Well the BCS has managed to muck it up AGAIN, allowing a two loss team and the champion of an inferior conference to play for the national championship while overlooking better teams like USC and Oklahoma. Clearly a playoff system is needed and I've helpfully proposed one (The Marauder Championship Series): the 6 BCS automatic bid conference champions and two mid-major conference champs or a higher rated independent (based on the BCS system) to play a first round in the four main bowls, with the semi-finals to be the next week and the championship game to follow the next. This would add only two games and would leave an undisputed champion.
The traditional bowls would probably want to retain their conference tie-ins which would mean the Big Ten would generally lose in the first round. The other games would pit the conference tie in (Sugar -SEC; Orange - ACC; and Fiesta (Big 12) team with the appropriately rated opponent in reverse order.
This year the matchups would be:
Rose: #1 Ohio State (Big Ten) v. #7 USC (Pac-10)
Sugar: #2 LSU (SEC) v. #17 BYU (Mountain West)
Orange: #3 Virginia Tech (ACC) v. #10 Hawaii (WAC)
Fiesta: #4 Oklahoma (Big 12) v. #9 West Virginia (Big East)
Semi-finals would be the next week.
Now wouldn't that be a lot better than the farce that will happen in a month? If you want to win the championship, you have to win three games against conference champs in a row - that would be a run making a team worthy of being called the National Champion!
This could be the most illogical suggestion ever. Why would you ever give the Mountain West and the SEC equal representation? Are you just giving you favorite team Notre Dame a free invite if they can ever get the record back to .500? Why would you ever play out of conference games? Why would you want to be part of a tough conference? Why not have blind girls teams get their representation too?
Originally posted by poundlee This could be the most illogical suggestion ever. Why would you ever give the Mountain West and the SEC equal representation? Are you just giving you favorite team Notre Dame a free invite if they can ever get the record back to .500? Why would you ever play out of conference games? Why would you want to be part of a tough conference? Why not have blind girls teams get their representation too?
😴😴
You must really hate March Madness.
Notre Dame gets a pass into the BCS as it is now if they are rated in the top 8 (and get paid $1.3 million even if they don't make it into a BCS Bowl!). The Mountain West and the SEC don't get "equal" representation; the SEC gets an automatic bid. The rest of your "points" have been disposed of in the other thread.
Originally posted by no1marauder Well the BCS has managed to muck it up AGAIN, allowing a two loss team and the champion of an inferior conference to play for the national championship while overlooking better teams like USC and Oklahoma. Clearly a playoff system is needed and I've helpfully proposed one (The Marauder Championship Series): the 6 BCS automatic bid conference champions an ...[text shortened]... mps in a row - that would be a run making a team worthy of being called the National Champion!
Originally posted by Red Night And I thought you didn't have a sense of humor.
BYU in the title series...that's funny.
I'm still laughing.
They're #17 in the BCS; #13 Illinois got into the Rose Bowl in the BCS. BYU has also won 9 straight; 8 more than Ohio State.
Idiots laugh a lot. What are you guys afraid of? If the BCS conferences are sooooooooooooooo superior, they'll easily win against the mid-majors like they crushed Utah in 2004, Boise State last year and like they always beat the mid-majors in March Madness.
Originally posted by no1marauder They're #17 in the BCS; #13 Illinois got into the Rose Bowl in the BCS. BYU has also won 9 straight; 8 more than Ohio State.
Idiots laugh a lot. What are you guys afraid of? If the BCS conferences are sooooooooooooooo superior, they'll easily win against the mid-majors like they crushed Utah in 2004, Boise State last year and like they always beat the mid-majors in March Madness.
13 is higher than 17 the last time I looked.
But why go all the way down to 13 or 17 to fill your top 8?
Originally posted by Red Night 13 is higher than 17 the last time I looked.
But why go all the way down to 17 to fill your top 8?
Ever hear of Georgia?
What part of "if you don't win your conference, you don't get to play for the championship" is the hardest for you to understand? That "rule" was applied yesterday to keep Georgia out of the national championship game; why would it be altered for a playoff?
Originally posted by no1marauder What part of "if you don't win your conference, you don't get to play for the championship" is the hardest for you to understand? That "rule" was applied yesterday to keep Georgia out of the national championship game; why would it be altered for a playoff?
You are so abusive and obviously a very troubled individual.
I think the rule that kept Georgia out was the rule that said you had to be rated #1 or #2 in the country.
How about we take the top 8 teams and send them to this playoffs. I know that's a radical concept, but....
Originally posted by Red Night You are so abusive and obviously a very troubled individual.
