The BCS finally totally fails!!!

[geschinger]

AFAIK, nobody doesn't want it except for the big dogs plus a couple purists. It's not that opinion is against it. It's that the opinion of influential schools are against it.

As for the little guys, they'd jump at 1 slot in an 8-team playoff. That would be huge for them. Not only would it give them a chance which they don't have now, it also gets their foot in the door. Once they get there, then if the acquit themselves well, then 10 years from now they could argue for 2 slots, etc. As long as they're on the outside, they get nothing but a 1-bowl paycheck.

Oh, that is an idea I wasn't considering and maybe it would work if you guaranteed the other conferences 1 of the slots. But if we're going w/guaranteed slots then we'd have to keep guaranteed entry for the existing BCS conference champions. That would lock down 7 of the 8 playoff spots. That'd make winning one's conference even more important than it is now but would leave out some deserving teams if the 2nd best team in more than one conference are better than the conference champion in others. With guaranteed slots 8 teams might not be enough.

[hoosiers]

It's not about Boise or Hawaii adding one tough opponent in a home and home. The strength of the big conferences is that after playing Virginia Tech, BC, usually GaTech, Florida State, the belly of the conference still includes good teams like Maryland, Virginia, etc. Just like the Big Ten has Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin, Michigan, there is usually quite decent teams in Illinios, Michigan, Iowa, Purdue etc.

There's usually a cream puff or two in the conference, but the schedule demands the team play at a respectable level a large majority of the season. That is no where near the case with Hawaii (who acted like they won the Super Bowl barely beating Washington at home).

[RShack]

It's not about Boise or Hawaii adding one tough opponent in a home and home. The strength of the big conferences is that after playing Virginia Tech, BC, usually GaTech, Florida State, the belly of the conference still includes good teams like Maryland, Virginia, etc. Just like the Big Ten has Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin, Michigan, there is usually quite decent teams in Illinios, Michigan, Iowa, Purdue etc.

There's usually a cream puff or two in the conference, but the schedule demands the team play at a respectable level a large majority of the season. That is no where near the case with Hawaii (who acted like they won the Super Bowl barely beating Washington at home).

So what exactly do you want Hawaii or Boise to do? If nobody will play them, that's not their fault. The real enemy here is those big-name schools who play cream-puffs instead of little guys who might actually make a game of it. OhowIhateohiostate might be in the Big 11, but this year they also played the football powers of Youngstown State, Akron, and Kent State for a combined score of 106-11.

ps: The only thing I can think of that Hawaii and Boise could do is offer to play away games without requiring anybody to return the favor with a home game. I think Hawaii is offering 2-for-1. IIRC, when Bobby Bowden started at Free Shoes U, he did better than that. He offered to go play anybody good without demanding any return visits at all.

[RShack]

Oh, that is an idea I wasn't considering and maybe it would work if you guaranteed the other conferences 1 of the slots. But if we're going w/guaranteed slots then we'd have to keep guaranteed entry for the existing BCS conference champions. That would lock down 7 of the 8 playoff spots. That'd make winning one's conference even more important than it is now but would leave out some deserving teams if the 2nd best team in more than one conference are better than the conference champion in others.

That happens now anyway. There's only 8 slots in BCS bowls as-is, even including the 3 games that don't really count for anything except a big paycheck. No reason it has to be the conf champ. If the conf champ is #14 and some other conf team is #3, they could pick #3 instead. The conf gets the same money and prestige either way. There's no perfect solution. No matter what solution you pick, there's something wrong with it.

With guaranteed slots 8 teams might not be enough.

Eight slots is a whole lot more than 2, which is what they have now. I think 8 is little-enough change that maybe everybody could like it OK-enough to live with it. I think one big thing in it's favor is that it doesn't threated all the existing bowls nearly as much as a 16-team one would. AFAIK, the only big obstacle to it is the college prez's of a few places.

