Goodbye BCS

#76
#76
GreveHaller said:
same could be said for #5 in a 4 team, #9 in an 8 team, or even #69 in a 68 team, etc........
Click to expand...

There comes a point when the general public stops listening to the whining of the first team out. The two team playoff that was the BCS was not that point. Will the four team playoff get there? I guess we'll find out pretty quick.
 
#77
#77
bamawriter said:
There comes a point when the general public stops listening to the whining of the first team out. The two team playoff that was the BCS was not that point. Will the four team playoff get there? I guess we'll find out pretty quick.
Click to expand...
and I agree, we'll see very quickly. I just dont think it solves any problems and only creates more. Example - everyone points to 2004 when an undefeated Aub team was odd man looking in as undefeateds USC and OKL played for the NC. Sucked for Aub but there was only room for 2. Folks pointed saying "see, see we need a playoff so this wont happen" yet the issue was over one team - Auburn. So use the same 4 team format of next year for 2004. Aub, Okl, and USC are in for sure but who is #4?

#4 ranked 10-1 California?

#5 ranked and undefeated Utah? they'd probably have an issue with Cali getting there above them

if 10-1 teams are mentioned then Texas and Louisville definately have a dog in the hunt

then there's undefteated and #10 ranked Boise State
let Boise State in and higher ranked Va Tech (10-2) and Georgia (9-2) have legit claims to be included.


So in 04, the problem was one team. In a 4 team playoff the problem is 7 teams. And that make it more clear?? Nope. Never. I'd rather have one team whining about not getting in that 7 others crying.
 
Last edited:
#78
#78
GreveHaller said:
and I agree, we'll see very quickly. I just dont think it solves any problems and only creates more. Example - everyone points to 2004 when an undefeated Aub team was odd man looking in as undefeateds USC and OKL played for the NC. Sucked for Aub but there was only room for 2. Folks pointed saying "see, see we need a playoff so this wont happen" yet the issue was over one team - Auburn. So use the same 4 team format of next year for 2004. Aub, Okl, and USC are in for sure but who is #4?

#4 ranked 10-1 California?

#5 ranked and undefeated Utah? they'd probably have an issue with Cali getting there above them

if 10-1 teams are mentioned then Texas and Louisville definately have a dog in the hunt

then there's undefteated and #10 ranked Boise State
let Boise State in and higher ranked Va Tech (10-2) and Georgia (9-2) have legit claims to be included.


So in 04, the problem was one team. In a 4 team playoff the problem is 7 teams. And that make it more clear?? Nope. Never. I'd rather have one team whining about not getting in that 7 others crying.
Click to expand...

I get why you pointed to '04, but it really isn't the best example. The four team playoff would have been pretty clear-cut:

#1 USC vs. #4 California
#2 Oklahoma vs. #3 Auburn

You can toss out Utah, Louisville and Boise, as the playoff won't include the mid-majors. They have been given a token spot in one of the big 6 bowls, but they won't be playing for the title.

Cal would have gotten in over Texas as their one loss was by 6 points at #1 USC, while Texas got shut out by #2 Oklahoma at a neutral site.

2007 would have been a better example. The BCS was convoluted enough as it was. While Ohio State certainly would have gotten in, and likely LSU, how does one decide between the 7 two-loss teams along with the 11-1 Kansas team with a terrible resume? And that's assuming 12-0 Hawaii isn't considered at all.
 
#79
#79
I really love the fact that there isn't a large playoff field in college football. It makes the regular season very exciting, and forces the teams who play for the national championship to be elite all season long, not just get hot at the right time. The most ideal thing in my mind, and this is jmo, would be to leave the BCS in tact and allow the top 4 teams to enter the playoff rather than having a commitee. If you go beyond 4 teams, there is a real chance of taking away what makes college football great.
 
#81
#81
bamawriter said:
I get why you pointed to '04, but it really isn't the best example. The four team playoff would have been pretty clear-cut:

#1 USC vs. #4 California
#2 Oklahoma vs. #3 Auburn

You can toss out Utah, Louisville and Boise, as the playoff won't include the mid-majors. They have been given a token spot in one of the big 6 bowls, but they won't be playing for the title.

