My point is that it can't be decided on the field, not with 119 teams in the same division, and teams only playing 12 games a season. It's just not possible to settle it purely on the field like the NFL, for example. And even then, I recall way back when the 49ers had their dynasty thing going on in the NFC West with the Saints, I don't think there were any wildcard spots, and the Saints would finish up with a pretty decent record and miss the playoffs completely, while teams that the Saints beat handily in other conferences made it into the playoffs. I don't recall tons of people saying that the playoffs weren't legitimate back then, although we did finally get an expanded playoff system, including wildcard teams. How about a modification to the 6-team system? The top 4 are the highest-ranked conference champions, and the other 2 spots filled by undefeated teams (which would mean a team like Rutgers this year, assuming they go undefeated), and any unfilled spots left would go to the highest-ranked non-conference champions? Once again, I realize that it's not perfect, but hopefully most would agree that it's better than the current system, while still holding down the number of extra games needed to a minimum.
I came up with another take/angle on the matter... Let's assume that we wind up with Ohio State undefeated, along with a bunch of quality one-loss teams, along with Boise State and Rutgers undefeated. Right now, the BCS is a mess in choosing which of those teams should be #2, with tons of arguments on all sides. With either my 4 or 6 team system, more than one team is given a chance - sure, not EVERY potentially deserving team, but giving 3 or 5 teams a shot is better than giving just 1 team a shot, in my opinion. I'm very open to modifying the details, but I like the concept of making the conference a huge part of it, especially if all conferences were forced to have a championship game.
Tell that to the team that gets left behind. You still have missed my point. You haven't FIXED anything. All you did was MOVE the controversy. It is still there. The same arguements and complaints have gone nowhere.
I can see that point of view. But I think that by making the debate center around who the 4th or 6th best team is, versus who the second-best team is, it IS an improvement. How about the NCAA basketball tournament? What about a team that just barely misses out making it, even though they may have beaten one or more teams that did make it? Do they have a legitimate complaint? Sure, their arguments could convince you or me that they should have made it. But is it a huge controversy that dominates the coverage of the tournament? Nope. So 64 teams greatly minimizes such controversies, while a 2-team system for football leaves plenty of room for such controversies. Doubling or tripling the teams will minimize (but not eliminate in every single year) the controversies, in my opinion.
Not a bad arguement, but in basketball, you're talking about leaving out the # 66 team in the country, vs leaving out a top 5 team in football. Right now, Vandy getting left out of the football playoffs is about equal to the # 66 team missing March madness. Leaving a top 5 football team out of the playoffs ould be like tellinng Duke they didn't qualify for the Tourney. The odds of only having 4 or 6 teams separate themselves from the rest of the country are slim at best most years. The main problem I have with it, is that we would still have to rely on the computer suystem that everyone seems to hate. Why should we trust the system to provide playoff seeding for us, when we all argue and debate the rankings now? Look at the current BCS rankings, as a college football fan, woul a playoff system involving the current top 4 teams satisfy you as to who is the best in the country? I probably wouldn't. What about the top 6? That would probably work this year, because 3 teams right on the outside play each other and someone will separate, but that won't always be the case. In most years, we would ask the computers to decide for us who goes and who stays, which sounds an awful lot like what we have now.
I don't know what the details are, but the computer stuff just makes up part of the BCS, and I'm not opposed to seeing if the BCS rankings can be made better somehow. But it's never going to satisfy everyone, of course. Looking at the NFL, MLB, and NBA... sometimes a team is left out of the post-season (because of the alignment of teams into divisions, conferences, etc.) when many people think they are a better team than at least one of the teams that made it into the playoffs. Well, if we project out to the end of the regular season and conference championship games, a 4-team playoff would almost always satisfy me more than what we have now. (I'm ignoring the current top 4, because Michigan and Ohio State are going to play each other, and we have some big SEC action still to play that could greatly shake up things for good or bad). I think that it's pretty rare for a team ranked #7 or worse to have a legitimate gripe - it'd be almost always be a traditionally weak team from a weak conference, such as a Tulane, Marshall, Rutgers, etc. who goes undefeated through a pretty weak schedule. And a 6-team playoff system can be set up in such a way that even that shouldn't happen. I think the human polls count for 2/3rds of the BCS rankings (I could be wrong though, because I know they've made further tweaks to it since I last delved into the details), but don't you agree that by getting 4 or 6 teams into a playoff is going to be superior to only 2 teams? Just like you said about the basketball tournament, the team that's ranked #66 or worse isn't going to garner much sympathy. Similarly, a football team that can't get into the top 6 isn't going to garner as much sympathy as an undefeated team in a tough conference who finished undefeated yet are ranked #3.
