The BCS finally totally fails!!!

[BaltimoreTerp]

As a proponant of a 24 team playoff, i am surprised to hear many of the opinions here. Nothing is going to cheapen the regular season. I currntly think the current system makes 90% of the games during the season meaningless. For the aurguement that at 24 teams some three loss team might win the national championship, well that in football is highly unlikely. Some medocre team is not going to win 5 consectutive games against the top 23 teamsin the country. Even if theysomehow went deep into the playoffs so what. Is the fact that George Mason makes it deep into the basketball tourny some how hurt basketball? One it won't hurt and two it will not happen.

We sit around on message boards debating who plays in a good conference and what not and this is an opportunity to prove it on the field. I firmly believe that a team like HI or boise state(recently) deserves a chance to prove it on the field. But in saying that I do not think HI is a better team than say Florida and unless you include enough teams someone deserving is not going to get a shot at it.

I actually like the idea of having the 11 conference champions getting automatic bids. So maybe I would do a 21 team playoff. With the 10 at large teams playing in round one to set the 16 team bracket.

The current system is an embarassment to the NCAA and proves that it is all about the good old boy system.

I don't have a problem with including a few more teams, though I do think that fewer rounds, and fewer at-large teams, is better.

[Flosman]

I don't have a problem with including a few more teams, though I do think that fewer rounds, and fewer at-large teams, is better.

Why?

The ony way to have more teams is to add rounds. I think in many seasons it will seem silly to have 24 teams because there are only 2 or three teams that have a chance, but then in a season like this year I really think you can go about 10 deep on teams that actually are capable of winning it all.

[BaltimoreTerp]

Why?

The ony way to have more teams is to add rounds. I think in many seasons it will seem silly to have 24 teams because there are only 2 or three teams that have a chance, but then in a season like this year I really think you can go about 10 deep on teams that actually are capable of winning it all.

I'm just saying that there is a balance that needs to be struck between including teams and including QUALITY teams.

I think that place is 16 - all the conference champs, plus five. Only four rounds/weeks, and it could be worked-out to extend the last week to end the season on New Year's Day (if we really want to keep with tradition, that the "big bowls" have destroyed).

You are always going to leave out SOMEBODY, no matter how many teams are involved.

Now, my point was that I would be willing to add teams and rounds; my idea isn't set in stone. I just feel 16 is a good balance.

[mweb]

If matchups like LSU vs. Yale is what troubles you about a playoff, I can allay that concern. Under no scenario that I am aware of would you be subjected to an LSU vs Yale matchup as I don't think anyone anywhere has ever thought adding Division I-AA teams to a playoff makes any sense whatsoever.

The teams that would have made it this year are Troy, Hawaii, BYU, Central Michigan, and UCF. Are those great teams? Hardly. Would any of those teams be capable of pulling an upset? Absolutely.

Ok, my bad, then I don't want to see LSU vs Troy. Those teams should not be in the playoffs because they aren't good enough, except in the rare season where a Hawaii, Boise St, BYU, etc have a great year. I only want to see the best teams in the playoffs, and no more than 8 of them, more than that hurts the regular season a lot imo.

[mweb]

1) The "hurts the regular season" thing has always bothered me, because it makes absolutely no sense. Every other team sport at every other level has playoffs: do they hurt the regular season?

Especially in Division I-A football, which would be 16 out of 120 teams, or 13% of all teams.

2) "Mediocre-to-bad conferences"?

If the NCAA feels fit to give those "Mediocre-to-bad conferences" the privilege of participating at Division I-A, then why should they not have the same chance at a championship?

Do you think the basketball tournament is cheapened by George Mason making the Final Four, or a 15-seed beating a two-seed?

In every other sport, a few losses is not that big of a deal, in college football, each game is supposed to be very important, at least when we're talking about teams with title aspirations. A 16 team playoff would have taken away the importance of a lot of games, especially late in the season.

I'm not saying playoffs hurt the regular season, I'm saying having more than 8 teams really hurts the regular season, and I'd prefer 6.

Lets be real here, those teams wouldn't have a real chance at winning the championship unless it was one of those rare years where there was a great team from one of those conferences.

No, I don't have a problem with those college basketball situations, but I don't think it would be wise to do that in football.

BTW, this is the first I've ever heard of anyone wanting all the conferences to be represented in the playoffs, so at least this is something new, to me at least.

[BaltimoreTerp]

In every other sport, a few losses is not that big of a deal, in college football, each game is supposed to be very important, at least when we're talking about teams with title aspirations. A 16 team playoff would have taken away the importance of a lot of games, especially late in the season.

I'm not saying playoffs hurt the regular season, I'm saying having more than 8 teams really hurts the regular season, and I'd prefer 6.

Why would it take away from those games?

At the moment, there are four at-large bids in the BCS (10 spots minus six conference champions). Would adding one really make that much of a difference?

