Tako Tuesdays: COME SEE THE VIOLENCE INHERENT IN THE SYSTEM!
To help pass the time between now and January 2nd, it's Tako Tuesdays to the rescue! We're off our football season hiatus, and raring to go!
HELP, COLLEGE FOOTBALL IS BEING REPRESSED!
Please.
The BCS uproar over Game of the Century II: The Legend of Curly's Gold has caused a call to arms from college football fans, who have claim to be boycotting watching the BCS National Championship game in protest, and want to see the end of the BCS system. First off, they won't boycott. College football fans are junkies, and there's no way they stay away from the last chance at a high for nine months. And secondly, and this is my important point, the BCS as a perfect determiner for the national championship is impossible, and we should stop pretending like it could be. Every year presents a new and unique scenario at the top. And one system will not fit all possibilities. Take this year as an example. What would have worked best in 2011 would be a play-in game between #2 Alabama and #3 Oklahoma State, for the right to take on #1 LSU. A four team playoff includes #4 Stanford, who got spanked by #5 Oregon on their own field. Oregon would be left out. Any scenario involving more than four teams is just ridiculous, and is never going to happen. So just everybody get it out of your heads. This "play-in" system would not have worked in 2010, with a lack of a clear-cut #1 among three undefeated teams. #3 TCU was left out of the 'ship, but nobody raised a fuss because they were a non-AQ team, and Oregon and Auburn were so dominant.
A look back at the rest of the BCS scenarios, and the championship system that would have worked best.
1998: An undefeated Tennessee sits atop a gaggle of one-loss teams, which included Pac-10 representatives UCLA and Arizona. The Bruins, along with Kansas State, lost on the final weekend of the season, allowing ACC champ Florida State to move into the #2 slot and earn the right to play in, and lose, the first ever BCS Championship game. The Seminoles rode a ten-game winning streak into the championship, including a high-profile win over #4 ranked Florida in their season finale. Ohio State is the only team with a real gripe, but they lost a middle-of-the-pack conference team (Michigan State) in November. Sound familiar, Oklahoma State? BTW, Kansas State lost to #6 Texas A&M in the Big XII Championship, fell to #3, and was left out of the BCS altogether, losing in the Alamo Bowl to Purdue. How's that for a buzzkill?
System: 2 team works. tOSU, K-State, UCLA had their shot, and lost.
1999: Two undefeated teams: Florida State who became the first team to start the season #1 and never give it up, and Virginia Tech, led by a guy named Michael Vick. No brainer.
System: 2 team works. Best case scenario for the BCS.
2000: Much like 1998, 2000 featured one undefeated team, this time Oklahoma, and a heap of one-loss teams. Miami beat Florida State; washington beat Miami, as well as #6 Oregon State. Yet the Seminoles were invited to their third straight title game. FSU was again helped by a big season-ending win, 30-7 over #4 Florida.
System: 4 team? Though Oklahoma should get credit for being undefeated. Can't be a play-in game, as at least three teams have a case for those two spots. In any case, washington, Oregon State, and Notre Dame all went to BCS bowls this season. So we should just stop talking about it.
2001: Ducks (and Buffaloes) get hosed, as #4 Nebraska, who had just lost to Colorado in the third-to-last week of the season, got the nod to face undefeated Miami. Oregon and Nebraska were the only one-loss teams.
System: A play-in game between the Ducks and Nebraska, with the winner playing Miami. Colorado lost to Fresno State, as well as getting waxed 41-7 by Texas. They were a clear #4.
2002: Two undefeateds, Miami and Ohio State, who turned in one of the two best BCS title games in history. Wouldn't change a thing about this season
System: 2 teams clearly ahead of the rest.
2003: The Great BCS Clusterfuck, Part 1 Three one-loss teams: Oklahoma, LSU, and USC. On Championship Saturday, Oklahoma lays an egg in the Big XII championship against Kansas State, while LSU soundly defeats Georgia. USC ends the year ranked #1 in both human polls, yet the heavily weighted computers place LSU and Oklahoma in the Natty. LSU wins the crystal football, and USC whoops Michigan in the Rose Bowl and earns the AP's national title. This nightmare leads to heavier BCS weight on the human polls. It still isn't clear whether this is a good thing.
System: LSU and USC play for the title. No team that loses a game by 28 points to a lesser team on the final weekend should play a championship.
2004: Five undefeated teams: USC, Oklahoma, Auburn, Utah, and Boise State. In real life, USC beat the hell out of Oklahoma, while Auburn beat Virginia Tech in the Sugar Bowl. Utah became the first non-AQ team to win a BCS game, leaving the season with three undefeated teams after the bowl season.
System: Play-in game: Auburn vs. Oklahoma, winner plays USC. Trojans get the bye as retribution for 2003. Utah's only good pre-bowl win was over Texas A&M. Boise State's best win was @ UTEP. They just don't get consideration.
2005: Texas vs. USC. Vince Young vs. Leinart and Bush. Easy.
System: BCS got it right on this one. It wasn't hard
2006: Ohio State defeats Michigan in a classic, USC Coug's it against UCLA, and Florida passes Michigan after winning the SEC. After all the controversy surrounding whether Florida should even get a shot, the Gators blew Ohio State away 41-14, and Michigan lost the Rose Bowl to USC.
System: Play-in game: Michigan vs. Florida, winner plays Ohio State. This season is the basis of every argument against LSU-Alabama II, because the non-rematch team that got a shot won and won big. But Florida was really good in 2006, and Ohio State was nowhere near as good as this year's LSU.
2007: The Great BCS Clusterfuck, Part 2 Chaos. Eight different teams were either #1 or #2 in a BCS poll, with LSU going from first to seventh to second in the last three weeks of the year. Ohio State sat back and let Missouri and West Virginia lose on the regular season's final weekend, propelling them to #1. LSU beat the Buckeyes for the title.
System: They shoulda just given it to Oregon before the Arizona game. I don't have a fucking clue how to solve this one, and no one else does either. I mean, Kansas went 11-2 this season. It's the Bermuda triangle of football seasons. Let's never speak of this again.
2008: Six one-loss teams, and an undefeated Utah are the major players here. The SEC Championship served as a de facto play-in game, with #2 Florida defeating #1 Alabama 31-20. The Big XII featured a menage a trois of confusing, as Oklahoma defeated Texas Tech, who defeated Texas, who defeated Oklahoma, all three teams' only losses of the season. The Sooners, by virtue of beating then-#2 TTU and #12 Oklahoma State to end the regular season (by a combined score of 126-62), earned the highest BCS ranking and the Big XII South's spot in the title game, where they crushed Missouri. Oklahoma's strong finish, coupled with Florida's win, put the two teams in the title game, which was won by the Fightin' Tebows. USC also had one loss, but that loss was to Oregon State, and didn't finish strong enough to garner enough attention. Big Ten champ Penn State also finished the regular season with one loss.
System: An eight-team playoff. Florida, Oklahoma, Texas, Alabama, USC, Utah, Penn State, Texas Tech. #9, and undefeated, Boise State would get left out, though, unsurprisingly, I'm not too concerned about that. I know I said "no more than four teams", but that tournament would be fun as hell. All things considered, I think the two best teams did play for the title.
2009: Five undefeated teams. Alabama played their way in, exacting revenge for 2008 by defeating undefeated Florida in the SEC Championship game. What was left was an undefeated Texas who nearly blew the Big XII Championship game against Nebraska, Big East champ Cincinnati, and non-AQs TCU and Boise State.
System: 2 team system works here. You could make a case for a Cincinnati-Texas play-in game, or some sort of four-way play-in with TCU and Boise State, but let's be honest; the national championship that year was Alabama-Florida in the SEC title game. The Gators proved that by beating Cincy by 27 points in the Sugar Bowl.
Fourteen years of BCS history, and there's no way anyone can definitively say that one system is the best option. In short, the BCS isn't broken. College football is the most difficult sport to crown a champion, for a number of reasons. Going to an ad hoc, year-by-year, figure out how to be fair as it happens, kind of system is really the only way to ensure the most satisfying outcome, and that simply isn't feasible. And so college football will be forever doomed to shepherd a system that leaves deserving teams out, or lets undeserving teams in. And make no mistake, college football is the most exciting regular season in sports because of the current system's small margin for error. Every regular season game counts. If you like exciting playoffs, college basketball and the NHL have some coming up. It just can't happen in college football. It sucks.
