Old school bowls/polls versus BCS versus playoff

Best post-season option for college football

  • Old school

    Votes: 11 10.8%
  • Current BCS

    Votes: 32 31.4%
  • Most recently proposed 4-team playoff

    Votes: 53 52.0%
  • Full 16-team playoff including all conf champs plus at large bids

    Votes: 6 5.9%

  • Total voters
    102

BamaSully

1st Team
Oct 13, 1999
511
17
137
Jackson, TN
I would like to get a fresh update on what the Tidefans members think at this point in time about this never-ending debate.

Here is what I would like to ask you guys to do. Please reply only with the option you prefer. You have to choose one of the four. The primary purpose here is not to explain WHY you feel how you feel or to come up with some other new hybrid option that we haven't beat to death yet. Simply tell me which is your preference.

Until it became a reality in the last few days that change might actually happen, I have felt for the last few years that the media was pushing an agenda under the false pretense that "most objective fans want a playoff". I didn't really believe that most fans wanted that. In many cases in life a loud minority creates a false perception while a silent minority does nothing.

Anyway I am just curious what we really believe is best for college football. So please just reply with your choice.

Option 1 - Old School
No BCS. Traditional bowl tie-ins rule. National champs were awarded only by the two polls and would often be split.

Option 2 - Current BCS

Option 3 - The currently proposed seeded 4-team playoff. For my poll, here are the specifics of this option. Seeding is strictly BCS top-4. No conference champ requirement and no limit on number of teams per conference. Note: I believe that is what is actually going to happen.

Option 4 - A 16-team post-season tournament. All 11 conference champs automatically qualify. We will include 5 at-large bids, handed out based on BCS rank or a selection committee. We can decide that later. Do not let that affect your choice here.

So again, please limit the confusion and simply choose the option that most closely resembles what you think is the best option for college football to use to determine the champ each year.

Thank you

-Sully
 
Last edited:

BamaSully

1st Team
Oct 13, 1999
511
17
137
Jackson, TN
Thank you for your vote. Hehe sounds like a politician. I second that notion on the 16-team deal...or even 8 for that matter.

Everyone please VOTE. I just want to know what real-life, rational college football fans really think today without the biased media telling me what they want me to hear.

Notice how I called Bama fans rational?

LOL
 
Last edited:

TRU

All-SEC
Oct 3, 2000
1,383
69
167
Tampa, FL
I voted for option #3. But I disagree with you on how it will be decided. I predict the top 4 conference champs, or the top 3 champs plus an independent if said independent (ND) is ranked in the top 10. We need to protect the baby in South Bend after all.
 

BamaSully

1st Team
Oct 13, 1999
511
17
137
Jackson, TN
I voted for option #3. But I disagree with you on how it will be decided. I predict the top 4 conference champs, or the top 3 champs plus an independent if said independent (ND) is ranked in the top 10. We need to protect the baby in South Bend after all.
ESPN reported that they had pretty much taken the conf champ requirement off the table at this time. Of course ESPN could be wrong. I think the fact that last season those four teams would have been #1, #3, #5, and #10 helps right now. Even the most wild-eyed SEC haters know that wouldn't be even remotely right. But we'll see...I've seen dumber things done...:)

Thanks guys for the votes. Keep em coming.
 

i26bamafan

All-American
Oct 30, 1999
2,802
1
0
78
Summerville,SC
yahoo.com
Option 3 because the big 10 + whatever they call themselves and the pacific 12
and the cowerds of south bend (1966) will not agree to option 4.

If we go to conference champions only, good-by south bend (notre no load dame).
 

KrAzY3

Hall of Fame
Jan 18, 2006
9,447
1,126
187
41
www.myspace.com
I think it's been more of a grass is always greener scenario. The BCS had gotten a lot of bad publicity, some deserved and some undeserved. For instance, when it comes to the championship game, who is in the other BCS bowl games has absolutely nothing to do with it, yet we see what bowl Boise St. played in and so on become part of the BCS discussion. There certainly was an agenda on the part of the media, who have been relentlessly telling us how terrible the BCS is, how no one likes it, and pushing for a playoff.