[BaltimoreTerp]

So what exactly do you want Hawaii or Boise to do? If nobody will play them, that's not their fault. The real enemy here is those big-name schools who play cream-puffs instead of little guys who might actually make a game of it. OhowIhateohiostate might be in the Big 11, but this year they also played the football powers of Youngstown State, Akron, and Kent State for a combined score of 106-11.

ps: The only thing I can think of that Hawaii and Boise could do is offer to play away games without requiring anybody to return the favor with a home game. I think Hawaii is offering 2-for-1. IIRC, when Bobby Bowden started at Free Shoes U, he did better than that. He offered to go play anybody good without demanding any return visits at all.

I remember an article on Fresno State, back when they were the hot non-BCS team, talking about how that was how their coach would schedule, until they started beating the big teams and then those teams stopped scheduling them at all.

This is why we need guarantees for all conference champions. The big schools are playing within the rules by scheduling crappy teams and refusing to go to play anyone half-decent out-of-conference unless they are another big school, but it also makes them look cowardly.

Bring the other schools in, let Troy and UCF knock-off Ohio State and LSU a couple times, and it will be a much better situation.

[geschinger]

That happens now anyway. There's only 8 slots in BCS bowls as-is, even including the 3 games that don't really count for anything except a big paycheck. No reason it has to be the conf champ. If the conf champ is #14 and some other conf team is #3, they could pick #3 instead. The conf gets the same money and prestige either way. There's no perfect solution. No matter what solution you pick, there's something wrong with it.

There would be two less slots in an 8 team playoff then there is in the current BCS scheme... There are 10 slots now - NC Game, Sugar, Orange, Fiesta and Rose. The addition of the extra game was to make it easier for teams like Hawaii to get in.

Eight slots is a whole lot more than 2, which is what they have now. I think 8 is little-enough change that maybe everybody could like it OK-enough to live with it. I think one big thing in it's favor is that it doesn't threated all the existing bowls nearly as much as a 16-team one would. AFAIK, the only big obstacle to it is the college prez's of a few places.

It definately is better than what we have now and if auto-bids were eliminated it would be ideal. But I do not see buy in from many of the big conferences to guarantee a mid major 1 of 8 slots. I still say that if you play the round of 16 at the home of the higher seed it shouldn't be any more of a threat to the existing bowl structure than an 8 team scheme.

I also believe there is more of an obstacle than simply a few college prez's. I think there are a lot of conference officials that prefer things as is. I believe only the SEC leadership has voiced a preference for a playoff.

[RShack]

I also believe there is more of an obstacle than simply a few college prez's. I think there are a lot of conference officials that prefer things as is.

Mostly the same thing, really.

I believe only the SEC leadership has voiced a preference for a playoff.

That's because their teams get screwed by knocking each other off, plus by the extra risk they take to have a championship game. When it comes to NC games, the SEC gets screwed by it's own goodness. Not as much as the little guys get screwed, but more than any of the big guys do. I think the absolute worst is the Big 11. They rig their schedule for bowl games worse than anybody. OhowIhateohiostate avoided playing 20% of their conference foes. Teams in that conference neither play everybody in the conference nor have a conference championship game. I figure you oughta at least do one or the other.

[geschinger]

Mostly the same thing, really.

That's because their teams get screwed by knocking each other off, plus by the extra risk they take to have a championship game. When it comes to NC games, the SEC gets screwed by it's own goodness. Not as much as the little guys get screwed, but more than any of the big guys do. I think the absolute worst is the Big 11. They rig their schedule for bowl games worse than anybody. OhowIhateohionstate avoided playing 20% of their conference foes. Teams in that conference neither play everybody in the conference nor have a conference championship game. I figure you oughta at least do one or the other.

I agree with you about the Big Ten. But the ACC, Big 12 and the SEC are too big for their own good. While in some years it's true that they beat the crap out of each other there are other years where teams get a relatively easy path by virtue of being in a weak division and avoiding the better teams. While the SEC teams have been screwed in the past they are certainly coming out way ahead this year. One of the two between UGA and LSU would not be in a BCS bowl if they hadn't been able to avoid playing each other.

