OT: Wow (BCS Championship)

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Except for Boise St., the other WAC teams would be at/near the bottom if they competed in the big conferences....they wouldn't have enough wins to even go to a bowl game.

This kind of thinking constantly baffles me. If Boise St. were part of one of the "big conferences," do you really think they'd remain exactly as they are today? Of course they wouldn't. They'd be able to recruit better players, because they're part of a "big conference." They'd be consistently playing better opponents, which would make them a better team, just like it does for teams in one of those "big conferences." The notion that teams from a non-big conference couldn't possibly compete in a big conference, especially if they were part of that conference, is complete codswallop. BYU was just one team to demonstrate that this year.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

... is complete codswallop....

Hey, watch your phrase-ology, there kiddo! You're rising above your station a little, eh?

[Adam]

There's no reason they can't do a playoff of 4 or 8 teams. They could have had a 4 team playoff on New Year's Day, and followed it with the Championship game a week later. Oh, wait, that's kind of late in the year for a college football game; never mind.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

There's no reason they can't do a playoff of 4 or 8 teams. They could have had a 4 team playoff on New Year's Day, and followed it with the Championship game a week later. Oh, wait, that's kind of late in the year for a college football game; never mind.

They could have a 4 team play-off on the 2nd Saturday in December. BCS 4 @ BCS 1 and BCS 3 @ BCS 2.

Winners play each other in the BCS championship, losers go to their regularly scheduled bowls.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

There's no reason they can't do a playoff of 4 or 8 teams. They could have had a 4 team playoff on New Year's Day, and followed it with the Championship game a week later. Oh, wait, that's kind of late in the year for a college football game; never mind.

And what will that create....the number 5 team complaining that they should have been in!

Boise St. still wouldn't have been in a 4 team playoff or probably even an 8 team playoff.

Unless you go so deep that the first one not in knows they couldn't have possibly won it, you'll always have a what-if. How deep is that....16 at a minimum, 32 might be justifiable, 64 to be certain. Maybe each conference gets to send one?? The question then becomes, is that what the schools really want? Except for 1 or two, all of them are pretty happy with the bowl system. They get more money, half of them end their seasons with a bowl victory against what is usually a somewhat comparabe opponent.

I think a playoff would lead to some freak upsets and teams that no one really thinks are the best will end up winning championships. The best teams would sometimes get beat by a longshot who then goes down big in the next game. It's not like basketball. In football, 1 or 2 key plays burries a team in a big hole where in basketball, each possession starts out more-or-less the same....even if you get behind 3-4 scores.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

And what will that create....the number 5 team complaining that they should have been in!

Boise St. still wouldn't have been in a 4 team playoff or probably even an 8 team playoff.

I do not know if that last statement is correct. Boise St. had to be in the top 8 to reach a BCS game. They did not play in a BCS game without being ranked pretty high.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Unless you go so deep that the first one not in knows they couldn't have possibly won it, you'll always have a what-if. How deep is that....16 at a minimum, 32 might be justifiable, 64 to be certain. Maybe each conference gets to send one?? The question then becomes, is that what the schools really want? Except for 1 or two, all of them are pretty happy with the bowl system. They get more money, half of them end their seasons with a bowl victory against what is usually a somewhat comparabe opponent.

I think a playoff would lead to some freak upsets and teams that no one really thinks are the best will end up winning championships. The best teams would sometimes get beat by a longshot who then goes down big in the next game. It's not like basketball. In football, 1 or 2 key plays burries a team in a big hole where in basketball, each possession starts out more-or-less the same....even if you get behind 3-4 scores.

The best team does not win any NC all the time. Was the Florida Basketball team the best before they played and won the NC last year? At least they got a chance to prove something on the field. You can still have a bowl system and a playoff system. A playoff system would only affect a small percentage of teams and programs.

Peace

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I do not know if that last statement is correct. Boise St. had to be in the top 8 to reach a BCS game. They did not play in a BCS game without being ranked pretty high.

Actually, I think they only had to be top 12 to get in.

[JRutledge]

Well they were in the Top 10 when the bowls were announced. Also Wisconsin could not play in a BCS Bowl because that would have been 3 Big Ten teams and that is not allowed. Then again, Wisconsin beat a big time SEC team in their bowl game and ended the season with one lost. I would have liked to see Wisconsin battle it out in a playoff.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

And what will that create....the number 5 team complaining that they should have been in!

