The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
The BCS must die
koconutmonkey
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Ok seriously the BCS must go away. http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3735383 Having the BCS decide who goes to a conference title game, and thus to the BCS title game, is ridiculous. Dealing with subjective polls, as well as messed up computers, creates a mess.
Sure the regular season means something, but apparently it only matters in November, just ask Texas. They are watching two teams that they beat play in the Big 12 title game.
Give me an 8 team playoff. The regular season will still matter, and you can still have a bunch of crappy bowl games. Hell make another playoff system for the next 8, ala the NIT.
Sure the regular season means something, but apparently it only matters in November, just ask Texas. They are watching two teams that they beat play in the Big 12 title game.
Give me an 8 team playoff. The regular season will still matter, and you can still have a bunch of crappy bowl games. Hell make another playoff system for the next 8, ala the NIT.
Time to roll the dice.
koconutmonkey on
0
Posts
It's innately less objectionable the more teams are involved (see, for example, the last team on the bubble for the basketball tournament). Though should this just go in the NCAA football thread we already have? Probably.
The BCS really only exists to get the #1 and #2 team together. Occasionally that has not happened but provisions have been put in place every so often to fix loopholes or bad logic. The BCS is barely even responsible for the BCS bowls, basically any team in the top 14 can get in, the at-large bids are all basically about money. The bowl committees choose.
The BCS has made some huge mistakes in the past, I used to be very anti-BCS because it seemed to always screw over my team (Oregon). In 2001 we deserved to go to the NC game but Nebraska went and got thrashed. This was caused because computer polls had a lot of control, this has since been remedied. In 2005 we were #5 and deserved a BCS bowl but were denied because of stupid bowl clauses. The Pac-10 in general has been screwed a bunch, with USC's NC snubbing in... 2003? And Cal's BCS snub in '04.
But the BCS has definitely redeemed itself with good matchups and fair polling the last few years. Just think, if there was no BCS then the 3-way tie would just be decided by AP pollsters, it would be no better or worse than now.
1. Polls do not matter. Just win, and score as many points as you can get.
2. Everyone should get an equal shot. You can't be ignoring entire conferences, even though they may have an undefeated team, just because they don't play in the big-name conferences. If you are not willing to accept an undefeated Ball State having their day in the sun, don't allow Ball State to have a football team at all. Take the football program away and force the college to focus on graduating its students. If you allow someone to field a team, you must be willing, under the proper circumstances, to give them a chance to shine in any season in which they earn it.
The procedure works like this:
*All conferences MUST be represented. I do not budge on this. You say the Sun Belt champion doesn't deserve to be there? Then knock them out in the first round.
*16 teams is the smallest bracket that allows all 11 conferences to send a champion to the playoffs. So that's the size. The five other spots go to wild cards.
*Conferences with championships send the winners of those championships. All other conferences send whoever they count as their champion. If there's co-champions, break the tie with overall win-loss (conference, then overall), followed by point differential.
*Wild-cards are determined by best overall win-loss record, followed by point differential. In the unlikely event it's still tied after that, you use other performance-based criteria.
*If point differential isn't your favorite tiebreaker, go to something else, but at no point do you EVER consider ANYTHING that is not entirely within the control of the team on the field. No polls, no strength of schedule. Use turnover margin. Use points per game. Use yards per game.
*Seeds are determined based on the same criteria as everything else. If you have several undefeateds, whoever played the most games (e.g. was willing to put that spotless record on the line most often) gets priority before you go to the other tiebreakers.
When I did it, Ball State got a 3 seed. Ohio State was last team out, TCU last team in.
Didn't we discuss this already? And can we not recall why it didn't work?
Let 'em eat fucking pineapples!
The polls should have no say in the process. Its like the MVP voting in baseball, everyone has a different idea on what should be #1, with the beat writers for the home team always being biased.
Its just stupid that people's opinions matter more than statistics.
Well, the Devil Rays were undefeated against the Sox in their last Season as the Devil Rays, but that didn't stop them from being dead last, as it seems those were their only wins.
Why can't everything be done like baseball, again?
It'd be fun to play seven playoff-quality football games over two weeks just to eliminate one opponent.
Except you need to control for strength of schedule and then we get into subjectivity again.
The last line highlights the absurdity of your plan. This is the worst team Ohio State has fielded since 2004 and they would DESTROY Ball State and TCU. I do not think Ohio State deserves a shot at the championship this year, and neither does any team wouldn't stay within 2 touchdowns of them.