In more important and more fixable news...
All 178 employees of the American Licorice Co. factory in Union City, CA, went on strike yesterday to fight for their rights as workers. In case you haven't been following the story, American Licorice Co. is the company that produces the official candy snack of Tako Tuesdays, Red Vines. The workers have not picketed since 1977, and are looking for structured pay raises, a comprehensive health care plan, and employee pension. I think I can speak for my constituency when I say this: Red Vines honchos, give them what they want. These people work their asses off making a fantastic product. They are extremely loyal to the business, with every single worker at the factory possessing 15 or more years of seniority. And I will not stand idly by while the quality of Red Vines deteriorates due to untrained and inexperienced staff. Let's get them back to work, let's keep them healthy and paid, and let's take care of them when it's time to hang up their hairnets.
130 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Any scenario involving more than four teams is just ridiculous, and is never going to happen.
Yes, I hear that every time I turn on Mark May and Holtz and the rest of the staff of ABC/Disney/Hearst’s ESPN.
Why?
Those shows are formatted to be entertaining and garner attention.
A lot of what gets said by the ESPN talking heads is crap. But it gets fans talking, and people tune in. And that’s the point. It isn’t about being right; it’s about getting noticed.
Addicted to Quack, #1 Oregon blog among female Duck fans, including the ageless and ever-radiant daisyduck.
by Takimoto on Dec 6, 2011 9:25 AM PST via iPhone app up reply actions
Sorry Taki -
I typed that out more quickly than I wanted (for some reason work occasionally interferes with my daily fuckin’ around).
I meant to ask you: Why is that scenario that involves more than 4 teams so ridiculous? ESPN (K Herbstreit and the others I listed above + every other trained monkey on that network) all same the same thing as you – " It will never happen! Don’t even think about it!"
So what I’m trying to get to, is why is it such a silly idea? I can easily see a way to save the bowls (not that I happen to care about the bowls – I remember many times when the bowls didn’t care about Oregon) and still have a playoff.
So why is it ridiculous?
by ConfofChamps on Dec 6, 2011 11:36 AM PST up reply actions
In an eight game playoff, the teams getting to the championship games would be playing (in some cases) their sixteenth game of the season.
That’s too many for a team of players who aren’t full-time athletes like in the pros. Also, the idea of trying to sell tickets to all those game is a nightmare, as only the largest of fanbases (Michigan, Ohio State, Notre Dame, USC, etc) could possibly expect to sell their allotment of three straight playoff games at neutral sites. And even if changes were made to allow for that, the big conferences will never jump straight from one game to an eight-team or more playoff, without an intermediary like a plus-one scenario or a four-team playoff.
Addicted to Quack, #1 Oregon blog among female Duck fans, including the ageless and ever-radiant daisyduck.
But as it is...
Teams can already play 15 games in a season. Say a team from the Pac-12 (like USC next year) plays at Hawaii. The NCAA allows them to schedule an extra non-conference game in that instance. So, they’ve got a 13 game regular season, and potentially a CCG and a bowl game. Is one more game really that much to ask?
It's not just about the players playing in the games
Part of Tako’s point is selling enough tickets for the promoters and advertisers to want to put on the games. As fans, sure, we’d love MOAR FOOTBALL, but I’m not even sure the Pac12 Championship Game sold out. I know ticket demand was very low. Granted, it was on a Friday (making it difficult for fans to get there without leaving work early), it was against a lackluster opponent, but it was also the third home game at Autzen in three weeks.
¡Me gustan las tortugas!
And Cliff Harris was like, "VRRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOMMMMM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
by DuckUntilDeath on Dec 9, 2011 5:27 PM PST up reply actions
I don't get it either.
This is the bracket for the FCS playoffs:
Notice the dates. If the FBS level had an eight team playoff, it could start on December 10 and finish anytime between then and early January, just like the FCS is doing. Any problems that a playoff presents has already been solved by the FCS schools. And there’s no reason that the other bowls couldn’t continue doing what they’re doing right now.
You could use the current BCS rankings to take the top eight, or (preferably) you could take the top eight conference champions. Either way, you’d have a much, much more legitimate national champion at the end of the year.
"You could almost imagine Ducks coach Chip Kelly walking to midfield among the bloodied Bruins and shouting in his best gladiator voice, 'Are you not entertained?'" - Ted Miller
Oops.
"You could almost imagine Ducks coach Chip Kelly walking to midfield among the bloodied Bruins and shouting in his best gladiator voice, 'Are you not entertained?'" - Ted Miller
Great Atricle...
What happens in 2 years when the contract is up? I’m hoping the Red Vines people will be kind enough to help us Occupy Bowl Season and get this shit fixed!
The insidious fallacy of the "two best teams" argument
If you read any NCAAF article or watched any NCAAF tv segment in the past month, you’ll have been subjected to the “it’s about the two best teams getting to play, so therefor LSU vs Alabama.” argument.
Nein. Na. No. Nahi. Nyet. Bollocks.
This is being shoved upon us like some mercurial magic mantra — the divine goal of the football season. Since fucking when? As long as I recall, it’s about crowning a champion. Finding the best team in college football.
Take any sport – the NCAA basketball tournament, Wimbledon, the Masters Golf. Hell, take any cricket or curling tournament. What every sporting event and competition in the history of human endeavor has attempted to do is find the best. Find the winner. Declare a champion. Annoint the last man/woman/team standing.
Sure, the BCS guys would have you think it was all about which top TWO people ran from Rome to Marathon. OH NO IT WASN’T!! I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE, BCS!
Sporting competition is about finding a winner. A WINNER, WITH “A” BEING THE OPERATIVE WORD.
So just because the BCS is a flawed and limited system and does rat all at anything, but claims to find the best two teams to play for the NC, doesn’t make it right. Just because all they have to offer is a mess that looks like an ugly hairball coughed up by a diseased cat doesn’t make it right. AND SHOULDN’T CHANGE THE ARGUMENT.
IT’S NOT ABOUT THE TWO BEST TEAMS. IT’S ABOUT THE BEST TEAM, PERIOD.
And that’s why the losers in a semi-final don’t whine about having played in the “tougher” semi-final. If they don’t win the semi-final, too bad. They had a shot, they lost. End of story. There’s no controversy about who won an NCAA basketball tournament. They all got to play. The last team standing wins. End of story. The team that lost to the eventual winner DOES not whine about not getting to play in the final even though they’re prettier and sexier and oh so much better. YOU HAD YOUR SHOT. YOU LOST. IT’S NOT ABOUT THE TWO BEST TEAMS.
IT SHOULD BE ABOUT THE BEST TEAM, PERIOD. AND EVERYBODY GETTING A SHOT TO WIN.
Oregon loves you, Chip Kelly!
In other words, //DIE, BCS, DIE

Oregon loves you, Chip Kelly!
by gamedaytribe on Dec 6, 2011 10:47 AM PST up reply actions
Everyone doesn't deserve a shot to win
Sorry, but it’s true.
If you can show me that Boise State deserves a shot to win as much as Stanford does and why, let me know. If you can show me why Houston deserves a shot to win compared to OKST, let me know.
I don’t want a system where everyone gets a chance. Brian Fremeau wrote a story that was somewhat interesting in that the BCS gets something very right – it very heavily rewards a team for having a great regular season. How many times have we been frustrated by that stellar team that got unlucky in the playoffs or got jobbed because of a ref call and didn’t play in the title game? Or lost in the title game to a totally inferior team? Now I happen to want a playoff in college (more accurately: I now want the bowl system to burn as it hurts fans, players and colleges in favor of personal and NCAA gain) but the notion that it’s somehow wrong to not give other teams a shot at the title? Don’t buy it.
