• SPORTS
    AND
    GAMING
  • Sports & Gaming Moderators: ghostfreak

BCS VS playoffs

do you prefer the current BCS system or a playoffs system for college football?

  • I like the BCS!

    Votes: 4 23.5%
  • I would prefer playoffs!

    Votes: 13 76.5%

  • Total voters
    17

axl blaze

Bluelighter
Joined
Feb 5, 2004
Messages
31,418
Location
CLE
this is a subject that I love arguing about, so I will bring it to my most coveted forum in all of BL's history.

regarding college football, do you all think that we are okay in our current Bowl Championship Series ways, or do you side with President Barrack Obama and think that a college playoffs system is necessary?

I suspect that most NCAA fans will side with the playoffs, but shockingly my IRL friends drastically side with the BCS modus operandi. they say that with the BCS system, every college football game is essentially a playoff game. they do have a point - there is very little to no room to lose any of your college football games if you want to contend for the National Championship.

on the other hand, it seems that mid major schools are on the outside looking in. TCU and Boise State have proven them year in and year out, but they still lack firm voter respect. some teams, like Ohio State are perpetually overrated a couple spots. teams like Notre Dame, Texas, Ohio State, and Florida are sought after in bowl games because they have the largest fan bases that are willing to travel, and willing to spend money.

it seems that the BCS is a beauty contest, while a playoff system seems to truly and accurately guage a National Champion. whether we like it or not, college football is synonymous with tradition and pageantry - and the BCS perfectly recognizes this fact.

which system do you prefer? if there was a playoffs system, what would be the best way to set it up?
 
I like the BCS. I like the idea of a season-long playoff culminating in bowl games, and I think the players like this way as well. The only improvement I'd like to see is a little more of a formula for determining the top teams that go to the bigger bowl games. Overall though, I like the way the BCS works.
 
the BCS system is CLEARLY flawed, but it's probably difficult to pinpoint a fair playoff system that would give schools across the nation (as plentiful as they are) an equal playing field.

any questions as to the legitimacy of the BCS system, though, can refer to the 2006 issue when florida jumped to #2 over michigan in the last week. IMO, it was obvious that michigan deserved to be in the national championship, but it would have been fodder for argument had they gone to the national championship. it just seemed like the easiest solution to a difficult problem was to hand the #2 ranking to florida.
 
take the top 8 and set up a bracket. highest seed gets home field advantage each game. championship game on a neutral site. its as simple as that.
 
^^

The BCS.....

There might be an argument who gets into the playoff or not.....there might be a team that gets slighted....

But name any time there were more than 8 teams that deserved consideration for the NC?

Here's a pretty concrete argument for a playoff that takes the BCS'ers into consideration....

754619.jpg


This is Bill Hancock. He's the new Executive Director of the BCS, and he doesn't want you to have a college football playoff. A very simple, step-by-step plan for a playoff that would make everyone happy

We have met the face of the enemy, and he is beatable.

New BCS Executive Director, Bill Hancock, was on the Dan Patrick radio show last week and was laughably awful in his lobbying for the idea that a college football playoff wasn’t necessary. To sum up the interview, Hancock has no tangible reason why college football doesn’t have a playoff other than the tired old party lines of “the bowl system is working” and lip-service about academics and logistics. He also had the head-slapping moment of saying the bowl system is good because it allows players to enjoy themselves, like the Virginia Tech players who got to jet-ski in Miami last year. Ask Cincinnati players if they’d rather go body surfing before the Orange Bowl or have a chance at a national title by playing in a playoff.

Go ahead and just say that the BCS head honchos don’t want a playoff because the bowls are making lots and lots of money and no one in a position of real power wants to change the status quo, and say that the college presidents and athletic directors don’t want one because there will be more pressure on their jobs. I can buy that. I don’t agree with it, but I’ll accept the basic notion of acting out of self-interest. But in lieu of the truth, have an answer. A real one.