I agree with you in principle, though I would take the opposite approach you do:
*Place the Non-BCS conferences in a new division (a la 1-AA). This allows them to play for championships, while forcing BCS teams to schedule good teams rather than cupcakes
*Do away with the ridiculous conference championship games. They are the cause of much of the sorrows of the BCS for various reasons. (read: this year, last year, 2004, 2003, 2001, and 1998)
*Force Notre Dame into the Big Ten or Big East. Make every conference play a round robin schedule, and use their remaining games as non-conference. Allow 1 game against a non-major conference (now 1-aa or whatever you'd like to call it) team.
Create an 8 team playoff, with 6 Automatic bids for conference champions, and 2 at-large bids for exceptional teams/co-champions. Teams will be seeded using the BCS rankings, with the higher seeds playing at home the first two rounds. The championship will be at a neutral site (No more USC or LSU playing de facto home games in the Rose/Sugar)
This system will maintain the integrity and importance of the regular season (the most important goal of any playoff plan, IMHO) while still allowing all deserving teams a chance. The side-effects of this structure will be a re-emphasis on conference championships, and a new emphasis on the kind of strong non-conference scheduling we see from USC, Ohio State and Miami. This will create exciting intersectional matchups with much greater frequency than we currently see.
And if someone thinks they'd destroy Ball State, then do it. Nobody has yet or else Ball State wouldn't be 12-0. "But everybody KNOWS--" No. Beat them. I'm sorry, but I don't want any part of a sport where undefeated isn't good enough to make the playoffs except in the case of all the playoff spots being taken by other undefeateds.
EDIT: Also, concerning Notre Dame? If they want to stay indie, that's fine. But indies don't get automatic bids. See how long they stay indie now.
If I have the college system right, aren't you basically saying that if the Pawtucket Sox go undefeated and the Red Sox don't, then the Paw Sox are better than the Red Sox?
I have yet to hear a good argument as to why an undefeated team should be left out of the playoffs. I revert to my original point: If an undefeated small team going to the playoffs is unacceptable to you because you are positive some big team with two losses will destroy them, contract the small team from the sport, because it is nothing more than cruel to waste the small college's time, money and resources like that, that could be going towards giving the rest of the student body a good education.
Lots of missed games?
You are missing my point. This is not about Ohio State or Ball State or whoever in 2008. My point is that teams in mid-major conferences will never play 1-A championship level football. They have not done so in the modern age of college football. That is the reason they aren't major conferences. Let's acknowledge this, and set up a system that will allow those teams to play for a title of their own.
I know everyone wants to see everything settled on the field, but that is impractical as long as 119 teams can theoretically, but not realistically, play for the title.
Moreover, giving teams bids based on records and statistics would inevitably worsen the problem of cupcake scheduling. Why risk scheduling a big time opponent when you can get a nice home game against an in state patsy to pad your record? There's a reason Boise State goes undefeated almost every year: Their entire schedule is composed teams the major conferences consider cupcakes.
About Notre Dame: In my mind, the restructuring I described will necessarily force Notre Dame to join a conference as a matter of pragmatism. But you are right, they certainly could choose to remain independent, and face the consequences of that decision.
And no, the New Mexico Bowl is not 'a title of their own'. Tell me one person that wakes up every morning and kills themselves doing two-a-days in the hope that someday they might win the New Mexico Bowl.
Whatever happens in practice, as it officially stands, Ohio State and Ball State both play the same level of football- Division 1-A. They should have an EQUAL chance at the Division 1-A title. If the rules are written so that Ohio State is guaranteed a better chance at the Division 1-A title than Ball State, then the rules must be altered until this is no longer true. Otherwise, what's the point of Ball State fielding a football team? What does that teach the Ball State players, who I remind you are in college? "Gang, even if you do your job perfectly, it doesn't matter because some famous guy with better connections will take all your opportunities anyway"?
That, you could fix by having the NCAA do the scheduling instead of the colleges, and ending the practice of scheduling 1-AA opponents.
That's just it. The players who go to those schools aren't playing for a national title. They knew when they signed with their school that a national title was not something in their future. This sucks. By splitting 1-A (or FCS, as it is now known) into two divisions, each with it's own playoff system and national title, we create the best possible system: An even playing field for every team, and a playoff format that acknowledges that the realities of college football prevent us from knowing who the best team is at the end of conference play.
Would this system be flawless? No.