I agree that yes this does happen, but that doesn't make it right Very well, we will bring this back up after the final polls are released. #7 ranked BCS team by year '98 - Arizona (Finished season 12-1) (#4 both human polls after bowl) '99 - Wisconsin (Finished season 11-1 BIG TEN CHAMPS) '00 - Florida (finished 10-2 SEC CHAMPS) '01 - Texas (finished reg season 11-1)(came 2 pts from being in MNC game) '02 - Oklahoma (finished 12-2 BIG XII CHAMPS) '03 - Florida St. (finished reg season 10-2 ACC CHAMPS) '04 - Utah (finished undefeated) (first traditionally weak team from weak conference to land in this spot) '05 - Texas Tech (finished 9-2) Ok, there goes that arguement, because not only do the traditionally weak RARELY finish in this spot, half of the time, it is one of the BCS conf Champs. I also think an electric scooter will get me around quicker than a bicycle, but I'm not going to use either to ge me to work and back. As noted by past results earlier in this post, I think a couple of those guys finishing 7th would disagree. P.S. you and i need to get together over a couple of beers, I love debating this sh!t. Believe me when I tell you I WANT a playoff system of some sort, but I am cursed with the ability to find a somewhat serious flaw in every system I have ever heard proposed.
OK, it's a deal! Ah, but I wasn't clear in that wording... I meant the #7th (or worst) ranked team amongst conference champions. That's why I mentioned Tulane, Marshall, and Rutgers (if they run the table this year). So all of the teams that you listed above that didn't win their conference would only have a chance of making the playoffs under the revised system I recently mentioned, which would take the top 4 conference champs, and then any undefeated conference champs NOT in the top 4, and any remaining slots would be filled by the highest remaining team(s). But if we currently have to use a tricycle, and an electric scooter was available instead, I think most would upgrade to that scooter. I love this stuff too! And I like finding someone who takes the opposite side on issues - it makes me think things through! And my system hasn't been analyzed for hours and hours - I'll be the first to admit that others would probably come up with some improvements to it.
This is how you do a playoff system that keeps the regular season important and the presidents happy and the bowl sponsers. The first week of the playoffs is the Conference Championships. (This means that teams still have to play the regular season to get to their championship game) That would leave 12 winners and include the best 2nd place from each regional with the best record playing during the first week of the playoffs. Break all the major bowls into regionals. 8 games in the first round, 4 games in the 2nd, 2 in the 3rd and then the National Championship Atlantic Coast Big East - East Regionals Mid-American Big Ten Independent - North Regionals Conference USA SEC Big 12 - South Regionals Sun Belt Pacific 10 Western Athletic - West Regionals Mountain West (Rotating) East Reg Bowls........................North Reg Bowls 1st - Meineke..........................1st - Liberty will need to be moved Gator ....................................Music 2nd - (Orange)........................2nd - (Fiesta) Peach..................................Outback will need to be moved South Reg Bowls.......................West Reg Bowls 1st - Capital One.......................1st - Insight Alamo.....................................Emerald 2nd - (Sugar).............................2nd - (Rose) Cotton....................................Holiday 3rd Round will Rotate between the 4 Major Bowls (Orange, Sugar, Rose, & Fiesta) As will the Championship Game. And then let the rest of the bowls select whatever teams they want to. No confrence tie ins. It would allow the bowls to choose closer teams so that they will get higher numbers of fans traveling to the bowl.
A BCS "play-off" is ridiculuous. For me, the only solution is for the NCAA to name the champion, and the NCAA will be able to do that only if they implement the same 16-team play-off system used by Div I-AA, Div II, and Div-III. The bowls could be used as the play-off sites (total of 15 games over 4 weeks) instead of the current on-campus arrangements. It would make the basketball tournament pale in comparison. BCS Champion is a nice title but NCAA champion has a much nicer ring to it. http://www.ncaasports.com/football/mens/schedules
