Originally posted by no1marauder There isn't a "straight seeding" system in March Madness; conference champions get automatic bids (which QQ doesn't want).
Even then NCAAMB has a way better system than college football. Whatever system is used in the lower division seems to work. One never hears about contriversy in those championships and the games are usually excellent. Semis coming up this weekend in Div! or FBS or whatever it's called!
Originally posted by scacchipazzo Even then NCAAMB has a way better system than college football. Whatever system is used in the lower division seems to work. One never hears about contriversy in those championships and the games are usually excellent. Semis coming up this weekend in Div! or FBS or whatever it's called!
There's so much money tied up in the bowl system that a full scale change to the system used by the lower divisions seems impractical. But I'd have no problem with it.
Originally posted by no1marauder 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.
I've supported a similar idea for years. But I don't like the idea of excluding every second place team in a conference or keeping a quota of 2 spots for the mid majors. If the 2 best teams are in one conference, there's no reason one has to miss the tournament.
I'd give automatic bids only to the winners of the four top conferences and take the next 4 teams in the BCS standings as wild cards, whomever they are.
Originally posted by sh76 I've supported a similar idea for years. But I don't like the idea of excluding every second place team in a conference or keeping a quota of 2 spots for the mid majors. If the 2 best teams are in one conference, there's no reason one has to miss the tournament.
I'd give automatic bids only to the winners of the four top conferences and take the next 4 teams in the BCS standings as wild cards, whomever they are.
Sounds like a workable plan to me. That gives us the powerhouses and some cincerellas. Always gotta have someone crashing the ball for drama!
Originally posted by no1marauder '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?
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 wh ...[text shortened]... le like QQ rate the teams at the end of the year and put those teams in the playoffs instead.
You can make fun of the BCS all you want, or me for defending it. But the BCS has it right and your idea is just plan stupid
If the NFL, all teams are pro teams and an outside force controls the schedule. So a 12- 4 team is very likely to better than an 10 -6 which is better than a 8-8 team. College teams play different quality of teams. Having no losses in the SEC or the PAC-10 is a lot harder than having one or more loss in the WAC (eliminate Boise) or two losses in the Big East plus two out of conference losses (eliminate Conneticut) or having two losses against non-AQ schools Virginia Tech. The two best teams are playing, the regular season is great. To hurt conferences or give other teams chances for a national championship who don't deserve it is just dumb. Furthermore, it is the height of arrogance to think that an eight team playoff would work better with teams you hand pick rather than the highest rated teams.
Originally posted by quackquack You can make fun of the BCS all you want, or me for defending it. But the BCS has it right and your idea is just plan stupid
If the NFL, all teams are pro teams and an outside force controls the schedule. So a 12- 4 team is very likely to better than an 10 -6 which is better than a 8-8 team. College teams play different quality of teams. Having no los ...[text shortened]... ht team playoff would work better with teams you hand pick rather than the highest rated teams.
So putting in conference winners is "hand picking" teams but just arbitrarily saying "this team is better than that team because I say so" isn't "arrogant"?
Originally posted by sh76 I've supported a similar idea for years. But I don't like the idea of excluding every second place team in a conference or keeping a quota of 2 spots for the mid majors. If the 2 best teams are in one conference, there's no reason one has to miss the tournament.
I'd give automatic bids only to the winners of the four top conferences and take the next 4 teams in the BCS standings as wild cards, whomever they are.
All ratings systems are arbitrary. Conference standings are not. The purpose of a playoff is to determine the best team by on the field performance and the season has already determined that Oregon is better than Stanford. But it has not determined whether the Big Ten is really a superior conference to say, the Mountain West or even the WAC so to allow 3 Big Ten teams into an 8 team field largely because they have a large following of midwest sportswriters and coaches and didn't play any serious non-conference competition seems unfair. It rewards playing lousy out of conference schedules and discourages inter-sectional showdowns during the season.
Politically in the NCAA the AQ conferences hold a lot of power, but the other conferences would have to sign off any playoff system. The AQ conferences are not going to agree to any system that leaves their conference champion out of a playoff and the non-AQ conferences are not going to agree to any system that makes it virtually impossible for their teams to qualify. The proposal I made is eminently fair; all that it gives mid-majors or independents is a berth in a Quarter-finals (you'd think that it was handing them the trophy according to hysterical clowns like QQ). If they were really so undeserving as our biased friends think, they'll simply get destroyed and the Semi-Finals will move on.
Originally posted by no1marauder All ratings systems are arbitrary. Conference standings are not. The purpose of a playoff is to determine the best team by on the field performance and the season has already determined that Oregon is better than Stanford. But it has not determined whether the Big Ten is really a superior conference to say, the Mountain West or even the WAC so to allow 3 ...[text shortened]... g as our biased friends think, they'll simply get destroyed and the Semi-Finals will move on.
The idea that we need to prove that the champion of the Pac 10, Big 10 and SEC is better than Boise is just a joke. Where does this end? next year does a high school team that wins their conference get to play for the championship. There is no reason to appease teams that can't or won't join major conferences and therefore have weak strength of schedules.