This season is a good example: 3 conference champions or top-5 teams had a shot at LSU and couldn’t get it done. 5 teams with 10 or more victories. At this point if LSU loses to Alabama despite that schedule, those results, it’ll be a huge disappointment. LSU deserves to be the best team in college football right now. Period. Even after their bowl game. Why should another team who played a softer schedule and didn’t do as well in that schedule get a chance to bump them off? Why is that fair?
by kalon on Dec 6, 2011 11:08 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
because "soft schedule" and "didn't do as well in that schedule" are, in the end, subjective
you can say, for example, that boise or houston didn’t do as much as alabama, and I would agree with that, but it’s an opinion, sometimes informed by simple and/or complex metrics that all have holes, there is no definitive end logic
and maybe more importantly, because a bowl game is a one game playoff anyway, otherwise if you really want to put supreme value on “what teams did in the regular season”, the regular season would end without bowl games and the final rankings (BCS, or whatever system) would declare a champion. this year, yes, this would have gotten pretty good consensus support that LSU was the right team to be selected this way, other years, not so much at all. some years this would be a terrible system, and unfortunately to be fair to everyone you have to tell them what the system is before it all starts each year.
a bowl game devalues the regular season a little bit, 4 team playoff devalues it just one game further, and so on. LSU would have to prove it this year if that was the system everyone signed up for prior to starting. if they win one more, so be it, they proved it again. if they loose, so be it, they weren’t as good as everyone thought they were, and alabama for example would have a legit claim, equal record same quality losses, one very close, one on the big, big stage.
we play bowl games because human beings like to find out who’s best just ONE MORE TIME. one additional playoff game, most years, keeps it amongst teams with one loss or non-AQ teams with no losses that all have some sort of logic about why they deserve a chance to prove it, and then they can go out and do just that or not. there are of course years this version will “not make sense” as well.
neither system offers definitive definition of who is best, it’s just a choice about what version of “best” everyone likes.
i suppose the other option is that we all just stop caring who is best and play for fun, and throw snowballs at each other in hell.
dunno, sorry if that’s all obvious, just my thoughts, i don’t get excited about this argument because it has no definitive answer
Euler's #1 fan
by Bill Musgrave on Dec 6, 2011 12:50 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
See, here's the problem I have with this
" if they loose, so be it, they weren’t as good as everyone thought they were, and alabama for example would have a legit claim, equal record same quality losses, one very close, one on the big, big stage."No, see, that’s wrong.
That means they lost a game to a good team. This is the same sort of stupid logic that says Chip Kelly can’t win the big one; it ignores everything else. We hate to think about it, but at the end of the day who wins a football game between two closely matched teams almost always comes down to luck. It comes down to a ball that got fumbled bouncing in bounds or out of bounds, or the wind happening to blow a bit during a field goal, or someone getting concussed. One game is not any more objective of a measure than people viewing that game are as far as evaluating the two teams overall; all the results of one game indicate is that one team beat another team on that particular day.
That’s not objective when you use it to say that one team is the champion and the other isn’t.
As to soft schedule and didn’t do as well, well, you can be pretty objective in that. We have rating systems that can do things like look at strength of schedule, opponent difficulty and the like and we have a way to quantify these things. Multiple ways, actually. You can argue that they’re not CORRECT, but that’s not the same as arguing that they’re not objective.
well,if we're letting teams off the hook for being unlucky, then there's not much reason to play at all, or anoint anyone, anything
might as well say we’re all rational human beings here, let’s just call this a draw, alabama and LSU are both champs because it was really that close, and there was some luck in there, and golly i just don’t have it in my heart to call one of these teams better than the other. we don’t need anymore games, that one looked like the pinnacle. it’s not why people play games… or have billion dollar sports industries. and how do we turn to LSU (or anyone) and say, sorry guys, that’s luck, it’s a tie, deal with it. that’s as subjective as it gets. do we appoint a panel to tell us what was luck and what wasn’t, and who deserves the glory? sure, it’s rough, but it’s the nature of any game. some skill, some luck, some outside influence in varying degrees, no way to avoid any of those, except the skill is the dominant component and the only one anyone can really control, and that’s why its more objective to use game results than anything else. use skill, win games more often than not, receive recognition.
as for chip, he hasn’t won a big one. he’s been fucking awesome, but we simply can’t call ourselves rose bowl champs or national champs yet. i’m not saying teams “suck” because they don’t win it all, i’m saying if they want the ring then they play for it. oregon can parade it’s pac 10 championships around because those were won. the rest, we can’t claim, right?
any ratings system is created by people that give weight to different elements based on their opinion of what is important, and therefore they are subjective. no matter how many ways we have to quantify this, none of them are definitively correct or even represent a consensus of popular or “expert” opinion. i personally AGREE that there are some criteria that i think are better for defining a teams worth, or its strength of schedule, or whatever… but in the end that’s just my opinion. i actually like the BCS better than what we had before (gasp), it tries to give some value to who you beat and how you did it… but in the end look at those computer rankings, there’s some weird outliers in there.
the outcome of a game, whether involving luck or even concussed Pac-10 referees is, however, not subjective, a win is a win and a loss is a loss. and we generally live with that because the percentage of skill vs luck vs got skrewed tilts to the skill, most of the time.
in my (worthless) opinion, of course!
Euler's #1 fan
by Bill Musgrave on Dec 6, 2011 5:15 PM PST up reply actions
Well said.
I don’t want a system where everyone gets a chance.
This is the biggest danger of a playoff system. It’s going to devolve, just like the basketball tournament into far too many teams. And though it’s very popular, NCAA basketball tournament, it kinda sucks, and is a terrible way to determine a champion, and renders the regular season as a whole essentially pointless.
I like the fact that a strong regular season is very important in college football. Not everyone deserves a shot, and that’s a very good thing.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
In your opinion, anyway. I love the NCAA tournament. I don’t think a football tournament should necessarily be that inclusive, but I would like an 8-team playoff.
Why? I only care about “deserve” to some extent. Yes, LSU beat Oregon on the field. They are a better team. But maybe Oregon would win in a rematch. Who knows? I just want to see the rematch because I want to see good football. If you limit a tournament to the top 8 teams, you’re going to see a lot of good football.
And if the number 8 team winds up winning the tournament and being crowned the national champ, good for them!
I also think that it might actually IMPROVE the quality of OOC games. I could be wrong on that, but the rationale would be that a team can afford to lose a game, maybe even two, and still make it to the playoffs. That might encourage teams to take a shot at a tough team in OOC.
Of course, the converse to that is that with the top 8 making it, why not play 4 cupcakes since strength of schedule is probably not going to be enough to keep you out if you only lose one game. It could go either way.
Defending maligned chants since 2009
Haven’t you also stated that you don’t watch the final 4? I don’t find the early rounds of the NCAA tournament very entertaining, because it’s filled with a lot of terrible basketball. IMO, it doesn’t make up for the rape of the regular season.
I also think that it might actually IMPROVE the quality of OOC games.
I do agree on this point. It definitely would improve OOC games.
I’m in favor of college football playoffs, but I don’t trust those in charge to actually execute it.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
Sometimes I watch the Final Four. I love watching upsets in the initial rounds.
I think the problems that you have with the NCAA tourney won’t pop up in a football tourney simply because in any given year, the top 8 football teams are high quality teams. There’s almost no chance you see worse football, on average, than you do with the BCS system.
Defending maligned chants since 2009
I don’t actually trust the NCAA to keep it at 8 teams.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
This is all theoretical, so I suppose as long as I’m dreaming, I’d like a giant trebuchet.
But in my dreams, I’m at least somewhat concerned with logistics, and I realize that even plugging 8 teams into a tournament would be tough, and 16 teams would be nigh impossible to get done in the timeframe they have.
I do agree with you that the NCAA is stupid and would probably ruin it. But again, my dreams will continue unfettered.
Defending maligned chants since 2009
Seeing how the NCAA has nothing to do with the BCS...
My guess is that any playoff system for top level football (calling it FBS when talking about a playoff sounds funny) would be handled the confines of the NCAA as well.
I don't mean to impose...
Just a quick question
You love the NCAA tournament.
Do you love the NCAA regular season?
I do think that a playoff could encourage better OOC games, especially if you require that teams play good OOC games to be considered for atlarge positions. If you have a playoff system that has only a couple of guaranteed berths and requires all at larges to have a certain value of RPI (or something like RPI), you’ll get good OOC games. At the same time, the conference games aren’ going to matter as much, and that’s a damn shame.
