How Should the National Championship Be Decided

[Dallas4Bama]

That's the key. I believe the pac and big 11 do not play a conference chamionship game now because they can get into the BCS championship game without it. Why take a chance of a one loss team beating a undefeated ohio state or usc, and as a result knock them out of the BCS Championship game. A conference championship game would be a money maker for both conferences. Because of this I truly believe they like having the advantage of not having to play a conference championship game.

Look at the Rose Bowl tie in those 2 conferences have had for 40 years. It was the biggest money bowl for 50 years, and no one else was allowed to go.

I have an idea. Why not have the SEC, Big 12, and ACC have a playoff. We can stick it to the pac and big 11, and enjoy the payout, like they did the rest of the country till they get in line and implement a conference championship game.

I was having this very discussion with a coworker yesterday. The PAC and Big 11 will probably never add a championship game, because they fear an upset and know it could cost the favorite a spot in the NC game. I don't think they will ever change it because of that fear.

In the SEC and Big 12 we are just the oposite. We not only want to know who is the best team in our conference. We wouldn't have it any other way and if there is an upset and it knocks one of our teams out of the NC game we are upset, but we say "they should have taken care of business". We take pride in the competition and finding out who's the best. Also the conference and schools make a ton of money from the championship game and will never give that up.

From all this I take away a couple things. One is that if you take a close look you can see some clear geographical lines between the conference championship conferences and the no championship conferences. Also in general the championship conferences are the ones that most around the country will admit really take their football seriously. Second, I don't think it will ever change unless there is some type of mandate. Maybe the BCS demands a conference championship to participate in the NC game or something. Unless that is the case I don't see us giving up our game and I don't see them adding one.
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[BigTex]

The big six champs get an automatic bid. The highest rated BCS team gets the # 1 seed. There are two at large bids. The two highest rated BCS teams from the remainder of the conferences get the two at large bids.

 

[BamaBoy3684]

Marty Lyons was on Mike & Mike this morning saying it should be like 1AA, the top 16 teams.

I agree with him.

 

[NYBamaFan]

So we are not kidding ourselves here, the only reason that any conferences play a championship game is $$$. The notion that the conferences playing a championship game are any more high minded than the conferences that do not is simply not founded on reality. And if they have figured out that not playing a championship game offers them an advantage that they would prefer to take over the $$$ earned in a conference championship game, good for them.

The BCS is a system that can, and is, manipulated every year. Just look at how the Sooners got into the game last year, or how LSU got into the game the year before. Play the polsters and the system.

The only reason that the bowl structure exists - $$$. The reason that we went to the BCS system - to protect the $$$, because there was talk of the need for a playoff.

I can see both sides of this issue, and understand why many Bama fans prefer a system that gives them an advantage. Life isn't fair. But let's at least have an honest discussion. The "integrity of the sport" doesn't have anything to do with it... :cheers2:

 

[DzynKingRTR]

Marty Lyons was on Mike & Mike this morning saying it should be like 1AA, the top 16 teams.

I agree with him.

so you feel that 8-3 oregon state and 9-3 lsu and 9-2 pitt should be allowed to play for a NC?

 

[NYBamaFan]

so you feel that 8-3 oregon state and 9-3 lsu and 9-2 pitt should be allowed to play for a NC?

Why not? LSU gave us and Florida all we could handle...

 

[RedStar]

Why not? LSU gave us and Florida all we could handle...

Because they already had 2 shots at winning those games. Why do they deserve a third chance?

 

[BamaBoy3684]

so you feel that 8-3 oregon state and 9-3 lsu and 9-2 pitt should be allowed to play for a NC?

If they are ranked in the top 16, then yes. It's either the top 16 in the poll or every conference champion with some at-large bids. One of the two, but the BCS stinks. Plus 1 puts a bandaid on the problem, but would probably satisfy most.

 

[bama579]

By a "registered members" poll on Tidefans.com. :biggrin2:

 

[RedStar]

If they are ranked in the top 16, then yes. It's either the top 16 in the poll or every conference champion with some at-large bids. One of the two, but the BCS stinks. Plus 1 puts a bandaid on the problem, but would probably satisfy most.

Why do you think a 3 loss team deserves a chance to beat an undefeated team in the playoffs? You're argument for the playoffs is that the current system is unfair. But allowing a 3 loss team play for a shot at beating an undefeated team is also unfair. Your argument isn't logical.

