BCS Commish: "Status Quo is off the table"

[MtnBuff]

We'll agree to disagree. But...Pathetic? Give me a break. Sounds like someones political views are getting in the way of rational thinking. Are you saying the Buffs in '01 shouldn't have had a chance to win it all because they got on a roll late? What if all the teams in'90 didn't lose for the Buffs In he last 3 weeks of the season that allowed us win the Nat'l championship? I appreciate your viewpoint and lengthy posts, unlike others here, but feel you are off base on this. I want the best team, at the end of the year, to be named the National Champion, like EVERY other sport played in collegiate athletics. Teams get better as the season progresses, if they lose early, let the undefeated teams
Prove they are better in a playoff. The better team wins...right?

I am saying exactly that a team shouldn't get a shot just because they get on a roll late. I love a system that makes every week important. The idea that a team wins every game in a season then has to turn around and go through a playoff against teams that didn't get it done every week does not appeal to me.

I respect your argument, just completely disagree with it. I am more interested in the best team for the season, not for the playoffs.

 

[Darth Snow]

I am saying exactly that a team shouldn't get a shot just because they get on a roll late. I love a system that makes every week important. The idea that a team wins every game in a season then has to turn around and go through a playoff against teams that didn't get it done every week does not appeal to me.

I respect your argument, just completely disagree with it. I am more interested in the best team for the season, not for the playoffs.

Bold (1): See my above post about how this isn't true. Good thing the proposed system requires a team to perform at a high level throughout the season.
Bold (2): See my above post to see how this isn't true. Good thing the proposed system still makes every week important. Also, if you remember, the current system doesn't exactly make every week important either (Alabama do-over ring a bell?). Let's dispose of this losing argument on your behalf already.
Bold (3): See above. The top 3.3 % of the teams in div 1 college football are going to get it done, every week. They will still be held to an insanely higher standard compared to EVERY. OTHER. MAJOR. SPORT.
Bold (4): To win a championship, a team will perform at a high enough level to be named one of the top 3.3%. Then, it will play 2 of the other 3 teams in that top 3.3% (which, by the way, almost no past BCS champion, if any, has EVER HAD TO DO) and they have to beat them. At that point, how can you argue that they are not the best team for the season?

You present falsehoods as facts and base your argument off of those falsehoods. stop.

 

[bigskybuff]

Where do I begin? If we are going to pick the top 4 teams in the country at season's end, how does that create incentive to create tough non conference schedules? It will still be the same popularity contest at season's end, just with 4 teams instead of 2. Plus, we don't play 4 non conference games, we play 3, and with the Big 10(12) match-up that makes it essentially two non-conference games. Plus we already have a level of playoffs in place with conference championship games. Have I ever been to to a playoff college football game? Yes! Every damn week in college football is a playoff. That is the point! NFL games don't hold a candle to high profile regular season college football games.

Read my post. I said the top 8 teams. This rewards the teams that lose 1 game, that plays a tough non-conference schedule, a chance to play in the championship playoffs. Just like the strength of schedule works for basketball teams to get in the tourney, playing the best and winning those games, even if you drop one in conference play, allows you the opportunity to win it all. Again, as I pointed out with Mtn Buff, I agree the NFL doesn't compare with college football. I just happen to think coaching and maturing and getting better during the season shouldn't disqualify you from winning it all should you lose 1 game. If you don't agree with that, fine but it's what I'd like to see since the future points to a playoff. That's all I'm trying to say here. Believe what you want but it's my preference.

The bottom line is that we all want the Buffs to be one of those 4-8 teams we are talking about here. I have always loved that the Buffs were willing to take on all comers when they were kicking butt...it just worries me that we wouldn't have had the miracle in Michigan if teams were worried about losing 1 game as they are now. Things have changed since '94. Thanks BSPN.

 

[MtnBuff]

Bold (1): See my above post about how this isn't true. Good thing the proposed system requires a team to perform at a high level throughout the season.
Bold (2): See my above post to see how this isn't true. Good thing the proposed system still makes every week important. Also, if you remember, the current system doesn't exactly make every week important either (Alabama do-over ring a bell?). Let's dispose of this losing argument on your behalf already.
Bold (3): See above. The top 3.3 % of the teams in div 1 college football are going to get it done, every week. They will still be held to an insanely higher standard compared to EVERY. OTHER. MAJOR. SPORT.
Bold (4): To win a championship, a team will perform at a high enough level to be named one of the top 3.3%. Then, it will play 2 of the other 3 teams in that top 3.3% (which, by the way, almost no past BCS champion, if any, has EVER HAD TO DO) and they have to beat them. At that point, how can you argue that they are not the best team for the season?