Playoff backers, let me be the one to try to lead the charge. If you want a more satisfying end to the college football season, I’ll provide you with the ammunition to fight any anti-playoff head out there, and there is no reasonable or rational counter-argument (believe me, I've seen them all). And away we go.

Anti-Playoff Argument No. 1: What’s the playoff going to be? No one can agree on the right system.

Hancock floated this idea out there, and that means that he just isn’t trying. Four teams are too few and would create more controversy, 16 teams are too many and it would devalue the regular season. As we’ve been screaming about for over the last decade, make it an eight team playoff using the six BCS conference champions, the top ranked non-BCS conference winner, and one wild-card being the top ranked team left on the board. Fine, so Boise State would have a beef this season, with the Florida/Alabama loser likely to get the wild-card, but if the price that needs to be paid is missing one deserving team once in a while, then so be it. It beats having six grouchy teams at the end of the year. It's not worth trying to add everyone (like in a 16-team playoff) if that means bringing in undeserving teams and devaluing the regular season.

The key to this playoff plan is two-fold. First, it keeps the integrity of the regular season intact, and even enhances it. How much more intense would Oklahoma – Texas, Florida – Alabama, and in normal years, Michigan – Ohio State be if they were for a playoff spot as well as a conference title? If anything, this idea would make for more interesting non-conference matchups because there’d be no reason to schedule a slew of cupcakes. All that matters is winning the conference title, and if a team can’t do that, it doesn’t deserve to play for the national championship (a simple fact lost on every other sport and their respective playoffs). Second, it keeps the playoff down to an easy three-week tournament.

Anti-Playoff Argument No. 2: The bowls. The bowl people want to keep the train rolling, and a playoff would kill one of college football’s greatest traditions. Who would care about the bowls if there was a playoff?

Who cares about the GMAC Bowl now? The same people who care about the Alamo, Gator, Texas, and every other bowl in between will still care when there’s a playoff, if not more so. It’s this simple. There are 34 bowls right now, and seven of them (BCS Championship, Rose, Orange, Fiesta, Sugar, Cotton, and the Capital One) would be used for the playoff. More on that in a moment. That leaves 27 bowls that need attention, teams and love. Make it a Bowlapalooza as a fantastic lead-in before the main event. Start the bowl season on Saturday, December 12th (using this year as an example), Heisman Day, with the first three bowls of the season. Pack in 27 bowl games over a 14-day span providing a primetime showcase every night but Sunday (the NFL) for two bowl games, with Saturdays being a smorgasbord. College fans will love it, and all sports fans will watch … what else is there to do?

Anti-Playoff Argument No. 3: Logistically, how would the actual playoff work, and would fans travel to the early games?

Do fans travel to the first round sites for the NCAA basketball tournament? A college playoff would be so big that the venues would have no problems getting people to show up.

Does anyone really care if the Fiesta Bowl isn’t on New Year’s Day? No one complained about the Orange getting moved, and no one will have a problem if on Saturday, December 25th (again, using this year as an example), the playoffs start at 10 a.m. EST with the first, first-round game being played in the Capital One. After that game ends, plan on Game Two, the Sugar Bowl, starting at 2 pm EST. Game Three, the Cotton Bowl, would start at 6 pm EST, and to cap things off, the Fiesta Bowl would start at 10 EST (it’s Saturday night and all kids will be off school … they can stay up late). If you’re not at least slightly daydreamy about the idea of first-round day of playoffs like this on a late December Saturday, then I can’t help you. New Year’s Day would give the Orange and the Rose the national semifinal games, and then seven days later would be the National Championship, which would move around the country like the Final Four does now. That would appeal to the Big Ten and the Big East, would would complain about the first round games being played in warm weather locations. Indianapolis and Detroit would host the national title here and there.

Logistically, the entire bowl season would go through the same time frame it’s on right now, but would start a week earlier, it wouldn’t interfere with the NFL, and college football would be to late December what the first two weeks of March are to college basketball … only tenfold.

Anti-Playoff Argument No. 4: But what about the academics. We can’t mess with finals.