[Birds of B'more]

Mostly the same thing, really.

That's because their teams get screwed by knocking each other off, plus by the extra risk they take to have a championship game. When it comes to NC games, the SEC gets screwed by it's own goodness. Not as much as the little guys get screwed, but more than any of the big guys do. I think the absolute worst is the Big 11. They rig their schedule for bowl games worse than anybody. OhowIhateohionstate avoided playing 20% of their conference foes. Teams in that conference neither play everybody in the conference nor have a conference championship game. I figure you oughta at least do one or the other.

What years did the SEC get blatantly screwed out of the NC game? I guess you can make an argument for Auburn in 2004......perhaps they would have played USC better than Oklahoma did, but all three teams did finish the regular season undefeated. Not that I'm arguing against a playoff, but I don't see where the SEC is the conference that gets hurt the most by the current system.

[Flosman]

What years did the SEC get blatantly screwed out of the NC game? I guess you can make an argument for Auburn in 2003......perhaps they would have played USC better than Oklahoma did' date=' but all three teams did finish the regular season undefeated. Not that I'm arguing against a playoff, but I don't see where the SEC is the conference that gets hurt the most by the current system.[/quote']

The poster is saying it is the toughest conference in the country to go undefeated in. There are really no absolute cupcakes and the middle of the pack is better than any other conference in the country, IMO.

[Birds of B'more]

The poster is saying it is the toughest conference in the country to go undefeated in. There are really no absolute cupcakes and the middle of the pack is better than any other conference in the country, IMO.

I don't doubt it's the toughest conference to go undefeated in, but I don't see how that's hurt their chances to play in the NC game, other than 2004 as I pointed out. This year a 2-loss LSU team is playing for the NC, despite the fact that there were 5 other possible teams with equal or better records. Last year it was Florida that got in when a lot of people were arguing for Michigan. Obviously last year the system got it right, and I think it did this year too. The reason it worked is because the strength of the SEC was taken into consideration by both the human and computer polls.

Off subject a bit, I think 2004 was just as good and perhaps an even better argument for a playoff than this season. Not only did Auburn get left out, but I think Utah got screwed too. While the Utes mowed through an easier schedule during the regular season, they got a horrible bowl matchup and annihilated a mediocre Pitt team that somehow managed to win the Big East. At least Auburn got to prove their mettle against a pretty good VT team.....we'll never know how good Utah was that year.

[RShack]

I don't doubt it's the toughest conference to go undefeated in' date=' but I don't see how that's hurt their chances to play in the NC game, other than 2004 as I pointed out. This year a 2-loss LSU team is playing for the NC, despite the fact that there were 5 other possible teams with equal or better records. Last year it was Florida that got in when a lot of people were arguing for Michigan. Obviously last year the system got it right, and I think it did this year too. The reason it worked is because the strength of the SEC was taken into consideration by both the human and computer polls.[/quote']

Conference strength only matters when a bunch of teams have the same record. The only reason LSU is in it is because all the other candidates who everybody takes seriously has 2 losses too. In general, I think playing in the SEC is worth an extra loss or two compared with some other conferences. If you had two brand-name schools with 1 loss, then a 2-loss team would never get considered, no matter who they played or how they lost. If you had two undefeated brand-name schools, then a 1-loss team would never be considered even if the only time it lost was on a freak play in the 5th OT. The public perception of who's a brand-name school matters way more than actual conference strength does. Among brand-name schools, it's pretty much just the record that matters regardless of who they played. Among non-brand-name schools, it's an incredible up-hill battle that has little to do with how they play football.