 

[NYBamaFan]

Because they already had 2 shots at winning those games. Why do they deserve a third chance?

I am not going to debate this again this week. We need to stick together. But my theory is that a loss to a team proves nothing other than you can be beaten by that team on a given day...

 

[NYBamaFan]

By a "registered members" poll on Tidefans.com. :biggrin2:

I am betting that Brett would like this... :biggrin:

 

[BamaBoy3684]

Why do you think a 3 loss team deserves a chance to beat an undefeated team in the playoffs? You're argument for the playoffs is that the current system is unfair. But allowing a 3 loss team play for a shot at beating an undefeated team is also unfair. Your argument isn't logical.

You are confusing the regular season with the playoffs. The regular season even in a bowl system is for seeding.

If an 9-3 team can beat an 12-0 team then in my opinion the 12-0 team has to explain why they were 12-0... that said, do you think a 9-3 LSU team who has gone through the SEC deserves more of a shot at a playoff than a 12-0 Boise team who played nobody in an easy conference.

With the logic you use above I don't know how you can watch anything other than college football and not think every other sport is unfair.

Should UNLV been annointed NC's when they couldn't beat Duke? Should the Patriots have been annointed WC's when they couldn't beat the Giants?

With the possibility of 4 undefeated teams this year, how do you know you have the right team as champ?

You can't!!! It is pure opinion.

 

[cbi1972]

With the possibility of 4 undefeated teams this year, how do you know you have the right team as champ?

They're the ones in Crimson

 

[BAMA504]

Well we already have a playoff system in affect if you think about it.... The winner of the SECCG goes on to win the NC....


Honestly the top 8 in the BCS standings should be playing in the 4 major bowls and the winner of each (leaving 4) would play (leaving 2) then you have your NC game ... It is that simple~!~

 

[BamaBoy3684]

Well we already have a playoff system in affect if you think about it.... The winner of the SECCG goes on to win the NC....


Honestly the top 8 in the BCS standings should be playing in the 4 major bowls and the winner of each (leaving 4) would play (leaving 2) then you have your NC game ... It is that simple~!~

I'll take it... if the NCAA would do it, I'd be satisfied.

 

[CrimsonChuck]

I posted in the last thread too, and I haven't changed my opinion. I support a 12 team playoff, with games at the lower seeded team's home field except for a neutral site championship game. 6 teams would be the champions of the 6 strongest conferences. This would be a BCS-type ranking of the confeneces that would change yearly. (If the MAC was stronger than the Big East one year, the MAC Champ would go and not the Big East Champ.) The other 6 teams would be the six highest remaining at large teams in the BCS, regardless of conference.

The plus one system would be the only way I can think of that doesn't ruin the importance of the regular season IMO. The fact that every game matters is what separates college football from every other sport and I feel like changing that ruins the game.
Posted via Mobile Device

My playoff idea actually will increase the importance of the regular season. Teams #1 and #2 get a bye and homefield advange. #3 and #4 get a bye and host one game, but go on the road after that. #5 through #8 don't get a bye, but get to host a first round game. #9 through #12 don't have a bye and go on the road for all their games.

Everyone will be trying to get a better seed. Under our current system, the Oregon-OSU game has no meaning from a national championship standpoint. Under mine, it has huge implications. Oregon would be playing to host a game in the first round. Oregon St. would be playing to make the playoffs period.

I'm more against a playoff system because of the way they normally weed the SEC out in basketball and baseball. It would be great the first few years when we might have multiple SEC teams in the top 10 but would nosedive quickly when they started pairing SEC teams up against each other in the early rounds.

I wouldn't be opposed to a rule where conferences can't play eachother in the opening rounds, and they shouldn't be seeded to play eachother until the final 4 if possible.

I used to like the idea of a playoff before i actually began thinking about it....

Do we want a boring nearly meaningless regular season like NCAA basketball?

Do we want to give teams even less of a reason to schedule even decent out of confrence games? (think about it, you have to try and pad your schedule now to fit into 2 spots and people still refuse to even schedule 1 other BCS school imagine if you only had to make it into the top 8 or 16)

Look at the teams that are currently 7th and 8th... 2 loss Oregon and Ohio State, do we really need to reward their mediocrity with a chance at a championship???