I don’t watch the NCAA regular season much. But I don’t foresee that problem in college football because there are fewer games, and you still have to be very, very good to make the playoffs.
Defending maligned chants since 2009
Depends on how you do the playoffs
If you do the stupid ‘all conference champs get in lol’ approach,then LSU and Southern Miss have the same slotting. This is another big issue with the playoff proposals – that it isn’t just that there are a ton of teams, it’s that there are a bunch of conferences and a huge disparity in talent between them. If all the conferences were somewhat even that’d be one thing, but they’re not.
Yeah, I understand implementing it would be tough, and I’m not sure where I fall on the conference champ inclusion thing. I think I’d be more inclined to take the top 8 schools. Or only take the conference champ if they’re in the top 12 or something. I certainly don’t want some crappy Big East school effing up my playoffs.
Defending maligned chants since 2009
So you're saying...
That because some conferences are better than others, they should be afforded ADDITIONAL advantages? It seems like giving every conference champion a spot would be pretty equitable…those better conferences already have the advantage, because they are better at football with better recruits, coaching, and overall support.
I don't mean to impose...
This type of thinking will make a playoff suck. I don’t care if Southern Miss won CUSA. They don’t deserve a shot at the FBS national title. This is the same type of thinking that has given the BCS an auto-bid to the BCS.
Do we want to find a champion and watch good football, or waste a spot at the table with teams that don’t deserve to be there.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
This is why I think the first step needs to be splitting the FBS into two separate divisions.
As long as you have the C-USA and SEC being “equal” a playoff won’t work, but just cutting them out cause they aren’t quite big enough isn’t very equitable either. So split it into basically the haves and the have-nots, make them unique divisions with their own champions. Then a playoff would make more sense. I really wouldn’t mind the Big Least champion getting an automatic bid too much (I figure they can enjoy their one game before getting destroyed)…but I would be outraged if we gave one to the WAC.
"It's not about style. It's about winning the game. That's it." - Chip Kelly
by Duckfanatic10 on Dec 6, 2011 1:51 PM PST up reply actions
I'm mostly okay with that
I still love the concept of relegation – that at the end of the season the worst teams in the division go to the next lower level and the best teams from the lower division move up. This way you don’t have to have conference realignment or worries about teams like BSU coming along; if you do well you get a shot, and if you continually suck you get dropped. But that kind of obliterates the conferences and rivalries….
Hmm. Unless you keep the conferences but remove the eligibility. That’s an interesting thought.
Relegation wouldn't work in CFB.
Too many differences between the Premier League and American Collegiate Athletics. First, it’s more than one sport (Do you only relegate one sport?), the athletes aren’t paid (realistically the college has no way of keeping them around), the colleges aren’t strictly athletic businesses (they really should have more important things to focus on first), the country is HUGE! (Think if your 6 upwardly moving teams are all on the east coast and at least one of them gets moved into an open spot in the PAC or Big 12), etc. I love the idea of relegation, but it doesn’t fit in it’s current model in collegiate athletics.
"It's not about style. It's about winning the game. That's it." - Chip Kelly
by Duckfanatic10 on Dec 6, 2011 2:03 PM PST up reply actions
I think those are mostly solvable problems
For starters it’s only one sport. This is basically how it works right now anyway; basketball and who can play where is very different than football. So yes, only football.
The athletes not being paid I don’t get as an argument. Why does that matter? We see the equivalent with teams like Boise State or Oklahoma State – teams that get money poured into them to make them relevant or teams that get a hot coach and then things turn around.
The country being huge is something of a tough one. I think you’d have to have some kind of feeder system for that; the Pac-12 has MWC, the Big-12 has the Sun Belt, etc. It’s still not perfect, but it’s a bit more fair.
The biggest hit, as I said, is in the rivalries. You can relegate your rival out of existence and only play odd OOC games with them after that. And that might suck. But it would help tremendously and deal with the issues of completely arbitrary and mercurial conferences moving around as they see fit and then ‘choosing’ confernce champions from them. That’s what would kill a lot of playoff systems – that (for example) Alabama wants a playoff spot so they move quickly to the Mountain West for a season.
yes, yes yes
Talked a bunch and then post got eaten, but yes. I don’t want teams with insane budgets and recruiting bothering against teams that barely pay for football. Why is it fair that you play a schedule like LSU did and then have the same value that Southern Miss does? How does that make sense? Do you think Southern Miss helped college football more than LSU? Do you think that it’s good ratings if Southern Miss gets in?
We love cinderella stories in the NCAA, but at the end of the day we talk about the Dukes and the North Carolinas and the Arizonas of the world.
If you don’t think that’s fair, that’s understandable. This isn’t about fairness. This is about making something that doesn’t suck ass.
I don’t want teams with insane budgets and recruiting bothering against teams that barely pay for football. Why is it fair that you play a schedule like LSU did and then have the same value that Southern Miss does?
You are assigning a fairly random variable to ‘value’ here. LSU has every advantage in the world over Southern Miss, and if they happened to be matched up in the first round of a hypothetical 16-team playoff, they are going to crush Southern Miss, and move on to the next round, while the Golden Eagles are done for the year. They got to play Southern Miss first round because of their schedule and ranking, and vice versa.
Do you think Southern Miss helped college football more than LSU?
This point again seems a bit non sequitur. I think Wisconsin and MSU helped college football the most by having a pair of incredibly entertaining games. I don’t think either of them are better than LSU or Alabama.
Do you think that it’s good ratings if Southern Miss gets in?
This point is hard to answer. If you are saying “Is LSU versus Southern Miss going to get higher ratings than LSU versus Alabama?”, then of course not. But that is not the comparison here. LSU versus Southern Miss is your replacement for something akin to Nevada versus Southern Miss during this bowl season.
You are right that from time to time, you would have bad match-ups and bad games if you went to 16, but those would be the exception to the rule, and by the time you hit the 2nd round, you have 8 teams left. If you have bad games from the final 8 onward, you are no less likely to have had those bad games in the current system (moreso when the Sugar Bowl picks the way they do).
If you don’t think that’s fair, that’s understandable. This isn’t about fairness. This is about making something that doesn’t suck ass.
You know what sucks ass? The current system. The Cowboys not getting to prove their worth. The little guy (BSU) not getting to show that he can compete, or get blown off the field.
I don’t know what size of playoff would work best, but what if you did the following with a 16 team playoff:
1) Reduce the regular season by a week.
2) Fill out a bracket based upon seeding, with one caveat:
2a) Conference Champions are automatically given a seed as long as they are ranked in the final regular season poll. That was 8 schools this season, although most of those champions are already in the top 16, so they don’t take a seed from another team.
I don't mean to impose...
by TheOcean on Dec 6, 2011 3:22 PM PST up reply actions 4 recs
Replacing a bad system with a worse one isn't progress
In your system you’d have the following teams to pick from:
Alabama
Stanford
Boise
VTech
Oklahoma
Kansas State
Arkansas
South Carolina
Georgia
USC (if they were eligible)
Michigan
And you’d pick 5 at most. You would also have instead of those teams teams like Southern Miss, Northern Illinois and Arkansas State. Now, do you really, honestly believe that it is a better product that Northern Illiinois goes in over Michigan? Is it a better choice that Alabama has a harder time and a harder tournament because they didn’t win the SEC but Arkansas State has an easier time because they won the CUSA title? Come on. That’s ludicrous.
The ranking idea is okay, but at the end of the day why bother? Why not just take mostly non-auto berths into a playoff? That way you get a lot of flexiblity, aren’t bound to bad conferences and get to get in as many great teams as you can.
Here’d be my proposal: the top four conference champions get autowins, as determined by rankings. 12 other at large bids.
Isn't that what the BCS basically is?
Replacing a bad system with a worse one isn’t progress
"the putz from that UO blog, Matt Daddy" - Steve Tannen
The Daily Faberian
There's a limit to how far a playoff can expand though
Adding three games to a 13 game season is a big deal. Expanding in college basketball (where you can play after only a day’s rest) is far more feasible. I don’t think they would ever allow more than 8 teams (maybe 16) because of the toll it would take on the teams.