If you want proof of the overt bias in the part of the media, look at how the handle the NCAA basketball tournament. They do not release a single poll once it starts, it's a rubber stamp on the part of the AP on behalf of the process. Even the coaches poll comes out afterwards, but the AP refuses. Why? Because if they did release a poll, we'd notice the often nonsensical results of the wheel of fate tournament. As long as they are 100% behind something, the chances are they'll steer the opinions of the ignorance masses as well.

Mind you, I'm not saying everyone in favor of a playoff is ignorant, but I am saying that ignorance plays a role here. As people really start to see the specifics, more and more will decide this isn't such a massive improvement. The people bashing Alabama getting a rematch, and having a shot despite not winning their conference will realize both scenarios will become much more common in a +1. The people that seem to think undefeated nobodies will be included, will be unhappy when an undefeated cupcake conference team is left out (like Boise St. and Utah would have been every year). Then you have other devil in the details aspect like the difficulty fans will have getting travel arrangements/tickets with only one week's notice. It will undergo a honeymoon period, but you will see a lot of people deciding that the old efficient 1 vs 2 was something they preferred and eventually the hardcore playoff people will insist that a larger, more inclusive playoff come about.
 

GrayTide

Hall of Fame
Nov 15, 2005
17,476
3,021
187
Greenbow, Alabama
I voted old school because I detest both the BCS and the NCAA. The more this stuff changes the more I find that my love affair with college football may be on the wane.
 
Not even mentioning the logistics nightmares of actually going to the games, any playoff system in CFB that is going to be giving 8 or 10+ teams the chance to play for the NC is going to be horrendous. In the vast majority of years, CFB is extremely top heavy. That type system of is going to result in terrible games, and pointless beatdowns confirming what everybody else already knew. There would be the occasional "Cinderella" team, but more often than not, you'll have pointless extra games that could result in a legimate title contending team losing a great player(s) for no reason. Arky, Oregon, and USCe were both top 10 teams last year, and they were miles away from Alabama and LSU. It's going to be that way most years. As Krazy said in another thread, it is very hard to make a legitimate case for any #4 team in the last decade.

I'll admit this is self serving, but I am a fan of the +1 system simply for the reason that it gives Alabama a better shot at playing for the NC if we stumble during the regular season. Under the +1 system, we would have got another shot in 2008, and we would have got another shot last year if the voters had voted OSU #2. Simply put, I'm more afraid of not getting the chance to play for a NC than I am playing one extra game to win one. If Alabama is #1 or #2, I'm not afraid to play #3 or #4. If we're #3 or #4, I'm licking my chops at a chance to play #1 or #2. Going back to '09 and '11 - if we couldn't beat Boise or TCU in '09 or OSU or Stanford last year - we really had no business raising the Crystal football anyway...
 
Last edited:
Dec 15, 2000
541
2
0
Shellman Georgia
I like the plus 1. For the life of me, I still do not understand why Bama and Okie Lite could not have played and then the winner play LSWho. I know that this was outside of the current BCS system, but I really believe that the real reason that this did not happen was because it just made good sense. I know...good sense and the NCAA are an oxymoron.
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
25,194
8,086
287
51
Wishing I was somewhere close to Duluth with a sli
I think you will find that more fans favor a Plus One than any other scenario, but it isn't because folks are ignorant, and it isn't because the media is "causing it," it's because they're aware of potential injustice to an unbeaten team.

I think the notion that "the few" are pushing this is hilarious. Most folks here hate Tim Brando and the bulk of talking heads - yet you seriously think that the same folks who hate them turn right around and say, "Well, since Brando says it's a good idea, it must be."

Seriously.
 

BamaFossil

All-American
Jun 3, 2008
3,042
92
72
Williamsburg, VA
I approach this from the standpoint of which option is most likely IMO to work to the benefit of (or at least not to the detriment of...) Alabama. Accordingly, I voted for the current BCS system. The "Old School" approach is a not-too-distant second. The 4-team playoff is a much-distant third... and the 16-team playoff scenario cannot be anywhere in the same ballpark as the other three options.