You present falsehoods as facts and base your argument off of those falsehoods. stop.

1) Respectfully it is true. A team that goes undefeated all season ends up playing a team with 2 losses that happened to end up #4 in your scenario and has a hot game. To me that #4 team is not the best of the season. To get to #4 a team has to perform at a high level but not the highest level.

2) The Alabama do-over if you will remember is courtesy of the people who insisted on a championship game, without that one game "playoff" we never would have seen it. The more teams you add the more chances you have for this kind of stuff, again no thanks.

3) Again, college football is unique and should stay that way. Your 3.3% is fine but it isn't being the best team all year.

4) Again this doesn't determine who is the best team all year only which of the top teams is best at the time of the playoff. Again respect your opinion, I just don't buy it. What you are doing is giving teams a second chance that didn't get it done earlier in the year. If one team played a major conference schedule and went undefeated and the number 4 (or 6 or 8) seed lost two with a similar schedule then wins the playoff I cannot in any sense say they were the best team that season, only that playoff.

What I am presenting is opinion, what you are presenting is opinion. No arguement about your percentages, the argument is about the standard.

Just because other sports have a playoff doesn't to me, mean that college football should go along. I also have no question in my mind that your 3.3% will soon become 6.6% then more and more. The NCAA BB tourney is fun but it renders the regular season almost an afterthought. Games between top programs mean nothing more than potentially seedings with both teams and their fans knowing that short of disaster they are getting in. You can argue for a 4 team or 8 team playoff but tell me one sport that hasn't expanded their playoffs to include teams that have no argument about being the best team that year.

 

[Darth Snow]

You aren't arguing for a method of determining a viable champion. You are simply wanting to go back to 1989 or so. You have conspicuously ignored evidence that disagrees with your belief

 

[MtnBuff]

You aren't arguing for a method of determining a viable champion. You are simply wanting to go back to 1989 or so. You have conspicuously ignored evidence that disagrees with your belief

My evidence is simple. The game is much more fun week in and week out than any game with a playoff. I still have yet to see how a playoff makes the season any better. I also have yet to see how a playoff tells you anything other than who is best at the end, not throughout the season. How often is the Superbowl champ the team that was best over the whole season? the BB champ? almost any other sport. Sometime it works out, just as often or more it doesn't.

I do not accept that just because other sports do it that college football would benefit from a playoff.

I respect your opinion and right to have it. I simply do not share it. You have presented arguements as have I. I will need to see a much more convincing argument that a playoff would make college football better than I have seen to change my opinion.

No system is a perfect solution, just ask the team that thinks they would have won under a different system. I would much rather have the 1989 system that you mention than a playoff. I could live with a plus one. Beyond that I don't have any interest.

 

[Buffnik]

I don't think a playoff changes much in terms of scheduling or the importance of the early season.

Idea in the OOC is still to best prepare for the conference season while setting yourself up for the highest ranking (or best chance to make a bowl) possible. Doesn't matter whether it's the pre-BCS era, the BCS era, or whatever we get after it. The only change I ever saw make a big difference in the way teams played was when the BCS computers were using "margin of victory" in their calculations. That resulted in a lot more running up the score to get style points and was bad for the sport.

 

[sackman]

Mtn - the system azbuff proposed should cover everything. Take the four winners of the BCS bowls and put them in a playoff. I honestly don't think anybody could have a real problem with that. It keeps the regular season meaning something, because you have to have a great year to get into a BCS game, but it also allows for teams that peak at the end to win it all. It's the perfect solution. I can't believe this hasn't been suggested already.

 

[Buffnik]

Mtn - the system azbuff proposed should cover everything. Take the four winners of the BCS bowls and put them in a playoff. I honestly don't think anybody could have a real problem with that. It keeps the regular season meaning something, because you have to have a great year to get into a BCS game, but it also allows for teams that peak at the end to win it all. It's the perfect solution. I can't believe this hasn't been suggested already.

The problem with that scenario is that the bowl games would go back to their tie-ins along with being in the free market to select the best matchups (attendance & mostly tv ratings). That means that a 9-3 Notre Dame is going to be more likely to get a Sugar Bowl invite to play the SEC champ than a 10-3 Colorado that loses a close game in the Pac-12 Championship. And forget about the programs outside the Power 6.

 

[azbuff]

The problem with that scenario is that the bowl games would go back to their tie-ins along with being in the free market to select the best matchups (attendance & mostly tv ratings). That means that a 9-3 Notre Dame is going to be more likely to get a Sugar Bowl invite to play the SEC champ than a 10-3 Colorado that loses a close game in the Pac-12 Championship. And forget about the programs outside the Power 6.

