unanimous amongst consensus (poll) selectors in all year but one (2003). To give you an idea regarding that, 1990 and 1991 both gave us split champions amongst the polls and lead to the predecessor to the BCS (and Alabama's 1992 national championship) and once again in 1997 which led to the BCS. It's important to keep in mind that forced parity and too many FBS teams ultimately lead to a lot of the issues. Without forcing Utah and Alabama to have the same number of scholarships, or cupcake conferences, the picture would be considerably clearer, no matter what the post season was.
Another point that has to be made, is that this process has to be about #1. For instance, in this past season LSU was the only undefeated team. They were the clear #1 team and honestly, no one deserved to play them. However, the process properly determined Alabama to be the most worthy and as we saw it turns out they were the better team. But, to further demean LSU and say they had to play an additional game just to play Alabama is going too far. This has to remain about #1. Most of the time the BCS compliments the regular season. Undefeated Alabama vs undefeated Texas. Undefeated Auburn vs undefeated Oregon. That's where the BCS really comes into play, and sometimes it's to clear up a mess, like when so many teams stumbled and two loss LSU played one loss Ohio St.
The picture is often cleared up by the "meaningless" bowl games. For instance, in 2009, undefeated Cincy was blown out by Florida and the #4 team lost to. Clearly, neither deserved to be in the BCS title game. If you go back over the results, only two really stand out. USC in 2003 and Auburn in 2004. In the case of USC in 2003, they did tweak the formulate afterwards. USC has one less win than OU and LSU, but the same number of losses. Certainly the logic is there to reward the teams that played the extra game (had OU not played it, they would have been undefeated), but one could argue USC might in fact have been better than OU. I think it's a much harder argument to say they were better than LSU though. Then, we have 2004. Auburn played a much weaker schedule than USC or OU. It's even clearer that they should have been left out. Yet, we can once again argue that despite the weaker resume, Auburn might have been better than one of those teams. That's about it though. If you support a plus one, those are the two teams you hang your hat on as no other teams really had any basis with which to argue their worthiness.
In regards to your comment about bowl games. I can't agree with your statement at all. Perhaps to Alabama fans, with our mentality we find all other bowl games meaningless (2008 Sugar Bowl for example), but I fail to see how you apply that to all of college football. If you think relevance to the national championship picture is what makes a bowl game meaningful, most of the time one or two were all that were "relevant" and on the very rare occasion three. Bowl games were never created to determine the national champion, they existed to provide an matchup of good teams and to place those in an enjoyable setting. It was a reward for a good reason, but it was more than that. We can say Mardi Gras is just parades, but it's not just parades, there's this entire culture behind it. The same goes for bowl games, what they are, and their importance is not rooted in national champions.
In keeping with my just quote someone and then rant habit, I'll just finish with my opinion:
1: I don't "assume" the BCS got it right this year. I know the BCS got it right this year.
2: While there have been a couple of instances in which the BCS might have left out a deserving team, I find it counterproductive to let in a legion of undeserving teams to compensate.
3: A plus one will put bowl games on life support. Not make them meaningless, but threaten their very existence. The inevitable next step to a 8 team playoff would kill the power bowls as they would either assimilated into a playoff, destroying their individuality, or simply not have any of the top 8 teams.
Great post KrAzY, you do spend a lot of time thinking this through and I for one appreciate it. I have been a college football fan for more years than I care to mention and would never miss the opportunity to watch any bowl game, provided my father wanted to watch the same game (1 TV family in those days). It was a college football feast.
Over the years as more and more bowl games were added some of the anticipation and luster wore off until now with 35 bowl games it has become ridiculous. I understand the reward for the players and staff, extra practice time and trips to places most would not go if not for a bowl game, but IMO the whole idea of bowl participation has been watered down. Some of this has to be laid at the feet of the BCS. I mean, what were the Nielsen ratings for the Orange Bowl, who in the hell wanted to watch WVU and Clemson outside of their fans. I know this will raise the ire of "true college football fans", but am I the only one who had rather watch the SyFy channel than the Music City Bowl, Motor City Bowl, Armed Forces Bowl, California Bowl, Insight.Com Bowl or Liberty Bowl?
I know it is all about the money and exposure, etc and everyone can watch what they want but, IMO I still believe the number of crappy bowls with crappy teams (winning 6 games) has over exposed college football. Thanks for reading, off rant.
Over the years as more and more bowl games were added some of the anticipation and luster wore off until now with 35 bowl games it has become ridiculous. I understand the reward for the players and staff, extra practice time and trips to places most would not go if not for a bowl game, but IMO the whole idea of bowl participation has been watered down. Some of this has to be laid at the feet of the BCS. I mean, what were the Nielsen ratings for the Orange Bowl, who in the hell wanted to watch WVU and Clemson outside of their fans. I know this will raise the ire of "true college football fans", but am I the only one who had rather watch the SyFy channel than the Music City Bowl, Motor City Bowl, Armed Forces Bowl, California Bowl, Insight.Com Bowl or Liberty Bowl?
I know it is all about the money and exposure, etc and everyone can watch what they want but, IMO I still believe the number of crappy bowls with crappy teams (winning 6 games) has over exposed college football. Thanks for reading, off rant.
Latest threads
-
US Army replacing 5.56mm rifle with a 6.8mm for infantry- Started by Tidewater
- Replies: 6
-
-
Game One of Alabama-Texas A&M Alabama Series Moved to Friday as Part of Doubleheader- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Bama Game Thread: Bama Gymnastics - NCAA Championship Semi-finals (ESPN2 | 4/18 @ 8pm CT)- Started by BamaNation
- Replies: 32
-
No. 1 Visits Tuscaloosa for Second Straight Week as Alabama Hosts Top-Ranked Texas A&M
- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-