Re the BCS option, I understand the prospect of a one-loss Bama getting left out of the title game. However, 2011 gave me a bit of faith that the BCS system can actually match up the two best teams. I fear an extra game more than I fear the BCS not selecting the best two college teams. An extra game is always an opportunity for injuries to key players; as well as a chance for an opponent to have a Steven Garcia game-of-a-lifetime against us.

"Old School" bowl system suffers from my memory of pollsters being in love with ND and the Big Ten during the '50's and '60's. 1966 is the poster child for my aversion to the former bowl system as the means of selecting a national champion. BTW, some may complain that this system allows for more than one team to be declared the national champion. Heck, that's the saving grace of the bowl system. We benefitted from that structure. Several times.

Boise State has shown us that a 4-team playoff means a school can play a regular season consisting of ten cupcakes, one middling team, and one quality team; and if they run the table, they're in. In the meantime, Alabama will have to slog through the SEC. Certainly any of the final 4 teams will be capable of beating any of the others. So if Alabama (or any SEC team) makes it through the SEC bruised and injured but lands in the final 4, their reward is to play another tough team... And if they win, then play another tough team in the championship game. Fans in general will like it. Yes, even Alabama fans... at least at first. But eventually the sponsors will prevail in their contention that if 4 is good, 8 is better... and 16 is even better. The objective - just as it is in March Madness nowadays - is to get fannies in front of TV sets watching the games and the advertising. Picking a champion is a necessary byproduct. Doesn't really matter who the champion is... nor if that team is really the best team. It'll be the team that got hot at the right time. Most likely aided by not having to exhaust themselves during the regular season.

The 16-team playoff option isn't worthy of comment.
 

NBF_Bama_Cavalry

All-American
Dec 2, 2002
2,565
65
67
63
Titus, Al, US
www.dixiebikers.com
I voted for the current BCS system, simply because it's the best of the 4 scenarios. By and large, usually the 2 best teams have played for the championship in the BCS era. The old school poll system was tragically flawed. I remember the coaches poll after the '79 Sugar Bowl when 2 coaches (Bo Schembechler and John Robinson?) voted Alabama 14th or worse so that Southern Cal would be the UPI #1. I agree with an earlier poster about 4 becoming 8 and 8 becoming 16. Next thing you know, CFB would be like the NBA. The season would start in September and the playoffs would run from January through the last week of August.
 

bamaslaw

All-SEC
Jan 16, 2005
1,899
0
0
Atlanta, GA
In my perfect world, I would do a 6 team playoff. 1 and 2 get byes, which is a huge advantage for finishing undefeated and being one of the top two. Also, any undefeated minnow that is #7 really does not have even an almost legitimate argument. Seed them strictly by BCS rank, or whatever other formula we want to use, just please no selection committee.
 

KrAzY3

Hall of Fame
Jan 18, 2006
9,447
1,126
187
41
www.myspace.com
I'll admit this is self serving, but I am a fan of the +1 system simply for the reason that it gives Alabama a better shot at playing for the NC if we stumble during the regular season. Under the +1 system, we would have got another shot in 2008, and we would have got another shot last year if the voters had voted OSU #2. Simply put, I'm more afraid of not getting the chance to play for a NC than I am playing one extra game to win one. If Alabama is #1 or #2, I'm not afraid to play #3 or #4. If we're #3 or #4, I'm licking my chops at a chance to play #1 or #2. Going back to '09 and '11 - if we couldn't beat Boise or TCU in '09 or OSU or Stanford last year - we really had no business raising the Crystal football anyway...
First, there's a lot of other nuances to this. Part of it is the absurdity of a TCU or Boise St. playing nobody all year, basically resting up for a playoff. Alabama would have played one of those teams as a battered and bruised team. Should they win? Sure, but it's a disadvantage and G-Mac's broken ribs agree with me on that. I won't go into most of those though because I'll focus specifically on the impact of the SEC championship game.