Boise St. still wouldn't have been in a 4 team playoff or probably even an 8 team playoff.

Unless you go so deep that the first one not in knows they couldn't have possibly won it, you'll always have a what-if. How deep is that....16 at a minimum, 32 might be justifiable, 64 to be certain. Maybe each conference gets to send one?? The question then becomes, is that what the schools really want? Except for 1 or two, all of them are pretty happy with the bowl system. They get more money, half of them end their seasons with a bowl victory against what is usually a somewhat comparabe opponent.

I think a playoff would lead to some freak upsets and teams that no one really thinks are the best will end up winning championships. The best teams would sometimes get beat by a longshot who then goes down big in the next game. It's not like basketball. In football, 1 or 2 key plays burries a team in a big hole where in basketball, each possession starts out more-or-less the same....even if you get behind 3-4 scores.

So the SEC should get rid of it's post-season championship game and vote in its representative(s) to the BCS and Sugar Bowl?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

And what will that create....the number 5 team complaining that they should have been in!

Boise St. still wouldn't have been in a 4 team playoff or probably even an 8 team playoff.

Unless you go so deep that the first one not in knows they couldn't have possibly won it, you'll always have a what-if. How deep is that....16 at a minimum, 32 might be justifiable, 64 to be certain. Maybe each conference gets to send one?? The question then becomes, is that what the schools really want? Except for 1 or two, all of them are pretty happy with the bowl system. They get more money, half of them end their seasons with a bowl victory against what is usually a somewhat comparabe opponent.

I think a playoff would lead to some freak upsets and teams that no one really thinks are the best will end up winning championships. The best teams would sometimes get beat by a longshot who then goes down big in the next game. It's not like basketball. In football, 1 or 2 key plays burries a team in a big hole where in basketball, each possession starts out more-or-less the same....even if you get behind 3-4 scores.

OK, Camron, you're starting to sound Old School when it comes to this subject. Don't have a play-off b/c somebody might suffer a freak, upset loss?
Where's is the logic in that statement?

So doesn't it mean it's possible for there to be an upset in the SEC championship game? If that happens, should the upset be ignored and the better team still represent the SEC in the BCS?

[Camron Rust]

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that I'm opposed to a playoff. I'm saying it will not solve the issues that exist. It will only move them around.

And, that a game that can often have as little as 1 score (and often only has 3-5) by both teams combined is far more likely to have fluke upsets than games with 70+ scores per game....where the statisitical probablilties are more likely to produce a winner that is the better team.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that I'm opposed to a playoff. I'm saying it will not solve the issues that exist. It will only move them around.

And, that a game that can often have as little as 1 score (and often only has 3-5) by both teams combined is far more likely to have fluke upsets than games with 70+ scores per game....where the statisitical probablilties are more likely to produce a winner that is the better team.

You mean like the....um....NCAA basketball playoffs? A lot of statistical probabilities have gone right down the dumper in the first two rounds. And the public loves it.

Playoffs work for them.

And don't bring up what happened to my beloved Yankees in the playoffs the last few years....

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

And, that a game that can often have as little as 1 score (and often only has 3-5) by both teams combined is far more likely to have fluke upsets than games with 70+ scores per game....where the statisitical probablilties are more likely to produce a winner that is the better team.

There is a perfectly serviceable word to describe the team that gets beat in a fluke game during the playoffs: LOSER. Baseball and basketball lend themselves nicely to best-of-seven serieses and eliminate, to a large degree, the fluke factor. Football is an entirely different animal. You've got one shot to beat the other team, and if you're really the better team, you'll find a way to get it done. If not, you're not really the better team. Any whining to the contrary is just coulda, shoulda, wouldas.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I think a playoff would lead to some freak upsets and teams that no one really thinks are the best will end up winning championships. The best teams would sometimes get beat by a longshot who then goes down big in the next game.

You mean like...maybe...the NFL?

Playoffs works for them.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

You mean like...maybe...the NFL?

Playoffs works for them.

Or every other level of NCAA sports and every pro sports that has a playoff system. College Football is the only sport where the teams play of a championship based on the polls. If polls were involved in Baseball, St. Louis would have never been in the World Series. Now they are World Champions.

Peace