No one is in school when the playoffs would start. Like anyone worried about whether or not North Carolina and Michigan State were fully focused on their mid-terms during the six-week run from the conference tournaments to the college basketball national championship starting late last February through early April.

Anti-Playoff Argument No. 5: That’s too much football for the players. If the SEC and Big 12 champions play for the national title, they’d each end up playing 16 games.

No one seems to worry about that when it comes to the FCS, D-II, and D-III playoffs, and there’s a nice gap of time between the end of the regular season and the start of the playoffs. Most teams would get close to four weeks off to rest up and get healthy. These are 18-to-22-year-old kids; they'd be early-August fresh. Again, the season would end the same time it does now and wouldn’t screw up the NFL scouting and preparation process.

Anti-Playoff Argument No. 6: What about the fun of the bowl? According to Hancock, “(the bowl) experience is a lifetime experience, and it’s much better (than a playoff).”

Football players want to play football; they don’t care about the luaus. The 27 other bowls would create those experiences and memories for the players … and they’d all rather be in the playoffs.

Hancock went on with Patrick to say that “hypothetical playoffs are great on paper, but in reality, when you drill down into the details, they’re very difficult.” Bill, Mr. Hancock, I just did it and I kept it, for the most part, within the current construct of the bowl system that’s in place right now.

There’s no playoff because you are lazy and because you’re not doing your job, even though you’ve been at it for about ten minutes. It’s your job to make money for everyone, and this would do that. It’s your job to keep the bowls happy, and this would make them bigger. It’s your job to make the sport of college football better. Get smarter. Get it done.

http://cfn.scout.com/2/924534.html
 
Last edited:
the BCS system is CLEARLY flawed, but it's probably difficult to pinpoint a fair playoff system that would give schools across the nation (as plentiful as they are) an equal playing field.

any questions as to the legitimacy of the BCS system, though, can refer to the 2006 issue when florida jumped to #2 over michigan in the last week. IMO, it was obvious that michigan deserved to be in the national championship, but it would have been fodder for argument had they gone to the national championship. it just seemed like the easiest solution to a difficult problem was to hand the #2 ranking to florida.

That's your opinion, and mine is that they made the right move - even without my Orange & Blue glasses on. Hindsight says it was the right decision as well, when both Big10+1 teams got their asses handed to them in short order. Hell, it WAS a playoff. Suck it.

take the top 8 and set up a bracket. highest seed gets home field advantage each game. championship game on a neutral site. its as simple as that.

That's a lot like what I envisioned - take the top 8 (yes, from the BCS poll....it's fairer than a human vote only). Give the top 4 teams home field for the first round - no worries then about selling out seats or fan travel. Schools get so much cash (both home and visitor) it would be accepted by the AD's, I would think. From there, the four losers get thrown back into the bowl mix like they are today (lined up for the BCS bowls). The winning four are either matched off in a similar home-away arrangement for the higher seeded teams OR they get pushed to some semi-final bowls if that is preferred. Again, cash rolls in, where's the problem? Then the two losers there are put back in the BCS bowl mix like the earlier four - mix'n'match for your usual BCS bowl fun. The winners are in the championship game at a mega-bowl, just like today.

What has that cost anyone? Possible fan travel for the semi-finals if held in bowls. One or two additional games for those losing top eight teams (more injuries possible, but man-o-man...the money will cover travel, scholarships). Cost anyone schooling? Um, how's that for D2 and D3 now? That's all I see it costing anyone....and keeping home games fixes that for most everyone (other than the injury opportunity). Those outside the top eight will still bitch, but c'mon...it's eight deep, earn it or stfu. I will argue the quoted article however about playoffs encouraging teams to drop cupcakes in order to get SOS and into the top eight. In most cases, the school would be unwilling to add one more possible loss on the calendar than they have to - I think you'd see about what you see now - some teams (tOSU, UGA, TN, TX, AL, VT) doing *one* tough ooc matchup, but most of them keeping some cupcakes on there.