A few losses matter at all levels of football, because of how few games are played.

Lets be real here, those teams wouldn't have a real chance at winning the championship unless it was one of those rare years where there was a great team from one of those conferences.

How often do the MEAC, Atlantic Sun, etc. have a chance in the basketball tournament.

The point is that everyone deserves a chance. Eliminating 45% of teams just because they don't play in a "big" conference simply isn't fair.

No, I don't have a problem with those college basketball situations, but I don't think it would be wise to do that in football.

Why not?

BTW, this is the first I've ever heard of anyone wanting all the conferences to be represented in the playoffs, so at least this is something new, to me at least.

I've thought it for a while now. It never made sense to me why they do it as they do.

[geschinger]

Ok, my bad, then I don't want to see LSU vs Troy. Those teams should not be in the playoffs because they aren't good enough, except in the rare season where a Hawaii, Boise St, BYU, etc have a great year. I only want to see the best teams in the playoffs, and no more than 8 of them, more than that hurts the regular season a lot imo.

My preference is an 8 team playoff. As a fan, I don't find bye weeks to be all that entertaining and would rather bring the 7th and 8th best team into it rather than having 1 and 2 take a week off.

Listening to the radio a week or so ago when they were talking about a playoff has convinced me that the most likely outcomes are a +1 game at the end of the year or a 16 game playoff. Unless one finds a way to include all 11 conferences into the mix there is little chance of having enough institutions to support the NCAA creating a playoff tournament. I'd rather have the slightly less desirable but fully inclusive 16 team playoff over what we have now and over a +1 scenario.

[RShack]

I think the justification for the gap is that finals are right about now. They have to at least pretend the athletes are students too (actually that's not fair, a vast majority of them are students, but you know what I mean). Also, some schools have finals after winter break and some as early as the first couple weeks in December, so it really screws things up.

Doesn't stop Div II and Div III from having playoffs right now. I think Div II and Div III are gonna do way less stuff that makes a joke out of academics than the big-money football schools are. So, if Div II and Div III can do it without taking a month off, I don't see how it would be a problem for Div I. Lotsa places have exams in March, but the b-ball teams still find a way.

[BaltimoreTerp]

Doesn't stop Div II and Div III from having playoffs right now. I think Div II and Div III are gonna do way less stuff that makes a joke out of academics than the big-money football schools are. So, if Div II and Div III can do it without taking a month off, I don't see how it would be a problem for Div I. Lotsa places have exams in March, but the b-ball teams still find a way.

Exactly. The academic argument for the bowls is the worst of all.

[square634]

Doesn't stop Div II and Div III from having playoffs right now. I think Div II and Div III are gonna do way less stuff that makes a joke out of academics than the big-money football schools are. So, if Div II and Div III can do it without taking a month off, I don't see how it would be a problem for Div I. Lotsa places have exams in March, but the b-ball teams still find a way.

Oh trust me, I don't agree with that rationale, I'm just saying that is one of the rationales. IMO, it is impossible to defend any system in which before the season begins, certain teams have NO chance to win a championship, no matter what they do (i.e. the Boise States and Hawaiis of the world). Personally, I also think the regular season is more cheapened now when you might as well stop watching after your team loses one game (except maybe this season). Personally, I about any bowl game that isn't the National Championship. Since nothing is really at stake they don't mean anything to me as compared to the NCAA tournament. What I would like to see is a 16 team playoff with the BCS conferences getting automatic bids and the rest at-large bids.

FWIW, the TA in my sports class interned at the law firm that represents the BCS against antitrust lawsuits. He said that he was told that the main barrier to a playoff system is the SEC. The SEC refuses to agree to any of it because they feel (and are likely correct in this feeling) that they are much better and more popular than everyone else. The SEC also said that they would refuse to give up their conference championship game. Because of that, he was told that they are about 8-10 years from changing anything.

[RShack]

Here's a good question:

Why are we so worried about propping up a system that obviously cannot stand on it's own?

If the bowls can't adapt, then they should fail.

With what is being proposed by some, we are already making the bowls into "name-only" games (which I doubt a bowl like the Rose would ever accept), so why even bother with it?

I'm all for tradition, as long as it works and does not get in the way of continued improvement. The bowl system doesn't work, so why keep it at all?

I agree with most of this. But what's wrong now is not the big bowls' fault. They just wanna protect themselves, which is only natural. That's why they invented the prefab conference tie-in's to begin with. If you had a playoff, the best way for them to protect themselves is to signup for rotating the semi-finals and the NC game amongst themselves. They'd be happy to do that, I'm sure.

The problem now is a combo of the the original BCS idea being stupid, plus the college presidents being asses and hypocrites. No reason to blame the big bowls for that.