"It's not about style. It's about winning the game. That's it." - Chip Kelly
by Duckfanatic10 on Dec 6, 2011 1:15 PM PST up reply actions
You are saying this based on what? The regular season?
The limited info you have with common opponents? Your existing biases? Discriminating on W/L records? Discriminating on strength of schedules? By polls done by Harris voters, coaches, or sports writers? Eyeball test? Previous history? Size and weight attributes?
Note: I’m not saying every team should be in a “final.” I’m saying, we don’t have a system that’s reliable that can gauge the relative worth of every team. We don’t all play each other. If we all played every other team, then it becomes a trivial problem.
Or if it’s a fully connected graph. And even then, you’re relying on transitory properties of football games, which is, to put it simply, unfair and weak, at best.
Oregon loves you, Chip Kelly!
If you listen to Auburn,
USC and Oklahoma should have played each other for the right to play them. Because Auburn was clearly the best team that year, as established by their far superior schedule (yes they actually believe this all actual evidence to the contrary).
Somewhere, somehow, a Duck is watching you.
2003
Put Boise State and Utah in a play-in, allow the winner to play USC in a semifinal. That gives USC the bye you wanted, let Auburn and Oklahoma play in the other semifinal.
I’ve always thought the playoff should have a flexible number of teams, with a minimum of two. This year should have three, and Oklahoma State and Alabama can play for the right to play LSU. Stanford didn’t win their conference, and there’s no other major conference 1-loss teams.
Yeah, it's a nice shot
The hard thing is saying who deserves to be in it and what the cutoff is. it’s hard to be objective about that without being unfair in some situation. If I were trying to, I’d probably start with the number of games played against top competition and overall strength of schedule. You can’t have that be a specific value but you can do it so that you figure out what the top 2 teams are, and if any of the top 2 are within certain values of other teams include them too.
So for example, we’ll use the SBS method that is used over at smartfootball. This year the breakpoint is 60; you can simply include everyone above 60 and be fine. Alternately, keep selecting teams until the difference between the two teams is greater than a threshold, like greater than 3 points. If it’s greater than 3 points that’s where you stop.
I have and will always say:
Screw preseason games.
Start your conference play earlier. At the end of the year you have 3 more games to play. Make it a play-off system.
Would make college football way more interesting AND more profitable.
ssshhh....
That's another simple option
And it would not interfere with the boys’ learnin, which as we all know, is what university athletics is all about anyway.
by ConfofChamps on Dec 6, 2011 11:47 AM PST up reply actions
And what about the teams that don't make the playoffs?
Do they have to scramble to fill in spots? Do they just lose the playing time, the players’ experience, and the revenue they get from those games?
Got the shoes. Got the jersey. And finally, got football. Go Ducks.
(Good call, Daisy)
by lovemyducks81 on Dec 6, 2011 4:28 PM PST up reply actions
I guess I don't understand why people still complain about the BCS.
If they cared what fans, pundits, players, coaches, politicians, historians, mathematicians, statisticians, or anybody who cares about who the best team is year to year, they’d have changed the system already.
If disastrous regular season outcomes mattered, they’d have changed the system already.
If antitrust law mattered, they’d have changed it.
If anything besides money and power mattered to the powers that be, they’d have changed it.
People have been complaining about the BCS since its inception. It has never accomplished anything. We have no power and those in power do not give a fuck what we think.
It’s time we all just shut up and enjoy whatever game we’re given, or just stop watching college football altogether.
Now with mustache guarantee!
Money talks
And currently the BCS is profitable. Why change something that works if it fills your pockets?
It won’t change for anything unless the option they consider will yield more money.
ssshhh....
My guess is they've considered a playoff in every permutation ever mentioned and then some.
And it’s either not more profitable, or they are too risk-averse to change what’s already making them filthy rich.
Now with mustache guarantee!
by HoodRiverDuck on Dec 6, 2011 11:50 AM PST up reply actions
It's probably an investment thing.
I am pretty confident that putting together a playoff system would greatly benefit the sport and even generate more money to the makers of the playoffs. Problem is that it is extremely expensive to put something like that together… imagine finding venue, setting up systems, logos, promotions and so forth…
Unless they are forced to I don’t see the BCS change in a long time.
Only other option is to consider the current BCS bowls a “play off” and wait until end of January to decide on the National Championship game.
ssshhh....
It's actually not that expensive
If you do playoffs with home field advantage – something that makes a hell of a lot more sense to the fans and to the schools – it’s a money maker for those teams easily. The TV rights are also huge moneymakers. You can then have a venue for the championship game, and that shouldn’t be an issue whatsoever as far as money goes either.
The people that get hosed? The BCS bowls. But they aren’t part of the schools. They aren’t part of the players. They’re just this random monopoly that doesn’t really have anyhting to do with anything, and is pretty corrupt to boot. Screw them.
I complain about it because I hate it. I don’t expect that my rants will bring about change, or even be heard by anyone who CAN change things. I discuss sports because I enjoy it, and hating the BCS is part of that.
I can enjoy college football AND hope that someday I can enjoy it more.
Defending maligned chants since 2009
the bcs is certainly flawed, but is it worse than the old system?
i don’t hear people talking about this much. no one is a “fan” of the bcs but is it an improvement?
for example, while we hated the 2001 version that left us out of the NCG, without notoriety at the time i bet we play in the sun bowl or some other nowhere against a 9-4 team, rather than the fiesta with a #2 ranking outcome.
in the old system, bowls just took whoever they wanted for tradition, cash – completely, no qualms
Euler's #1 fan
by Bill Musgrave on Dec 6, 2011 1:02 PM PST up reply actions
We would have played in the Rose Bowl in 2001 under the old system, since we won the Pac-10.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
true, true
PAY ATTENTION MUSGRAVE
Euler's #1 fan
by Bill Musgrave on Dec 6, 2011 1:09 PM PST up reply actions
Yes, it's worse than the old system
The old system meant the regular season was by far the most important thing. The bowl games were mostly an afterthought. There weren’t as many of them either, so they weren’t as watered down; going to a bowl game was special.
And it was special because it was the reward for winning your conference.
in the old system you could have hard OOC schedules because the primary focus wasn’t national championships, it was conference championships. It didn’t matter about jockeying for position to get at-large slots of bowl games because bowl games already had who was going to go in – winners of conferences. In that respect and many others it was far better than the BCS, which has the emphasis only on the #1 ranking while simultaneously doing a horrible job of determining said ranking.
Yep.
Bring back the old bowl system.
"the putz from that UO blog, Matt Daddy" - Steve Tannen
The Daily Faberian
all of that's true, it depends on what you value
conference championships or some definition of national championships and total national ranking
old days you’ve got UW (and others) claiming random national championships, because there’s pure opinion based polls defining them, and you’ve got no Boise State beating Oklahoma in any big scale bowl, no Utah beating Bama, left out if they don’t have a conference big boy bowl tie in.
It’s bad but better, IMO, if we’re all trying to compare ourselves nationally, and if teams with lesser history and exposure are to get any sort of shot at recognition.
Euler's #1 fan
by Bill Musgrave on Dec 6, 2011 5:22 PM PST up reply actions
I tend to side with this perspective.
I dont make millions of dollars on the games, so my opinion does very little.
Honestly, if the Fiesta Bowl gets no punishment for all of the political craziness that it’s board members partook in, the system wont be changing anything anytime soon.
Winners of the Platypus trophy!
A great article from Grantland a few weeks ago:
By a great writer, no less; detailing the coming implosion of the NCAA. Agree or disagree, I too believe this day is coming:
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7177921/the-beginning-end-ncaa
I agree with HRD
Why complain about the BCS? I just don’t care enough about it. I can only think of two or three “injustices” since its inception in 1998. The hard pill for playoff folk to swallow is that a playoff, for football division with 120+ teams — is just a bad idea and in no way ends the debate.