Right, which is why you have to strip the bowls of their choice. Big Ten v. Pac-12 Champs every year in the Rose, Big 12 winner always goes to the Fiesta, SEC winner always goes to the Sugar and ACC winner always goes to the Orange. That leaves three at large spots, which must be the three highest rated BCS (or whatever this is called) teams that didn't win their conference, with a rule that conference foes cannot play each other in the BCS bowls. This year, it would've been Alabama-Clemson in the Orange Bowl, LSU-Stanford in the Sugar Bowl, Oklahoma State-Arkansas in the Fiesta Bowl and Oregon-Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl. This results in the top six BCS teams from last year, plus the conference champions. It isn't perfect, but I would enjoy it more than what we have now. And, yes, the Big Least is left out on purpose.

 

[Buffnik]

Right, which is why you have to strip the bowls of their choice. Big Ten v. Pac-12 Champs every year in the Rose, Big 12 winner always goes to the Fiesta, SEC winner always goes to the Sugar and ACC winner always goes to the Orange. That leaves three at large spots, which must be the three highest rated BCS (or whatever this is called) teams that didn't win their conference, with a rule that conference foes cannot play each other in the BCS bowls. This year, it would've been Alabama-Clemson in the Orange Bowl, LSU-Stanford in the Sugar Bowl, Oklahoma State-Arkansas in the Fiesta Bowl and Oregon-Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl. This results in the top six BCS teams from last year, plus the conference champions. It isn't perfect, but I would enjoy it more than what we have now. And, yes, the Big Least is left out on purpose.

I agree. But the one thing they agreed on is that this wasn't going to be an 8-team playoff. That means that there won't be anyone telling the bowls who to take.

I would bet that the BCS will invite the 4 highest-rated teams after the bowl games have been played and that will be our playoff.

 

[azbuff]

I agree. But the one thing they agreed on is that this wasn't going to be an 8-team playoff. That means that there won't be anyone telling the bowls who to take.

I would bet that the BCS will invite the 4 highest-rated teams after the bowl games have been played and that will be our playoff.

I agree my idea won't happen, it is just what I would like to see. All four games on New Year's Day. Lowest ranked at highest rank's home site, with third ranked at second ranked the second Saturday following New Year's Day (Saturday afternoon and evening games). The next Saturday is the championship game at a predetermined site, rotated between domes and warm weather cities.

 

[Junction]

1) Respectfully it is true. A team that goes undefeated all season ends up playing a team with 2 losses that happened to end up #4 in your scenario and has a hot game. To me that #4 team is not the best of the season. To get to #4 a team has to perform at a high level but not the highest level..

Then what you want is a vote after the last regular season game to crown a champion. Conference championship games, bowl games and playoff games are all games where a lesser team gets one shot to get hot against a better team...

 

[MtnBuff]

Then what you want is a vote after the last regular season game to crown a champion. Conference championship games, bowl games and playoff games are all games where a lesser team gets one shot to get hot against a better team...

While far from perfect the system has worked in making college football a lot of fun for decades. I would love to see it go back to the traditional New Years day bowls as the culmination of the season with the traditional tie-ins for the bowls.

Change with reason is good, change just to change or change to play follow the leader is not.

Again no system is perfiect or ever will be but the traditional system of selecting a college football champion is a unique and interesting way to do it that makes the game fun to watch and interesting to follow.

 

[Darth Snow]

While far from perfect the system has worked in making college football a lot of fun for decades. I would love to see it go back to the traditional New Years day bowls as the culmination of the season with the traditional tie-ins for the bowls.

Change with reason is good, change just to change or change to play follow the leader is not.

Again no system is perfiect or ever will be but the traditional system of selecting a college football champion is a unique and interesting way to do it that makes the game fun to watch and interesting to follow.

I'm glad you like how college football used to be. But please admit that you aren't talking about a champion.

You just want it to be different from everything else. Because what you are suggesting isn't a viable way to select a champion. Not to mention, it completely overvalues late season performance, your main point against a playoff (which is specious as well). How many times has the current system discounted early season losses compared to late?

Wanting college football not to change is fine, but let's stop pretending that you are about finding a champion.

 

[Burrito]

While far from perfect the system has worked in making college football a lot of fun for decades. I would love to see it go back to the traditional New Years day bowls as the culmination of the season with the traditional tie-ins for the bowls.

Change with reason is good, change just to change or change to play follow the leader is not.

Again no system is perfiect or ever will be but the traditional system of selecting a college football champion is a unique and interesting way to do it that makes the game fun to watch and interesting to follow.

That was fun. Key work: Was. It's diluted and worthless now.