08 Dec 10
Originally posted by scacchipazzoBetter than the BCS but:
Here's a credible way of getting rid of BCS madness once and for all!
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news;_ylt=AmlQvCS8MHNJIy3UwBoD9iMcvrYF?slug=dw-playoff120610
Too many teams.
Don't like teams that can't win their conference having a shot at winning the overall title.
Prefer my idea; 6 champions of BCS AQ conferences plus two highest rated mid-majors or independents. Use 4 major bowls as quarter-finals; add two games as semis then title game. Would add only one week to season, preserve bowl rivalries and keep the conference championships meaningful.
08 Dec 10
2 edits
Originally posted by scacchipazzoHere is something to consider for those who advocate for a play off system. If you took every team from the top 10, for example, and had them play sudden death every year what you would wind up with is a bunch of SEC teams left every year to play for the NCG.
Here's a credible way of getting rid of BCS madness once and for all!
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news;_ylt=AmlQvCS8MHNJIy3UwBoD9iMcvrYF?slug=dw-playoff120610
However, as it stands now what you allow is for subpar conferences, like the ACC, to play in major bowl games and make themselves feel better about themselves.
08 Dec 10
Originally posted by no1marauderYour proposal truly punishes teams for being in a good conference. Why should there be only one SEC team (two of the top eight teams), one PAC ten team (two of the top 4 teams in the BCS) or one Big 10 team (3 of the top 9 in the BCS poll and two non-AQ teams.
Better than the BCS but:
Too many teams.
Don't like teams that can't win their conference having a shot at winning the overall title.
Prefer my idea; 6 champions of BCS AQ conferences plus two highest rated mid-majors or independents. Use 4 major bowls as quarter-finals; add two games as semis then ...[text shortened]... one week to season, preserve bowl rivalries and keep the conference championships meaningful.
Even this year when Boise unjustifiably dominated the headlines, it is still only ranked 10th and therefore should not be given an automatic spot. Your system does not even get the top 8 teams in the playoffs. It would eliminate #4 Stanford, #6 Ohio State, #8 Arkansas and replace them with #10 Boise, #13 Virginia Tech and unranked Conneticut. Furthermore, it would be another disincentive to play in a big conference.
08 Dec 10
Perhaps, in order not to add too long to an already long season teams should leave four open dates at end of season when the more realistic polls come out and start the playoffs then. Final eight could play big bowls and the also rans play the regular bowls as consolation prizes. That way everyone is happy and the sacrosanctity of bowls is semi-preserved! I am sure many teams out there could knock out SEC teams. I agree that no 6-6 team should have a chance to get in. But if that was the way to guarantee a semi-bye then it might work except with the caveat that if the superior team fails to blow out the lesser team then reseeding should take place.
08 Dec 10
2 edits
Being that the powers that be have no interest in putting a playoff system in place - (even though it would generate tremendous amounts of money) - I propose a simpler idea that would give a team like TCU a chance.
The bowl pairings would go forth according to the existing formulas, except that there'd be no "championship" pairing (yet). I would then modify the matchups (if necessary) to ensure that the top two ranked teams in the BCS do not play each other. And if there were more than two undefeated teams, I would modify the bowl matchups to ensure that no more than two undefeated teams remained after games were played.
THEN - after all these bowl games have been completed (no later than Jan 3) - there would be a final poll and a final calculation of the BCS standings -- and the top two teams would then meet one week later for the championship.
So if this system was in place, Auburn would play TCU in one of the regular bowl games. This would give TCU their "chance" to make it to one of the top two slots the following week.
An added bonus would be that the main bowl lineup would have one less bowl (because the championship game would involve teams that already played a bowl game). Actually, I would eliminate at least ten of the bowls, but that's another issue.
08 Dec 10
Originally posted by MelanerpesIf you are going to have a plus one system, why wouldn't you just have the #2 and #3 teams play in a bowl and the #1 and #4 teams play and then have the winners play?
Being that the powers that be have no interest in putting a playoff system in place - (even though it would generate tremendous amounts of money) - I propose a simpler idea that would give a team like TCU a chance.
The bowl pairings would go forth according to the existing formulas, except that there'd be no "championship" pairing (yet). I would then m ...[text shortened]... wl game). Actually, I would eliminate at least ten of the bowls, but that's another issue.
08 Dec 10
1 edit
Originally posted by quackquackYes - that would be a logical way of doing it.
If you are going to have a plus one system, why wouldn't you just have the #2 and #3 teams play in a bowl and the #1 and #4 teams play and then have the winners play?
The problem is this would make it a "playoff". I am working under the assumption that anything that looks too much like a "playoff" would send the powers that be into an angry frenzy. I have no idea why this is the case, but it seems to be the case. Maybe they're all a bunch of Democrats who believe that playoffs are a "Republican" idea (or vice versa).
So the idea is to disrupt the Traditional Order as little as possible and still have the Great and Noble BCS formula choose the final two teams.
08 Dec 10
1 edit
Originally posted by quackquackWe've went through you're imbecilic objections before. Why you think that opinions should carry more results than actual results on the field is puzzling except you are a very irrational and biased person. How a team is "punished" by being in a conference which gets an automatic bid is beyond any reasonable person's comprehension. And why a team which can't even win it's own conference should have ANY chance of being National Champion just because you like the conference they play in, is borderline moronic.
Your proposal truly punishes teams for being in a good conference. Why should there be only one SEC team (two of the top eight teams), one PAC ten team (two of the top 4 teams in the BCS) or one Big 10 team (3 of the top 9 in the BCS poll and two non-AQ teams.