I think the rule that kept Georgia out was the rule that said you had to be rated #1 or #2 in the country.
How about we take the top 8 teams and send them to this playoffs. I know that's a radical concept, but....
And why wasn't Georgia #1 or #2 in the country when they had been #4 the previous week and both #1 and #2 lost?
If you can't even win your conference, you don't deserve a shot at being the national champion. Taking the "top 8 teams" has all the same flaws as the present system, just with more teams involved. Taking conference champions would end all the bickering about which conference is better than another; if you're in a BCS conference and you win it, you're in with an equal chance with everybody else to win it all. Adding the mid-majors and/or independents is a logical recognization of the fact that teams from these places can be outstanding too - see last year's Fiesta Bowl.
Originally posted by no1marauder What part of "if you don't win your conference, you don't get to play for the championship" is the hardest for you to understand? That "rule" was applied yesterday to keep Georgia out of the national championship game; why would it be altered for a playoff?
What kind of moron are you? The worst sort. You cannot equate conferences across the board. Conferences that have a championship game are disadvantaged by those who do. Soo all or none should have championships. Then you have to take into the equation the fact that there are not enough games in the season to allow all teams to play all teams from their own conference in the 4 largest conferences, unless you wipe out all non conference play entirely. You are really a rube. If they went to your system, you would see a migration to Hawaii's play no one and run the board so you get a shot at the ring. At least as it is now, teams are given credit for playing a tough schedule, even if they lose one or two along the way.
Originally posted by no1marauder And why wasn't Georgia #1 or #2 in the country when they had been #4 the previous week and both #1 and #2 lost?
If you can't even win your conference, you don't deserve a shot at being the national champion. Taking the "top 8 teams" has all the same flaws as the present system, just with more teams involved. Taking conference champions w ...[text shortened]... fact that teams from these places can be outstanding too - see last year's Fiesta Bowl.
Hey marauder...have you noticed that no one really cares about your rants...if you wanna do something constructive...well besides drinking a bottle of drano so I wouldn't have to listen to ya then make your picks in the other post and prove you know enough about football to fill more than a thimble.
Originally posted by shortcircuit What kind of moron are you? The worst sort. You cannot equate conferences across the board. Conferences that have a championship game are disadvantaged by those who do. Soo all or none should have championships. Then you have to take into the equation the fact that there are not enough games in the season to allow all teams to play all teams from their ...[text shortened]... eams are given credit for playing a tough schedule, even if they lose one or two along the way.
Like the other morons you don't have any proposals to fix the system or any coherent critique of what I have offered.
It's up to the conferences to decide how they decide their championship, but under my system the ones with a championship game wouldn't suffer any disadvantage at all. If you win your BCS automatic conference, you're in the playoff and have a shot at winning the title. That's certainly an improvement over the present system where 4 of the 6 BCS conferences and ALL the mid-majors and indies are excluded.
Once the mid-majors or indies get in, they get no special treatment; in fact, if they are rated lower they have to open against the highest rated opponents. Again as Utah showed in 2004 and Boise State did last year, mid-majors can beat the BCS conference champions. And since they can, why should they be automatically excluded from competing against them?
Originally posted by nmdavidb Hey marauder...have you noticed that no one really cares about your rants...if you wanna do something constructive...well besides drinking a bottle of drano so I wouldn't have to listen to ya then make your picks in the other post and prove you know enough about football to fill more than a thimble.
Dave
If you don't care, don't post in the thread. I don't go into other threads to try and get people to post in ones I've started, unlike some loser I could mention.
As people go closer to any playoffs system the conferences become less important and regular season games become less important. I thought the BCS ban on three teams was unfair as applied to Wisconsin last year and it is unfair to either Missouri/ Kansas since both are in the top 8. Any changes should encourage tough schedules and tough conference not create more minor conference teams who play no one and talk about their winning streaks.
Originally posted by jofaz As people go closer to any playoffs system the conferences become less important and regular season games become less important. I thought the BCS ban on three teams was unfair as applied to Wisconsin last year and it is unfair to either Missouri/ Kansas since both are in the top 8. Any changes should encourage tough schedules and tough conference not create more minor conference teams who play no one and talk about their winning streaks.
And then continue them against the "powerhouses" in the BCS games (when they are allowed to play, that is).
If Hawaii and ESPN had had their way, the Rainbow Warriors would have been playing at Michigan to open their season (after Michigan State paid Hawaii $250,000 to back out of their scheduled game). And Boise State drubbed Oregon State, a 9-3 Pac-10 team last year during their undefeated season.
MCS Pairings
03 Dec '07 13:08
Back to Top