I wanted to check results to see how things played out.
1999: #7 Alabama beat #4 Florida to earn the #4 spot.
2001: NR LSU beat #2 UT, knocking them to #6
2005: #14 Georgia beat #4 LSU
2009: #2 Alabama played #1 Florida resulting in Alabama #1 and Florida #5

Now, there are other nuances there. The SEC championship game was not the only factor, but when it was, it was at best neutral (unless I missed something) and three times would have knocked an SEC team out. To hear some people here tell it, it would have knocked 2008 Alabama out as well, I guess because voters would have been more dishonest had that vote meant something. Anyway, the point is that while this process does give the SEC a bit more of a chance to win a championship on an annual basis, statistically speaking is lowers their chances significantly. The current BCS is just about right in that only one team can win and the SEC is doing an excellent job is getting to the game. If you change to a +1, more often than not, the SEC will still only be putting a single team in, it's just that it will now see the odds of it winning drop.

We can't let ourselves get confused here. Change came about after the SEC put two teams in the BCS Championship Game. These people are wealthy and have research staffs, you had better believe they looked up who would be playing in a +1 and saw it as a chance to improve their odds statistically. This isn't for the benefit of the SEC, it's for the benefit of everyone else...

it's because they're aware of potential injustice to an unbeaten team.
You and I both know that this won't prevent that. Besides, the injustice is the notion that playing no one, and going unbeaten might mean something. I can only think of one team in the history of the BCS that went unbeaten, would have been in under a +1 and actually had a legit argument for playing for a championship. That's Auburn and their schedule was still pathetic. The notion that we change everything for this one instance is absurd... and if we're doing it for Boise St., well that's both stupid and abhorrent to me. I can think of a lot of reasons for a +1, but for Auburn? Really?

Also, I have to throw this out there on the ignorance side of things. I've seen a lot of outright falsehoods used in the pro playoff argument (yes, even on this forum of generally knowledgeable people). I ran into a lot of ignorance when people were bashing Alabama getting a rematch and not being a conference champ, while supporting a playoff. A few came out and said they didn't consider the (obvious) fact that this would happen more often in a playoff. The media told them the rematch was bad and a playoff is good, and they never bothered to reconcile the logical fallacy in their mind. Yes, I do believe ignorance (perhaps in the form of wishful thinking) is a major aspect here and if you don't think the media is shaping the discussion, then you'd have a hard time understanding how they pick juries on high profile cases.

Finally, to kind of sum up the whole thing I saw an ESPN poll in which most of the respondents thought Alabama was the best team, and yet a majority also said that Oklahoma St. should have played LSU. This is, for better or worse, the national perspective. It's not logical, it's not fair, and it's an example of generally speaking how loathsome people are. So, I do reserve the right to be prejudiced against these idiots and I care very little for how many of them feel, or even why, because they have collectively proven themselves to be morons. As a matter of fact, if I see most of them going in one direction, it's often a good reason why I should go the other.
 
Last edited:

mdb-tpet

1st Team
Sep 2, 2004
892
89
47
I voted for the current system essentially due to the use of the computer and how the current system allows for the best two teams to be on the field. Human minds will always be fickle and subject to political/school allegiances. The computers, disliked as they are, are set in their biases all year, no changes, no this-team-looks-good-on-the-field etc. I've heard of a selection committee for the new 4 team system, but even the selection committee for basketball supposedly uses the RPI or whatever they call it now, except the last team in is where the controversy always lies. And, there will be controversy for team 3 or team 5 or team 9 or team X+1, where X is the number of slots.

I haven't put my finger on it, but I'm just not excited about the 4 team suggestion. And, I would definitely hate a system of only conference winners, that would just plain suck.
 

GCtidefan

1st Team
Sep 23, 2010
349
23
42
Adger, AL
I voted for the "Current BCS".
"Old school" leaves a bad taste in my mouth from 1966 - When sportswriters get to crown the champ, college football loses.
The only reason I didn't vote for the 4 team playoff is because I believe the #1 seed should get a bye, and then play the winner of #2 versus #3 - Attaining #1 in the polls should have its rewards.
Anything beyond the 4 team playoff is just ridiculous.