The only real way to see who the “best” (really, just better at that time) team is would be to go to a best of series, and obviously that isn’t happening. So I guess the confusion is in the terminology: do we want the best teams (Alabama/LSU) or do we want something entertaining where a team, for one game, might get lucky (Boise in any given year, Okie St. this year et al). It’s why I hate the NBA…it’s pretty boring because the playoff system will always get it right in a best out of seven series. Sometimes you get two really good teams that go up against each other, but it’s pretty easy to predict the conference finals of the NBA.
I like March Madness not because it crowns a “true” champion (it doesn’t, it crowns champion the team that plays the best basketball for a month), but because it’s entertaining as hell…and THAT’S what the regular season for college football is for me.
A playoff would be more entertaining, sure, but it in no way answers any questions. The torrent of complaints would still happen even with a playoff.
"Don't let what you cannot do interfere with what you can do" -- John Wooden
I think it just eliminates some whining
if you’re undefeated auburn and you get left out of a title game, you (probably rightfully) bitch your heart out
in a 4 team playoff, if you’re 5th place virginia tech with one loss and everyone else has one loss like everyone else, and you would have had to win two playoff games, and your schedule was nothing special, you bitch but less
in an 8 team playoff, if you’re 9th place with two losses you really just need to stop crying and win the meineke bowl
don’t really know exactly what i favor but i do like the idea of the STOP CRYING, YOU WERE IN 9TH PLACE argument
Euler's #1 fan
by Bill Musgrave on Dec 6, 2011 12:56 PM PST up reply actions
While agree that it would eliminate the whining some
I just want to point out that this year, the team left out of a 4 team playoff would be none other than the Ducks. This would be a travesty, not because it’s our team, but because the team the got in ahead of them also lost to the Ducks by 23 on their home field. VT maybe wouldn’t have anything to complain about considering their schedule, but what do you tell the Pac-12 champions who are only behind a team they crushed because they went out on a limb and scheduled the #1 team in the nation.
I still agree that a playoff is a better option, but the chaotic nature of the sport will always come up with unique situations, as Tako has so eloquently pointed out.
"It's not about style. It's about winning the game. That's it." - Chip Kelly
by Duckfanatic10 on Dec 6, 2011 1:24 PM PST up reply actions
It ain't perfect.
We’d whine, but less than undefeated Auburn, it’s just relative.
YAAAA, US, NOT THE WORST WHINERS!!!!
Euler's #1 fan
by Bill Musgrave on Dec 6, 2011 5:24 PM PST up reply actions
indeed.
I’ve been railing about instituting a playoff since before many of y’all were even sentient beings. My personal warpath dates back to 1984. It’s pathetic that we’re no closer now to a playoff than we were then, with the Old Jumbled Up System.
The "Beano Cook" of ATQ
Going to need to know exactly when it was that you started your warpath, so I can choose whether or not to say “You haven’t been doing it longer than I have been alive!” or “Man you’re old!!”
I don't mean to impose...
Good to know you took up the fight right around Flutie's Hail Mary
Coincidence? I think not.
"Forget it. If 21 gets behind you, you can play the fight song." --Scott Van Pelt
Mmmm, au jus
Now with mustache guarantee!
by HoodRiverDuck on Dec 6, 2011 2:22 PM PST up reply actions
That's where I went, too.
Maybe just because I’m really hungry. But yum.
Got the shoes. Got the jersey. And finally, got football. Go Ducks.
(Good call, Daisy)
by lovemyducks81 on Dec 6, 2011 4:30 PM PST up reply actions
But how can this be -
The hard pill for playoff folk to swallow is that a playoff, for football division with 120+ teams — is just a bad idea and in no way ends the debate.
When every other division of football has a quite happy and functional playoff – including the 126 team FCS? It just doesn’t wash. The “a playoff wouldn’t work in FBS” argument runs into contrary evidence from every other division and organization of every sport everywhere. I’m all for splitting the current FBS division to create an even more orderly, workable and symmetrical playoff, since practically one third to one half of the schools in it are at a distinct structural disadvantage, and it shows on the field.
But even with the current configuration, a playoff is very possible. It could be done in a way that preserved the “sanctity” of the regular season, which is the general vein of attack for antiplayoffers. The problem is the entrenched business interests and a sizeable group of shortsighted presidents. It does seem that there’s little point in railing against the BCS, but it’s because that anger and frustration won’t actually change anything, not because the frustration isn’t well-founded and justified.
Somewhere, somehow, a Duck is watching you.
This is my favorite concept. Like the others, it has zero chance of being implemented
from MGoBlog: Annual Complaint Against Stupid System
Six team playoff. Top two teams get a first-week bye.
RESTRICTED FIELD. No 9-3 teams. Maintain as much of the importance of the regular season as possible. Keep out anyone who could win three straight and still reasonably have an AP vote go against them.
HOME GAMES. Helps with attendance, prevents people from having to travel multiple weeks, helps maintain importance of regular season, makes the guys at the bottom wade through a tougher task and helps bolster their pile-of-skulls argument.
BYES. Again, importance of regular season and pile-of-skulls argument.
NO AUTOBIDS, MAX TWO TEAMS PER CONFERENCE. Autobids can suck it. So can third place teams in their own conference. Also no first round intraconference matchups.
FINAL AT THE ROSE BOWL. Iconic. Would become one of the great traditions in American sports.
This year’s version based on the final BCS standings:
1. LSU vs winner of 4. Stanford and 7. Boise State
2. Alabama vs winner of 3. Oklahoma State and 5. Oregon
The "Beano Cook" of ATQ
Would Alabama not be considered a third place team in their conference?
Defending maligned chants since 2009
somebody once said
You shouldn’t play for the National Championship if you didn’t win your division.
Hmmm… I just can’t remember who that was…
ssshhh....
ha, neither can the journalism records apparently
(doesn’t look like he actually said that, no one can find a quote)
Euler's #1 fan
by Bill Musgrave on Dec 6, 2011 1:03 PM PST up reply actions
Who are you talking about?
I am not talking about Nick Saban…. or am I?
Mohahaha! At any rate I think that the two best teams should play and it is currently pretty hard to determine who #2 really is. Computers, people all those guys voting this and that.. coin toss it for the why don’t we!
ssshhh....
Heck, I don't even know who I am anymore.
/crisis’d
Euler's #1 fan
by Bill Musgrave on Dec 6, 2011 5:26 PM PST up reply actions
There was one year
Of 11-1 Texas, Oklahoma, Texas Tech. Who’s your 2 then?
by INducktrination on Dec 6, 2011 5:33 PM PST up reply actions
I don't deal in hypotheticals.
Really, I don’t know, don’t remember all of it. Didn’t Texas go to the NCG and loose to Alabama?
If I only get a #2, I say that whoever the polls + computers pick is 1.234672% better than the polls alone.
If I get my choice, I say 4 team playoff, again using people+computers to pick ’em.
If I have to, leave Stoops out because STOOPS.
Tomorrow, I say something different, because I’m CRAZY
Euler's #1 fan
by Bill Musgrave on Dec 6, 2011 5:41 PM PST up reply actions
I really don't get the appeal of byes for CFB.
If the controversy is often about the division between numbers 2 and 3, then how is this going to fairly make that division year-to-year under this system? It makes sense in the NFL because it’s a reward among teams with similar roads – the small league and relative equality among teams makes it easier to justify. Plus, it’s all math, there’s no subjectivity in the field or the seeding. But with this you’re in the same kind of beauty contest, where the loser of that beauty contest still gets a shot, but their road is monumentally harder.
Somewhere, somehow, a Duck is watching you.
by omb on Dec 6, 2011 1:08 PM PST up reply actions
Ok, I shouldn't just dog it without throwing out a counter-proposal.
My second preferred option would be to have an initial field of 11 – all the current conference champions. The bottom 6 conference champions pair off and play-in to a field of 8 (I realize that practically this is hypocritical since it does include the byes that I railed against, but it’s similar to the justification for the playoff itself – the farther back you set the cut-off, the less injustice is done by cutting there). This system could either be seeded by ranking, or with Auto Bids / Locked seeds – say all current AQs minus the big east get byes, and WAC v. MWC, CUSA v. MAC, Big East v. Sun Belt happens every year, for instance. Continued shifts in the conference composition like the BE is doing now might make this all obsolete.