Off subject a bit' date=' I think 2004 was just as good and perhaps an even better argument for a playoff than this season. Not only did Auburn get left out, but I think Utah got screwed too. While the Utes mowed through an easier schedule during the regular season, they got a horrible bowl matchup and annihilated a mediocre Pitt team that somehow managed to win the Big East. At least Auburn got to prove their mettle against a pretty good VT team.....we'll never know how good Utah was that year.[/quote']

Lots of years create situations where you just can't pick 2 teams to play without screwing somebody. It's the fundamental flaw of the whole BCS scam. How they ever thought that idea could possibly work is beyond me. It pretty much requires a freak season for it to make any sense.

[Birds of B'more]

How they ever thought that idea could possibly work is beyond me. It pretty much requires a freak season for it to make any sense.

I think they did it just to try and quell the discontent from the pre-BCS/Alliance/Coalition days when bowl matchups were all about conference tie-ins and it was very possible that the teams ranked #1 and 2 at the end of the regular season would not play. But you're right.....what they igonred was that the root of the problem wasn't getting the two top-ranked teams to meet in a bowl game, but the whole system of ranking teams and the belief that every year there would only be two teams were deserving of playing for the title.

That said, since the 1996 season (when the Rose Bowl joined the other major bowls in the Alliance) there have been several years where it has worked, IMO. Not nearly often enough, but enough that I wouldn't call it a "freak season."

1996-97 #3 Florida beats #1 FSU (#2 Arizona St lost in the Rose Bowl, so it could be argued that they just got lucky)

1998-99 #1 Tennessee beats #2 FSU

1999-00 #1 FSU beats #2 Virginia Tech

2000-01 #1 Oklahoma beats #2 FSU

2002-03 #2 Ohio St beats #1 Miami

2005-06 #2 Texas beats #1 USC

[RShack]

That said' date=' since the 1996 season (when the Rose Bowl joined the other major bowls in the Alliance) there have been several years where it has worked, IMO. Not nearly often enough, but enough that I wouldn't call it a "freak season."[/quote']

Well, OK, let's see...

1996-97 #3 Florida beats #1 FSU (#2 Arizona St lost in the Rose Bowl' date=' so it could be argued that they just got lucky)[/quote']

Worse than that. ASU was #2 and they got left out. The fact that they lost in the Rose Bowl just makes everybody forget. At selection time, it was a definitely case of somebody getting screwed.

1998-99 #1 Tennessee beats #2 FSU

They dodged a bullet simply because of who-lost-when. Two bullets' date=' really. Both K-State and UCLA lost their last game, so FSU got in with the same record those guys had. If not for that, there would've been 3 teams who ran the table, with FSU not being one of them.

1999-00 #1 FSU beats #2 Virginia Tech

OK. But lotsa Big Red fans were crying about the Big East being nobody, so it's the conference thing again. (I ain't dissing VT, I'm just saying it was controversial, that's all.)

2000-01 #1 Oklahoma beats #2 FSU

No way. OU sure. But FSU had one loss' date=' just like Miami and Washington did. Miami had beaten FSU during the season, and Washington had beaten Miami. So, that's 2 schools getting left out for no good reason.

2002-03 #2 Ohio St beats #1 Miami

OK. But I think this was another example of the SEC killing itself. Georgia had only 1 loss that year, when they lost to Florida. Georgia was leading the universe in 3rd-down conversions that year, but somehow went 0-for-13 in the 2nd half and lost by a TD. It's that conference thing again. Without that, they could've had 3 undefeated teams. I'm not saying that the OSU and Miami didn't deserve it, only that SEC teams killing the chances of other SEC teams helped the BCS look good.

2005-06 #2 Texas beats #1 USC

OK, no if's, and's or but's about that one. (I just hated seeing Mr. Football win it, that's all ;-)

So, you say 6 years.

Of those, I "no way" to 96 and 2000.

In 98, they just lucked out and dodged a bullet solely because of who-lost-when.

Both 99 and 02 had conference-strength issues that invited pro-playoff controvery.

So, I'd say 05 was the only time it was rock solid, i.e., no real grounds for saying a playoff would've been better. That's 1 out of 11, which counts as a freak season to me.