What does it gain? A shitload more money, so stfu AD's and bowl bitches. You *still*have the same bowl arrangements and 'fun' for the players without the nagging questions of who should have been in the NC. Yeah, a team may feel it got a mismatch in it's bowl, but you have that now, at least then you'd know we have the right teams in the NC. Stats, man, stats!!! Do we count those additional games? I expect so, and that means our current 'legends' in the stat books will get left behind....so freaking what? It happened when they decided to add bowl games as counting, and when they decided to add a 12th game some years. Pro sports have expanded their schedules...hell, I am not sure but I bet D2 and D3 count their stats as well. Whoop-de-do :| You also gain recruiting exposure (more tv time for those top eight and their conferences), and games in other people's areas (ie, if tOSU played @ AL, they'd have better chance at recruiting there and vice-versa). Really, all I'm seeing with this is win-win for everyone.
 
That's your opinion, and mine is that they made the right move - even without my Orange & Blue glasses on. Hindsight says it was the right decision as well, when both Big10+1 teams got their asses handed to them in short order. Hell, it WAS a playoff. Suck it.

meh, it could be both ways. Florida didn't really get any of the respect that it deserved until after the National Championship. again, they didn't really play anybody until the SEC Championship (the same couldn't be said for Michigan, because they played some quality out-of-conference teams and Ohio State at least played and beat an always respected Texas team ((whether they deserved it or not is another question)).

Michigan got beat soundly in the Rose Bowl, but honestly I think that USC could have easily beaten Florida and Ohio State as well.

Ohio State got stomped on in the bowl game, yes, but most Florida fans forget to realize that it was mostly because our star player, Ted Ginn, got injured on the first play of the game when he ran a kick off back for a TD. I know this is an excuse, but it is also the reality of the situation.

I'm not saying that Florida didn't deserve to be number 2, because they could have very well have been considered a number 2 team.

but the point of this thread is not Florida, Tim Tebow, or the SEC as so many of you all down south think that college football is only synonymous with (Buckeye fans are just as guilty, lawl) - the point is that the BCS is ridden with banality and that Michigan, USC, and Florida could have all been "randomly" chosen to be represented in the National Championship. and nobody could have really argued against that call.
 
how the NCAA playoffs should be

then how do you figure who the top 8 in the nation are?

it's called the BCS poll.

I think that the easiest and BEST way to ensure a college football post-season would be to take the conference champions of all the major divisions. so the Pac 10, Big 10, Big East, ACC, Big 12, and SEC would all be represented by a conference champion in the playoffs.

and now, the BCS ranking system would have a minimal role in deciding the next two teams who get a bid (if we want 8 teams, that is). therefore, teams like TCU or Boise State could actually get a shot at the National Championship (for what it's worth I think that the Horned Frog's defense is comparable to the greatest defenses this year - Florida, Bama, and Ohio State).

and, the BCS system would be used in ranking the teams. the top seeds play the lowest seeds. hell, you don't even have to call this the BCS anymore. you could call it whatever you want.

this would produce some great match-ups! how awesome would it be to see Florida take on Ohio State in the first round of a three round playoffs system?! Bowl-handjobbers want to protect the sanctity of the bowl games, and the suits want the money to still be there. but call OSU VS FL the Capital One Bowl and I think that you would have many, many, many OSU fans and UF fans salivating over this re-match.

how great would it be to see TCU play Texas? despite being in the same state, I don't think these teams have even played one another very many times...

what do you all think about my new and improved system?
 
I definitely do not want a playoff system. Every week is already a playoff in college football, plus I love tradition.

And at the end of the season the best Pac 10 and best Big Ten team meet at the end of the year for the Rose Bowl.
I like tradition and a playoff system would kill tradition.
 
And at the end of the season the best Pac 10 and best Big Ten team meet at the end of the year for the Rose Bowl.

Even if the best PAC 10 team is awful compared to the best Big 10 Team?, or the other way around?

I was much happier seeing the Dawgs play an overvalued Hawaii the other year, rather than force them to play some shitty BigEasy Squad-- just because its what is supposed to be in the Sugar Bowl.
 