First most preferred would be to split the FBS, create 4 superconferences, and have their champs play a Plus One – send Big Ten and Pac 16 champs to the Rose Bowl, ACC and SEC champs to the Sugar Bowl, and then do a Plus One among winners for the title. But this is about the least likely system to actually come to pass.
Somewhere, somehow, a Duck is watching you.
by omb on Dec 6, 2011 1:27 PM PST up reply actions
My preferred system would basically require the complete restructuring of college football.
Six 16-team conferences, 2 divisions in each. Relegate the Louisiana-Lafayettes of the world.
11-game conference schedules. Play the seven teams in your division every year, and half the other division on a rotating basis. Screw the cupcakes.
Six conference champions and two at-large teams in an 8-game playoff.
Bowl games for everyone else so they can get free headphones and feel good about being 8-4.
Note, however, that I am not complaining about the current system. I like watching college football. Particularly, I like watching the Oregon Ducks. I wouldn’t like the Ducks one bit more or less if they got named national champions by Joe Bob’s Trailer Boat Magazine or the BfCS. I’ll root like hell for them in January. Same as I rooted for them last January. I’m not going to watch this year’s MNCG…not out of protest, but because the last version of it was, in my opinion, a very boring game. Score bedamned, it was more about bad offense and special teams than good defense.
Now with mustache guarantee!
I'm not buying it.
If we were Trailer Boat National Champs, you’d write that on every Bonerz PSA!
Euler's #1 fan
by Bill Musgrave on Dec 6, 2011 5:30 PM PST up reply actions
I haven’t read too much of the thread but I’m in the conference champ model (with realigned super conferences)
1. Conference Champion goes to the playoffs (how they are determined is up to the conference)
2. Seeding for the playoff done by NCAA Committee composed of one member from each super conference
3. 10 team tournament (assuming 10 conferences)
4. reduce the total number of games in regular season to 10 + conference championship game
5. Teams not in playoffs/championship games go to post-season bowl games as exhibition
6. remove the 6-6 rule for bowl games and make them available to all D1 teams
(optional: have the bowl games from the previous year determine seeding for the following year)
--Dominic, Addicted to Quack
Autzen Stadium is where great teams go to die." - J. Brady McCullough, The Michigan Daily.
I see your point..
But there is a lot less margin-of-error when deciding the National Champion if we pick 8 teams instead of 2 and let them battle out for it.
Throughout the season, if everybody played the same schedules, it would be easy to pick the top 2 teams. But that doesn’t happen. Every team’s season differs from the others, making it difficult to quantify one team’s season over another. What I want is an 8-team playoff. Cap the AQ-conferences at six 12-team conferences with each champion getting a bid. Select 4 at-large bids from the conferences most deserving for a play-in game. Keep a tweaked BCS formula to determine seeding and who gets home-field advantage in Game 1. This way the importance of the regular season maintains said importance and every major conference gets a chance at a title.
That’s the only way I see a true national champion being crowned. There will be gripes. There always will. However, with this method, there will be FAR less and college football fans can be satisfied we tried for a true champion.
Again, this is an odd way of thinking about it
“But there is a lot less margin-of-error when deciding the National Champion if we pick 8 teams instead of 2 and let them battle out for it.”
Less margin of error for what? the more teams you introduce to a playoff the more you make it likely that the really good teams don’t win out in the end and it’s whoever can win X games in a row. That can make a good playoff experience but at this point, (for this season) the ‘least margin of error’ for deciding the national champion would be to reward it right this instant. Anything else introduces more chaos, not less.
But if the good teams don't win… they're not the good teams?
It’s really circular, why is the regular season number of X games more valuable than X+1 or X+2?
Euler's #1 fan
by Bill Musgrave on Dec 6, 2011 5:33 PM PST up reply actions
They aren't
It’s when you only have one game to prove it.
put it another way: let’s say that everyone’s season ended after they lost a game. Do you think it tells you anything about the half of the teams that lost their first game? Is it informative? Is it useful?
The reason x games are more informative than x+1 is that the +1 is an elimination. Thus you can’t compare everyone fairly on that basis. Again, all multiple playoff wins tells you is that you got to play and win x games in a row.
And that’s fine if that’s what you want. But don’t pretend that it means there’s less margin of error for determining who the best team in the nation is. Hypotheticlaly in an 8-team playoff if LSU got amazingly unlucky and lost in the first best of 8, would that prove that they’re not the best team?
i'm not "pretending" anything, i just don't think the answer is definitive as you are portraying it
isn’t game 5 just one more elimination opportunity from “best” consideration anyway, most years? all the marbles are pretty much on the field every game in CFB. what makes game 5 against chllli cheese nachos state an important indicator of “best” over a really solid post season matchup of titans? i hear what you are saying, an elimination system is a gauntlet and “more” than other teams had to achieve, and “unfair” in that sense, but that’s what striving for the top spot, in anything, requires, particularly when we’re talking about a one game bowl game, or 4 team playoff, and not march madness
if LSU lost any game, a bowl game, a playoff game… yes yes yes, it would prove they are fallible, and have less of a claim to “the best” title. how would it not devalue their status? as for who would then be the best, as i’ve stated a bunch of times, there’s no definitive way to determine that, i’m not “pretending” anything. i mean, this year is a perfect example for “hypotheticals”, if LSU looses to Alabama by 72 in the NCG, then I think yes, you have to say that Alabama is the best team based on the two matchups. note: my opinion. Alabama didn’t play as tough a schedule, but in two matchups they would have destroyed LSU in one, and lost by “unlucky” field goal kicking in another… or just lost by much less than they won by. quite frankly i watched the earlier matchup and i thought alabama outplayed lsu, and that’s their only loss. i don’t think even this year it’s as cut and dry as you are portraying, and this is the most cut and dry for your perspective in a long time. who would you annoint after the regular season in the auburn/usc/oklahoma clusterfuck? doesn’t auburn have a real argument by your system, it is completely unfair to them?
you’re giving LSU a lot of credit for some hypothetical loss being “unlucky”, but you have no idea if said loss would be unlucky, would be because they finally had some holes exposed, or because new opponent oreo double stuff directional is actually a really great team, the best, but got “unlucky” themselves earlier in the season. this season or any other.
anyway, i’m lightly for a playoff and don’t think its a “definitive” way to choose the best, as there is no such thing. i think more years than not there are several teams with a reasonably legitimate opinion based claim to regular season “best”, i think in all years there is no 100% objective way to claim regular season “best”, and therefore there is some value to putting a couple of teams that general opinion find worthy against each other to prove it out, particularly because said teams are usually in multiple conferences and there’s not enough interaction between the conferences to know what strength of schedule really is best.
Euler's #1 fan
by Bill Musgrave on Dec 7, 2011 6:02 PM PST up reply actions
My point is that in the current system, you at least have a chance
For instance: Alabama. They lost one and still get to play for the title. It depended a lot on them playing well against great competition. It meant that they got unlucky (4 missed/blocked FGs) but it’s still somewhat okay.
Most years we don’t have two or more undefeated teams. Heck, most years we don’t have 1.
I’m also saying that just because the current system isn’t right doesn’t mean that an elimination playoff is right either. Why not double elim? Why not round robin? Why not some stack rank playoff system that is variable depending on how teams did and who they played in the season? For instance, you could imagine that the ‘postseason’ consists of having to play 4 teams – but if you beat any of the teams in the postseason that counts as one of your ‘wins’ and you don’t have to play a game. So LSU beat Oregon and Alabama, they don’t have to play all 4 games. Alabama has to play all 4. Oregon would have to play 3 (by virtue of their win over Stanford). That sort of thing.
most years we have several 1 loss teams and less frequently 2 loss teams, each with reasonable reasons why they are "better" than the others
the more losses, the messier it is to choose one best or two best for an NCG, and the more some post season matchup has value, imho.
the rest of your suggestions are on target to me, double elim, etc, all use the regular season to determine some echelon of teams that deserve a shot, then give them the abiility to prove themselves.