Would it be better than the BCS? Yes
Would it be better than trying to shoehorn 119 teams into one "League"? Yes
EDIT: 8-4 isn't getting into a playoff anyway in college football unless you're the Sun Belt champion. (Hi, Troy.) 12-0, meanwhile, is a whole different animal. Whatever the schedule says, the fact remains that it's the end of the season and that's a zero sitting in your loss column. Strength of schedule should have nothing to do with it if there's a zero in your loss column. Okay, you say they're only undefeated because they played weak opponents? Prove it. Put another undefeated in their path. If the game's a boring blowout, so be it. If Ball State gives the other undefeated a game, or even possibly wins, so be it. They should at least have that opportunity.
Northeastern 48-14
Navy 35-23
at Akron 41-24
at Indiana 42-20
Kent State 41-20
at Toledo 31-0
at Western Kentucky 24-7
Eastern Michigan 38-16
Northern Illinois 45-14
at Miami (OH) 31-16
at Central Michigan 31-24
Western Michigan 45-22
Upcoming game vs. Buffalo (MAC Championship)
Methinks they at least deserve the courtesy of significantly stronger opposition. Otherwise the bowl game they DO go to (ESPN consensus is the Motor City Bowl vs. 6-6 North Carolina State, which is quite frankly an insult) is going to be just as much a snoozer as you think Ball State/Ohio State would be.
And here's the thing. The teams have to make their own schedules. After doing this to this year's opponents, what big name is going to risk losing to Ball State? If Ball State tries to call up anyone GOOD and schedule a game, they're going to get told no. Why would the Penn States and Alabamas of the world risk a bad loss to someone who went undefeated last season? How do you know that this is 'Ball State didn't schedule anyone' so much as 'nobody was willing to play Ball State'?
can i just point out that this is in no way true?
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
This line alone is solid reasoning that at the very least, we must end the era of schools making their own schedules.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Hi!
But yeah, even if the Sun Belt isn't the strongest conference in the league (which it most certainly is not), it'd be nice for the teams in here to be able to shoot for something higher than the damn New Orleans bowl (as fun as that is).
Did I exaggerate the number of losses, or did I miss a win (I'm from Boston, just so you know what "a win" means)
i just checked on baseball almanac for that year and we (the sox) were 13-5 against the d-rays that year. though every loss against them DID feel like 10 until last year
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
1- Stop automatically assuming that the SEC and/or the Big XII is automatically superior than every other conference.
2- If number one simply isn't possible, stop allowing 'major' programs to schedule creampuff games. Prove you're the best by playing (and beating) the best. Which leads to...
3- Stop automatically assuming that any school/conference west of Texas is sub-par. USC schedules tougher out of conference schools than Florida. They take their chances against stronger opponents to prove the quality of the program... They sure look like they're a good team. (Exceptions may be made for intra-city rivalries...maybe.)
4- If the BCS is to remain, then get rid of the old-fashioned conference traditions with bowl games. It pains me to say, but the Rose Bowl stopped being special once Miami played Nebraska. Thanks to the BCS, nobody seems to give a shit about the lower bowls anyway so why not just stack them with the Top 10 ranked teams and be done with it.
Do not engage the Watermelons.
You'd still have some drama over who got in as an at large team, but not that much.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
Yes, the fact that no one will want to play Ball State now is a problem, but with all the problems the BCS has right now (I hate it), one good thing about it is it does encourage you to schedule good teams to some degree, with your system scheduling good teams is not rewarded at all and it means every single team will load nothing but cupcakes onto thier non-conference slate.
Conference-wise, that's true. Besides USC who's decent in the PAC10? Oregon and Cal maybe every two or three years?
Granted. But that's, what, three games a season? Laudable, but not huge when you're mostly playing other mediocre teams for the rest of the year.
Yes this is the truth. I am a Pac 10 homer and it pisses me off that USC plays decent schools out of conference, like Ohio State, and Florida plays the Citadel? Screw that. That and florida played the citadel in November. All respect lost there. Oh and to those that say to USC dont lose to Oregon St, look at OST's record against ranked teams that last 5 years, especially at home.
Why should Boise State, who has annihilated every opponent they played this year, be left out when Cincinatti gets in with a 10-2 [with one game left] record in an abysmal conference? No reason, other than the fact that it's written in the rules that the Big East is superior to the WAC. Nevermind teams and personnel change from year to year - it's in the rules.
And yeah, maybe Texas is just plain better than Ball State, but here's the thing: we're talking about a competition. Everyone thought the Giants would get destroyed last year by the undefeated Patriots, guess how that one turned out? Until two teams actually play on the field, the best we can do is speculate.
That's what the current BCS system does: speculate who the best teams are from half the conferences and thus half the teams and let two of them play to determine a champion. That's why #6 Utah St., who has played brilliantly all year with a very tough schedule, is not even being mentioned for the national championship game.
I'm in favor for the 16-team model myself. .