Once you get a playoff, I think one of the harder decisions to get everybody to agree about is: exactly how do you time it? Which really boils down to "Which round happens on New Years Day? Quarter-finals? Semi-finals?" The advantage to having the semi-finals then is that you can wrap the whole thing up a week later. The advantage to having the quarterfinals then is that you've got 4 important "bowls" on New Year's instead of only 2.

[RShack]

As a proponant of a 24 team playoff, i am surprised to hear many of the opinions here. Nothing is going to cheapen the regular season.

Are you kidding? It makes a huge diff if all a team has to do is finish in the top-24. You'd have some schools resting guys up for the playoffs, not taking risks in the game because it didn't really matter, etc., etc.

I currntly think the current system makes 90% of the games during the season meaningless. For the aurguement that at 24 teams some three loss team might win the national championship, well that in football is highly unlikely. Some medocre team is not going to win 5 consectutive games against the top 23 teamsin the country. Even if theysomehow went deep into the playoffs so what. Is the fact that George Mason makes it deep into the basketball tourny some how hurt basketball? One it won't hurt and two it will not happen.

Who's talking about George Mason? Right now, the Top-24 includes 11 teams with either 3 or 4 losses. Florida, Illinois, BC, Clemson, Tenn, Wisc, Texas, Va, S-FL, Cinc, and Auburn. You don't think any of those guys could get on a 5-game roll? Hell, Arkansas isn't even in there, but they've got 4 losses and they could win 5 in a row as easy as anybody. You think all those teams deserve a shot at the NC after the season they did (didn't?) have? I don't.

The absolute most I would wanna see is 16, and I think that's too many. Also, I don't see the point in having bye weeks for some. If you're gonna have X-weeks of playoffs, then you might as well get your money's worth. So it should consist of 2^X games. I favor 8, I think that would be absolutely great without weakening the importance of the season. I could live with 16 (especially if I had no choice in the matter), but right now the Top-16 includes 4 teams with 3 losses and 1 team with 4 losses.

[Birds of B'more]

My preference is an 8 team playoff. As a fan, I don't find bye weeks to be all that entertaining and would rather bring the 7th and 8th best team into it rather than having 1 and 2 take a week off.

Listening to the radio a week or so ago when they were talking about a playoff has convinced me that the most likely outcomes are a +1 game at the end of the year or a 16 game playoff. Unless one finds a way to include all 11 conferences into the mix there is little chance of having enough institutions to support the NCAA creating a playoff tournament. I'd rather have the slightly less desirable but fully inclusive 16 team playoff over what we have now and over a +1 scenario.

Good point. The most ardent support for changing the current system is probably going to come from the non-BCS schools who are already on the outside looking in. Try to institute a playoff that will almost certainly exclude those schools again and you can guarantee there won't be enough votes to make it happen.

[mweb]

Why would it take away from those games?

At the moment, there are four at-large bids in the BCS (10 spots minus six conference champions). Would adding one really make that much of a difference?

A few losses matter at all levels of football, because of how few games are played.

How often do the MEAC, Atlantic Sun, etc. have a chance in the basketball tournament.

The point is that everyone deserves a chance. Eliminating 45% of teams just because they don't play in a "big" conference simply isn't fair.

Why not?

I've thought it for a while now. It never made sense to me why they do it as they do.

There's a big difference between making a BCS bowl game and a playoff to win it all, your post makes it seem the same. Yes, it would make a difference when many must win games(or at least games we think are must win) become games where a loss can easily be survived by the team with title aspirations. So, yes, it really would make a big difference. Even an 8 team playoff makes a big difference in that regard, 16 just takes it to another level.

Losses matter much much more in college football than in the NFL, that is obvious.

They don't have a chance, but march madness and college basketball is entirely different from college football, as it should be. Those teams can pull of an upset or two or three at times, and their inclusion isn't keeping very good teams out out the tourney.

How is having the best teams compete for the title not fair? Having the best 4, 6, 8, or 16 teams play for the title is more fair than having vastly inferior teams make it over some teams that would actually have a chance. No one is being eliminated before the season, if a team like Hawaii can have a great year, they can potentially get into an 8 team playoff, especially if they beat a good team or two out of conference.

Because basketball teams from these lower conferences have a better chance than their football equivalents, there's a lot more games going on in a short period of time so there is less attention paid to the 1 vs 16 games, they make up a lower percentage of the teams in the tourney, their conference tourney's are exciting, as is their impact on bubble teams, and adding an extra basketball game isn't as big of a deal as adding an extra college football game.

No, what they do doesn't make sense, but nor does allowing mediocre teams to play for the national title.

[mweb]

Good point. The most ardent support for changing the current system is probably going to come from the non-BCS schools who are already on the outside looking in. Try to institute a playoff that will almost certainly exclude those schools again and you can guarantee there won't be enough votes to make it happen.

Wouldn't you think those conferences would look at Hawaii and Boise St and vote yes, thinking they would have gotten their shot at playing for the title, where otherwise they do not?