Originally posted by quackquack The idea that we need to prove that the champion of the Pac 10, Big 10 and SEC is better than Boise is just a joke. Where does this end? next year does a high school team that wins their conference get to play for the championship. There is no reason to appease teams that can't or won't join major conferences and therefore have weak strength of schedules.
Perhaps ending the "weak" conferences may be a workable way of settling this once and for all. Instead of playoffs we have multiple conference championship games and voila, end of controversy!
Originally posted by quackquack The idea that we need to prove that the champion of the Pac 10, Big 10 and SEC is better than Boise is just a joke. Where does this end? next year does a high school team that wins their conference get to play for the championship. There is no reason to appease teams that can't or won't join major conferences and therefore have weak strength of schedules.
Did the champion of the Pac-10 last year "prove" they were better than Boise State when the Broncos beat them? Did the champion of the ACC "prove" they were better this year?
The "joke" is someone so biased that they can't see that great teams can emerge even from conferences with smaller schools.
EDIT: As pointed out numerous times, Boise State's SOS this year is about the same or better than the top 3 teams in the Big Ten. From Sagarin: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt10.htm?loc=interstitialskip
SOS rank: Michigan State 65th, Ohio State 68th, Boise State 70th, Wisconsin 71st.
Originally posted by quackquack You can make fun of the BCS all you want, or me for defending it. But the BCS has it right and your idea is just plan stupid
If the NFL, all teams are pro teams and an outside force controls the schedule. So a 12- 4 team is very likely to better than an 10 -6 which is better than a 8-8 team. College teams play different quality of teams. Having no los ...[text shortened]... ht team playoff would work better with teams you hand pick rather than the highest rated teams.
BTW, in the NFL 8-8 teams can and do make the playoffs if they win their division even if the QQ's of the world don't think they deserve it.
Originally posted by no1marauder BTW, in the NFL 8-8 teams can and do make the playoffs if they win their division even if the QQ's of the world don't think they deserve it.
Here is a list of 8-8 teams to make the playoffs:
1990
Team: Outcome:
New Orleans
Lost 16-6 to Chicago in wild card
1991
New York Jets
Lost 17-10 to Houston in wild card
1999
Dallas
Lost 27-10 to Minnesota in wild card
Detroit
Lost 27-13 to Washington in wild card
2004
Minnesota
Beat Green Bay 31-17 in wild card; lost 27-14 to Philadelphia in divisional round
St. Louis
Beat Seattle 27-20 in wild card; lost 47-17 to Atlanta in divisional round
Originally posted by no1marauder Did the champion of the Pac-10 last year "prove" they were better than Boise State when the Broncos beat them? Did the champion of the ACC "prove" they were better this year?
The "joke" is someone so biased that they can't see that great teams can emerge even from conferences with smaller schools.
EDIT: As pointed out numerous times, SOS rank: Michigan State 65th, Ohio State 68th, Boise State 70th, Wisconsin 71st.
Again, you take one biased poll. If you take something like just the computer portion of the BCS, Boise is not ahead of any of the top 3 BIG 10 teams.
I would not have a playoff at all. But if we did have an eight team playoff I would have the best teams in (we have rankings) and I certainly would not exclude #4 Stanford or #6 Wisconsin so we can have four loss U Conn, two loss Virginia Tech and teams from mickey mouse conferences who do not even have a better record (like Boise). Your mindless need to give the underdog a chance makes you willing to make sure the best teams are excluded.
Originally posted by no1marauder BTW, in the NFL 8-8 teams can and do make the playoffs if they win their division even if the QQ's of the world don't think they deserve it.
At least in the NFL the playoffs teams 8-8 against NFL teams. Boise could not even go undefeated in the WAC. But make sure they are picked over one loss Big 10 teams or loss PAC 10 teams.
Originally posted by quackquack Again, you take one biased poll. If you take something like just the computer portion of the BCS, Boise is not ahead of any of the top 3 BIG 10 teams.
I would not have a playoff at all. But if we did have an eight team playoff I would have the best teams in (we have rankings) and I certainly would not exclude #4 Stanford or #6 Wisconsin so we can hav ...[text shortened]... s need to give the underdog a chance makes you willing to make sure the best teams are excluded.
There's nothing "biased" about a strength of schedule rating, you pathetic idiot. Sagarin's formula has been in use for almost 30 years. Your claim that Boise State didn't play anywhere near as tough a schedule as the Big Ten teams is BS without any basis in fact. It's just your biased opinion based on ancient history where the Big Ten was a great conference. That crap is over, dude; over the last five year the Big Ten is a miserable 13-23 in bowl games and got embarrassed the two times their champion was sent to the BCS title game.
The "best teams" in a conference don't finish 2nd in it, moron. Wisconsin wouldn't be excluded BTW.
10 Dec '10 00:20
College Football Playoff Plan
Back to Top