Yeah I would rather play ANYONE from the PAC 10 then some ho-dum school like Hawaii or Boise State (I know they are ranked, but they play in the WAC, nuff said). I wouldn't get to excited if OSU's opponent was Utah or TCU, I'd rather see them play a big team.

I know some here might think I'm stubborn for having this view, but for the UF fans here, aske yourself this, would you really want to have to win three or four straight to get to the championship when right now all you have to do is beat bama?
Plus I fear with a playoff you'd see some teams bench their starters the final game of a season if they already had a #1 seed clinched. Id' be pissed if I bought a ticket in September for a game in November and my favorite player wasn't starting or even playing. That's what I hate about the NFL, Manning might not play in week 17.
 
^^
If it means clearing the air about whether TCU is more deserving of a national title spot than a major conference team like OSU, then I'm all for it.

TCU shouldn't be able to waltz in to an NC w/o proving itself against big-name schools, and conversely, OSU et al shouldn't have to skate by on their reputations in order to get there. A playoff settles all this-- that's why every other sport (that matters) has one.
 
I think that the easiest and BEST way to ensure a college football post-season would be to take the conference champions of all the major divisions. so the Pac 10, Big 10, Big East, ACC, Big 12, and SEC would all be represented by a conference champion in the playoffs.

I would be majorly pissed off if this actually happened. I went to ECU for 3 years and the entire town bleeds purple and gold football. ECU is conference USA, which while it is D-IA football, its not in a BCS conference. legit teams like TCU and Boise st. (and ECU if they ever stepped their game up) would be automatically out of this system. There would never be a "BCS-buster" underdog team that lots of people love to see every year.
 
^^Aye, don't take the conference champs, take the top 8 teams. If you win your conference, chances are you'll be in the top 8. If you don't, but are damn close (see AL-UF loser), and manage to stay in the top 8, you deserve it. If you are a conference champ, but you and your conference suck (see ACC) then you shouldn't be involved.
 
Id' be pissed if I bought a ticket in September for a game in November and my favorite player wasn't starting or even playing. That's what I hate about the NFL, Manning might not play in week 17.

a side-note, I hate it when teams bench their players right before playoffs start. some teams used to do this a lot, but now we see them playing through the whole season. sitting your starters = losing momentum. teams that do this rarely make any noise in the NFL playoffs, and I doubt they would make any noise in the (eventual) college playoffs.

I would be majorly pissed off if this actually happened. I went to ECU for 3 years and the entire town bleeds purple and gold football. ECU is conference USA, which while it is D-IA football, its not in a BCS conference. legit teams like TCU and Boise st. (and ECU if they ever stepped their game up) would be automatically out of this system. There would never be a "BCS-buster" underdog team that lots of people love to see every year.

I understand your town's football passion, because I come from a town with probably the most football passion I have ever witnessed. however, ECU could make the playoffs with this system. I don't think you are arguing your point very well, because if non-BCS schools such as Boise State and TCU haven't made the National Championship (and some years they might have deserved to), then ECU will not come anywhere close between a NC. only with my system (and the system above that looks very similar) will teams like ECU, TCU, or BSU stand anywhere close to a National Title.
 
^ I'm sure the fact that you (probably, I think?) live in Oakland, CA has something to do with it as well.

overall it looks unanimous that we of Bluelight are in favor of a NCAA playoffs system. I think that the anti-playoffs camp needs to back their shit up some more in here.
 
BCS bowls allow for many more champions than a playoff system would. I believe this goal of creating a greater number of "winners" is one of the largest driving factors for players and BCS faithful. The process seems not overly concerned with concretely establishing a single winner like other sports are. Having the bowl system allows for a bunch of pseudo-championships to give more ability for postseason sucess to more teams.

Considering the levels of variation between schools and levels of overall talent, I think this stratification of the postseason works really well to provide opportunities to a large number of athletes. Remember, it's not like other sports where the teams are supposedly on an equal playing field...
 
Top