Euler's #1 fan
by Bill Musgrave on Dec 7, 2011 8:12 PM PST up reply actions
Less margin of error from a system
that uses subjective voting and 6 computer systems (5 of which whose criteria is hidden from us) to decide who is best. You take the top 8 and let them decide on the field. I hardly think 8 teams out of 117 would create chaos in deciding a champion.
Maybe
I think most people would consider LSU to be the #1 in the nation fairly handily right now. Do they need to play 3 more elimination games to prove it when they’ve already beaten 2 of the 6 AQ champions and 5 teams with 10 or more wins?
Sometimes that’s enough. Especially when you’re giving teams who didn’t have nearly the difficult schedule that they did the same weight. And that’s the real rub; why should a team like LSU schedule a brutal schedule like they did if they just have to play the top 3 teams to get their championship anyway? What advantage does that give them? Why wouldn’t you want to do something like what Alabama did and not even have to play in your championship and still get in?
There are a lot of facets to this.
You know I was going to go here eventually, but this discussion is reason #945 to like soccer.
European leagues have an important regular season (eg Premiereship) AND an important playoff (eg FA Cup). They just don’t happen to be tied to one another in any way.
Now with mustache guarantee!
Counterpoint:
Here’s reason #1 not to like soccer.

Autzen Stadium: "The stadium with an L.A. face, but an Oakland Booty, if you will." -Spencer Hall
by ProbablyMonty on Dec 6, 2011 5:04 PM PST up reply actions
I'm confused
The green team is faking injuries against the blue and yellow team? That’s completely backwards.
Now with mustache guarantee!
by HoodRiverDuck on Dec 6, 2011 5:27 PM PST up reply actions 8 recs
He shoots, he scores.
Well played, sir.
Autzen Stadium: "The stadium with an L.A. face, but an Oakland Booty, if you will." -Spencer Hall
by ProbablyMonty on Dec 6, 2011 7:33 PM PST up reply actions
SOCCER INSULT GWAAAAAAARARARARAFAFAFA
(actually by far the worst thing)
Euler's #1 fan
by Bill Musgrave on Dec 6, 2011 5:45 PM PST up reply actions
WE COULD HAVE A COLLEGE FOOTBALL CHAMPIONS LEAGUE!
by FromAutzenWithLove on Dec 6, 2011 5:32 PM PST up reply actions
I'm looking your direction, Kansas.
Autzen Stadium: "The stadium with an L.A. face, but an Oakland Booty, if you will." -Spencer Hall
by ProbablyMonty on Dec 6, 2011 7:36 PM PST up reply actions
First off, they won’t boycott. College football fans are junkies, and there’s no way they stay away from the last chance at a high for nine months.
This, sir, is where you are wrong. After watching the first game, I have no desire what-so-ever to watch this one. Plus I’ll have the excuse of classes having just started up so I’ll be doing homework and stuff. It’s the same thing that happened in the Bama vs. Texas NCG.
Classes over boring football, what is this world coming too.
Euler's #1 fan
by Bill Musgrave on Dec 6, 2011 5:35 PM PST up reply actions
Well I'm at the 400 level this year
aka classes that actually matter to me.
by Jonathan Wright on Dec 6, 2011 5:38 PM PST up reply actions
I take offense to that characterization
P-Chem was the stupidest and most worthless class I ever took, and it was 400 level.
Now with mustache guarantee!
by HoodRiverDuck on Dec 6, 2011 5:39 PM PST up reply actions
I'm not saying all classes matter to me
but classes like Computer Architecture are related to things I actually want to do with my life.
by Jonathan Wright on Dec 6, 2011 5:46 PM PST up reply actions
I just wanted to bitch about Pchem
Fifteen years later. I’m still bitter.
Now with mustache guarantee!
by HoodRiverDuck on Dec 6, 2011 5:58 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
"Classes that matter"
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAAAAAA
(just kidding man, good for you, keep it up)
Euler's #1 fan
by Bill Musgrave on Dec 6, 2011 5:42 PM PST up reply actions
I'll just watch hulu
DILBERT MARATHON, WHO’S WITH ME?
"Forget it. If 21 gets behind you, you can play the fight song." --Scott Van Pelt
Fuck it
Let’s just make the regular season one big 128 team double elimination bracket
This is the best BCS blog I have read to date on any teams SB Nation blog.
Well done. Finally a voice of reason
by burmbuster on Dec 6, 2011 6:04 PM PST via iPhone app reply actions
I'm on the road and haven't read every post, but this is something that may have not come to light.
A few years back Mike Slive, SEC Commissioner, wanted to but the “plus 1” system up for a vote between the other conferences. Thanks to the Big 10, Big 12, and PAC 10 it was not even allow to be put on the table. They wouldn’t support it so if you want to bitch, bitch to your commissioner. The plus 1 is the only thing that would work and still keep the bowls. There’s too much history in the bowls to let them go.
by burmbuster on Dec 6, 2011 6:30 PM PST via iPhone app reply actions
I can't bitch to Larry Scott about Tom Hansen's decisions.
I also disagree about the history of the bowls and not letting them go. A lot of bowls have popped up out of no where in the past decade, have repeatedly changed sponsor names, and there is a level of corruption (see Fiesta) in the bowls that frankly I don’t care to continue. If one wishes to promote a playoff of 4, 8, 16 teams or more, and still run the bowls for those 7-5, 6-6, 6-7 teams then fine. But I think the bowls can definitely be on the table of discussion for reform.
by INducktrination on Dec 6, 2011 7:07 PM PST up reply actions
On the bowls.....
I meant the main bowls as in the Rose, Sugar, etc. They could be the playoff launching pad and rotate the NCG. And yes, I understand that there are new commissioners now but just wanted to point out that while everyone seems to be jumping up and down about the system and the supposed bias for the SEC we actually tried to do something about it, much to the chagrin of other conferences. It makes for great conversation though.
by burmbuster on Dec 7, 2011 6:11 AM PST via iPhone app up reply actions
Tako, What if by instituting an 8 or 16 team playoff, we cmpletely did away with OOC.
This would significantly increase the importance of conference play, and would free up 3 bonus games to leave open for playoffs.
What are your thoughts on that?
"Fuck you UW. How many days since you last beat us?" -skywaker9
by QuackQuackAttack on Dec 6, 2011 8:19 PM PST reply actions
This has been what quite a few people have proposed in the past (sorry, don' t have the links now)
Oregon loves you, Chip Kelly!
Meant to say, I really do like this idea.
Oregon loves you, Chip Kelly!
I'm not Tako but
INTERSECTIONALS ARE AS AMERICAN AS APPLE PIE AND DEATH PANELS AND IF THERE WAS NO OOC WHO WOULD NOTER DAME PLAY?? ANSER THAT.
The "Beano Cook" of ATQ
The one problem with that
and I don’t really see it as a problem but then its not my problem. But a lot of small time programs heavily rely on getting paid to get demolished on the field.
by INducktrination on Dec 7, 2011 7:14 AM PST up reply actions
After re-reading the OP I think Tako is onto something: Have a different playoff setup every season.
In years where there are clearly two “best” teams, let them play it off, end of story. In years where things are unsettled, a cabal of experts descends into a smoke-filled grotto for 16 hours with complete archives of every SBNation college football blog, reviews the candidates and comes up with a Plan. One year it might be a three-teamer, the next six, never more than eight (only three extra games). Most seasons it might just be a plus-1.
But make it flexible. THIS IS AMERICA DO WE HAVE TO BE SO FUCKING RIGID ALL THE TIME
The "Beano Cook" of ATQ
But you KNOW
That those in charge would botch that up, too. They’d make it a 16 team playoff on a year when there is a clear 1 and 2 and go with a 4 team round robin on a year with 5 undefeateds and 6 one loss teams.
I kind of want to watch the carnage.
Taxes don't kill jobs.
As long as we can announce the decision with smoke, like choosing a new Pope,
and I get to be on the committee, than I’m for it.
Addicted to Quack, #1 Oregon blog among female Duck fans, including the ageless and ever-radiant daisyduck.
Excellent!
i did enjoy it ever so much. i don’t know whay those words came out. IT WAS SPOT ON! I think i turn british when in take a pain pill…

by 


