The facts are that a playoff works in the NFL because the talent is more even spread so the scheduling pretty much weeds out the best team. A playoff in college football would not prove who the best team was the whole season it would just prove who was hot at the right time. The BCS makes every week a semi-playoff atmosphere because you have to win. Yes there is controversy... but who cares? There will always be controversy whats to say that team #8 is so much better than team #9? So if you want a regular season where teams lose games and say "O well we can afford a few losses and we will still get in the playoffs", you wanna watch every major confrence team play FCS and bottom lvl FBS teams out of confrence, and you want to reward a generally mediocre season with a shot at a championship then go ahead scream for a playoff....

My system punishes mediocrity by awarding lower seeds to teams that aren't as strong. Their path is SO much more difficult. Ohio St.'s path is so much more difficult now by being ranked #8 in the BCS (as the standings are now). They have to go on the road for their last two games...at Florida (after the Gators had a bye) and probably at TCU. If they can win at those two locations, more power to them. They would then deserve a berth in the championship game.

And to address your point about #8 vs. #9 (or #12 vs. #13 in my case), that is always going to be an argument. But it is better to have that debate about who is #12 vs. #13 than to have it about who is #2 vs. #3. And there is always some team that is left out of the NCAA basketball tournament who is the #66 team in the country. Does anyone ever say the basketball national champion is not legit because the #66 team didn't make the tourney? Well, you do have that in football as the system is now.

 

[RedStar]

... that said, do you think a 9-3 LSU team who has gone through the SEC deserves more of a shot at a playoff than a 12-0 Boise team who played nobody in an easy conference.

I don't want either one of them competing for a National Championship, neither one of them earned it.

With the logic you use above I don't know how you can watch anything other than college football and not think every other sport is unfair.

Whether or not it's fair, I know it's one of the reasons I've quit watching other sports as much. Why should I care about a game between the Cubs and Cardinals in April when it will have no outcome on the World Series? Wildcard teams should be taken out of every sport. They were introduced into the sports world to make more money. Don't let anyone fool you, the ONLY reason wildcard teams make the playoffs is to generate more revenue, it has nothing to do with fairness.

With the possibility of 4 undefeated teams this year, how do you know you have the right team as champ?

Because whoever wins it among UF, Texas and Bama will have earned it. And even with a playoff how do you know you have the right Champ? Do you really think the 07 Giants were better than the 07 Patriots? You can't justify that.

I'll venture a guess and say that 90% of the people that post in this forum would admit that college football is there favorite sport. Do you ever wonder why it's your favorite sport? The college system gives a better picture of who the best team in the country is year after year. There's a reason college football is your favorite sport. Why tamper with it?

Can you look back on the 11 year history of the BCS and find one undeserving champion? I can't.

 

[Dallas4Bama]

So we are not kidding ourselves here, the only reason that any conferences play a championship game is $$$. The notion that the conferences playing a championship game are any more high minded than the conferences that do not is simply not founded on reality. And if they have figured out that not playing a championship game offers them an advantage that they would prefer to take over the $$$ earned in a conference championship game, good for them.

The BCS is a system that can, and is, manipulated every year. Just look at how the Sooners got into the game last year, or how LSU got into the game the year before. Play the polsters and the system.

The only reason that the bowl structure exists - $$$. The reason that we went to the BCS system - to protect the $$$, because there was talk of the need for a playoff.

I can see both sides of this issue, and understand why many Bama fans prefer a system that gives them an advantage. Life isn't fair. But let's at least have an honest discussion. The "integrity of the sport" doesn't have anything to do with it... :cheers2:

Since I'm not the conference commish as none of us are I assumed we we're speaking as fans. As fans we like to know who is the best, if not we wouldn't be endlessly discussing how to find the true national champion. So don't kid yourself, we all know why the conference decided to have the game in the first place.
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[Dallas4Bama]

Marty Lyons was on Mike & Mike this morning saying it should be like 1AA, the top 16 teams.

I agree with him.

If we ever go to a true playoff system Alabama needs to get out of the SEC and join the WAC or some other conference. Why would we beat ourselves up for 12 weeks when we could play weaker conference games like those schools and be fresh and ready for the playoffs? A playoff system like that would have been custom made for a program like FSU in the 90's.

Imagine if you started those playoffs right after the regular season and we just played AU, TN, USC, MS, OM, LSU, FL, GA and AR. Who would be the fresher team, us or Boise State?

Even the suggestion that the lower seeded schools would have to play away from home and an extra game doesn't make up for that. So a Boise St, Utah or TCU would have to win 4 tough games in a row and we would have to win 12 in a row in the SEC. That doesn't even begin to compare.
Posted via Mobile Device