Cal would have gotten in over Texas as their one loss was by 6 points at #1 USC, while Texas got shut out by #2 Oklahoma at a neutral site.

2007 would have been a better example. The BCS was convoluted enough as it was. While Ohio State certainly would have gotten in, and likely LSU, how does one decide between the 7 two-loss teams along with the 11-1 Kansas team with a terrible resume? And that's assuming 12-0 Hawaii isn't considered at all.
Click to expand...
correct, 07 would have been better. I used 04 because I had all the data handy.

Even saying the mid major is thrown a token but wont get into the final 4 doesnt mean they never will just like when they were added to the BCS bowls some years ago. An undefeated Utah in the MWC or Boise St would evoke enough underdog mentality that the BCS conferences would add them just like before and the scenerio I painted would take place with all the other major conf teams screaming. With the limited number of games football plays it only adds to the problem when the number of teams added to the playoff increases.
 
#82
#82
GreveHaller said:
correct, 07 would have been better. I used 04 because I had all the data handy.

Even saying the mid major is thrown a token but wont get into the final 4 doesnt mean they never will just like when they were added to the BCS bowls some years ago. An undefeated Utah in the MWC or Boise St would evoke enough underdog mentality that the BCS conferences would add them just like before and the scenerio I painted would take place with all the other major conf teams screaming. With the limited number of games football plays it only adds to the problem when the number of teams added to the playoff increases.
Click to expand...

There might be "more" problems, but they're less significant. If a 3 loss team wanted to complain about being snubbed, that wouldn't be so much of an outrage. They showed more than enough to not truly earn it. But Auburn being deprived of a chance to play for the title in 04? Travesty. Indefensible. The scenario in most years when one 1-loss team is given that chance and several others aren't? Problematic at best.

In 1998, 2000, 2001, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011, 2012 and 2013, almost every single year, teams ranked 2-4 all had the same number of losses. Under the BCS system, only the most "appealing" team in that group had a chance to play for the title. Now, they all do. How is that not an improvement?
 
#83
#83
bamawriter said:
Bowl attendance started declining at the advent of the BCS. The playoff talk didn't change the trajectory.
Click to expand...

i don't think it was because of the BCS format,the cost of traveling and big screen TVs at home,haven't helped any,I do think the expense has cut down on traveling
 
#84
#84
like others have said,there will all ways be a controversy over who should be in at the bottom,the number 5 team and fans will be complaining,when they go to 8 it will be the 9th rated team and fans complaining and if the go to 16 the 17th team and fans will be pissed,but a playoff system using the polls,should be able to get more SEC teams a shot at the championship
 
#85
#85
bamawriter said:
I get why you pointed to '04, but it really isn't the best example. The four team playoff would have been pretty clear-cut:

#1 USC vs. #4 California
#2 Oklahoma vs. #3 Auburn

You can toss out Utah, Louisville and Boise, as the playoff won't include the mid-majors. They have been given a token spot in one of the big 6 bowls, but they won't be playing for the title.

Cal would have gotten in over Texas as their one loss was by 6 points at #1 USC, while Texas got shut out by #2 Oklahoma at a neutral site.

2007 would have been a better example. The BCS was convoluted enough as it was. While Ohio State certainly would have gotten in, and likely LSU, how does one decide between the 7 two-loss teams along with the 11-1 Kansas team with a terrible resume? And that's assuming 12-0 Hawaii isn't considered at all.
Click to expand...

Or going back to 1980. You would have had #1 Georgia(11-0) playing #4 Oklahoma(9-2) and #2 Florida State(10-1) playing #3 Pittsburgh (10-1).
 
#87
#87
Computers are just hidden human bias.

I'll take a playoff any day. But it needs a min of 8 with a sweet spot of 16 teams to me.
 
#88
#88
BigOrangeTrain said:
So out of 16 years, how many times have the BCS got it wrong? Maybe 5 at best?
Click to expand...

The BCS might have gotten it wrong in 1998, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011, 2012 and 2013.

In all of those years, the #2 team had the same number of losses as the #3-4 teams, yet only the #2 team had an opportunity to play for the championship.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top