Even this year when Boise unjustifiably dominated the headlines, it is still only ranked 1 ...[text shortened]... unranked Conneticut. Furthermore, it would be another disincentive to play in a big conference.
None of the AQ conferences are going to agree to a system where their champion is excluded BECAUSE it would PUNISH their conference (unlike my proposal). You can't seem to grasp that simple point and instead rave on and on and on with an objection which is the exact opposite of what the proposal does.
09 Dec 10
Originally posted by no1marauderI guess we always get into the same arguments. I would not mind a straight seeding system like the basketball one or the one run succesfully in Div I-III. I know it's a pipe dream for the powers that be love us continually arguing the subject while they reap the benefits of the current, corrupt and despicable system.
We've went through you're imbecilic objections before. Why you think that opinions should carry more results than actual results on the field is puzzling except you are a very irrational and biased person. How a team is "punished" by being in a conference which gets an automatic bid is beyond any reasonable person's comprehension. And why a team which ca ...[text shortened]... n and on and on with an objection which is the exact opposite of what the proposal does.
09 Dec 10
Originally posted by no1marauderOnly the #1moron thinks a proposal which eliminates three of the top eight teams from a playoff (so we can include your personal favorite but greatly overrrated Boise) is a good idea. Most of the best teams joined top conferences so an eight team playoff should not have two teams that are not in those conferences. Even this year with all the talk about TCU and Bosie there are not two teams that are in the top 8.
We've went through you're imbecilic objections before. Why you think that opinions should carry more results than actual results on the field is puzzling except you are a very irrational and biased person. How a team is "punished" by being in a conference which gets an automatic bid is beyond any reasonable person's comprehension. And why a team which ca ...[text shortened]... n and on and on with an objection which is the exact opposite of what the proposal does.
Finally whenever you propose a new system one should see how it would effect teams behavior. Teams would leave top conferences and go to weaker ones if they would compete for the same automatic bid. Why be in the Big three top 10 teams? or the Pac 10 two top four teams? or the SEC which is loaded when crappy teams like Michigan can blow out the Big East winner who gets an automatic bid?
09 Dec 10
Originally posted by scacchipazzoThere isn't a "straight seeding" system in March Madness; conference champions get automatic bids (which QQ doesn't want).
I guess we always get into the same arguments. I would not mind a straight seeding system like the basketball one or the one run succesfully in Div I-III. I know it's a pipe dream for the powers that be love us continually arguing the subject while they reap the benefits of the current, corrupt and despicable system.
09 Dec 10
Originally posted by quackquackWe see what teams behavior like Ohio State's is now; they schedule as weak out of conference teams as they possibly can because an out of conference loss is a virtual elimination game in the BCS. It's really impossible to say what is a "strong" conference when teams do that; as mentioned the three "Top 8" Big Ten teams did not play a single strong out of conference foe (Miami and ND at 7-5 were their best opponents and ND took Michigan State to OT). So it's just guesswork claiming that Team A is the #8 best and deserves to play for the championship but Team B is #9 and therefore eliminated. A proposal allowing in only conference winners set an objective, not a subjective, standard.
Only the #1moron thinks a proposal which eliminates three of the top eight teams from a playoff (so we can include your personal favorite but greatly overrrated Boise) is a good idea. Most of the best teams joined top conferences so an eight team playoff should not have two teams that are not in those conferences. Even this year with all the talk about ...[text shortened]... aded when crappy teams like Michigan can blow out the Big East winner who gets an automatic bid?
The idea that teams would leave big money AQ conferences for "weaker" ones without an automatic bid is loony. And besides if enough did then the "weaker" conferences wouldn't be "weaker" anymore would they, genius?
Why does it bother you sooooooooooooooooooooo much that so-called "weaker" conference champions would have to play "stronger" conference champions in the QUARTER FINALS? If they are really so "weak", they'll get slaughtered.
09 Dec 10
Originally posted by no1marauderSimply Boise does not belong over Stanford in a eight team playoff. Boise does not belong over any of the three Big 10 teams who play in tougher conference and have the same record. U Conn does not belong in a playoff and Virginia Tech ranked outside the top ten does not either. Your proposals does not recognize the reality that it continually will not put the best teams in the playoffs and as such I justifiably object to it.
We see what teams behavior like Ohio State's is now; they schedule as weak out of conference teams as they possibly can because an out of conference loss is a virtual elimination game in the BCS. It's really impossible to say what is a "strong" conference when teams do that; as mentioned the three "Top 8" Big Ten teams did not play a single strong out of ...[text shortened]... the QUARTER FINALS? If they are really so "weak", they'll get slaughtered.
09 Dec 10
Originally posted by quackquack'Cuz you say so? And your judgment (and/or the judgment of sports writers, coaches or computer programmers) over what team is "best" is infallible?
Simply Boise does not belong over Stanford in a eight team playoff. Boise does not belong over any of the three Big 10 teams who play in tougher conference and have the same record. U Conn does not belong in a playoff and Virginia Tech ranked outside the top ten does not either. Your proposals does not recognize the reality that it continually will not put the best teams in the playoffs and as such I justifiably object to it.
Ridiculous. But keep parroting the same BS over and over and over and over again.
I wonder why the NFL has the stupid system it does now and puts teams in the playoffs who win their division. They should just have people like QQ rate the teams at the end of the year and put those teams in the playoffs instead.