 |
Should A Playoff Replace BCS?
This poll is closed. |
| Yes |
   |
24 |
61.54% |
| No |
   |
9 |
23.08% |
| Not unless there's a new Banana Bowl! |
   |
6 |
15.38% |
| Total: |
39 voters |
100% |
|
|  |
 |
|
DanS
|
 |
Kickball Capital of the World
Jan 1970 time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
This would be a twelve-team playoff. Take all eleven conference champs--even the Sun Belt champs. Hey, if you're Div I-A, you deserve a shot, period. Then, for team #12, take all the teams with at least nine wins. Whichever team has the most wins against the conference champs and the other nine-win teams gets the "wild card" slot (ND would be a lock this year). If there is a tie, go down to most wins against eight-win teams, and so on. (Obviously, only wins against other Div I-A teams would count.)
Seed 'em based on the polls. #1-4 get a first round bye. The finals, semis, and the quarterfinal with the #1 team would rotate among the four BCS bowls; the other seven games among the next seven best bowls (ie, Citrus, Gator, Outback, Cotton, etc).
No one gets to complain about selection process or anything. If you're not in the tournament, tough noogies--you shoulda won your conference, or you shoulda performed against the cream of the crop.
Most teams would play 14 or 15 games, which some teams will do this year anyway. 16 max.
A gold star to the person who points out a flaw in my perfect plan. Or, perhaps, a plague of locusts. I'll figure that out later.
|
The most damning criticism against this proposal is that nobody who matters would agree to it.
Of course, I can be a wiseguy on the subject, since I don't think a playoff would quell the controversy and the bellyaching. Quite the contrary.
Last edited by DanS on 27-10-2002 at 08:58
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Guynemer
|
|
Good lord, Slowwhand agrees with me.
Something is very, very wrong here. Must be Halloween season.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Guynemer
|
|
quote: Originally posted by DanS
Of course, I can be a wiseguy on the subject, since I don't think a playoff would quell the controversy and the bellyaching. Quite the contrary. |
Out of curiosity, why do you think controversy and bellyaching would worsen under this utopian ideal? Outside of the fact that the national championship would be open to 117 teams, instead of a pre-determined list of 15 or so...
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Guynemer
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Adam Smith
This sounds like a good proposal. Need to cut back the number of regular season games back to 11 period. And no conference championship games.
Only problem I see is that you will probably get a profusion of chicken sh!t football conferences in order to get an automatic bid, which is what happened in the basketball tournament.
edit: Another issue is that the conferences need to be small enough that everybody plays everybody else. For example, Iowa might win the Big 10 this year without ever playing Ohio State. If that shuts Ohio State out of the national championship, then they have a legitimate beef. |
If both teams win out, Ohio State would be champion by virtue of being undefeated overall. Obviously, there would be a problem if Ohio State dropped a game (ahem, Michigan). Perhaps this would encourage the Big 10+1 to become the Big 10+2, and have two divisions plus a championship game, avoiding future problems.
As for proliferation of conferences... I can't really see that happening (not enough teams), but if it did you'd just have to expand the tourney accordingly.
As for teams *****ing that they should be in the tourney--again, tough noogies. If you aren't in the tournament, it means you didn't win your conference. You have no one to blame but yourself. There is no selection committee choosing between "bubble teams" to complain about. You want it? You have to win, PERIOD. I certainly don't see how this lessens the importance of the regular season, especially if this season gives us three or more undefeated teams--which it probably will.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Guynemer
|
|
quote: Originally posted by DanS
"As for teams *****ing that they should be in the tourney--again, tough noogies."
Tough noogies is an insufficient justification for a potentially inequitable system. You can do better than that. |
I'm still not understanding how it is an inequitable system. The system we have now--THAT'S an inequitable system. NC State could finish undefeated and it won't get a whiff of the Fiesta Bowl, simply because it started the season completely out of the polls.
I think my system is completely equitable. Every Div I-A team, every single last one of them, would have an equal chance at the championship. How is it inequitable? Because (hypothetically) Miami wouldn't make it in if Virginia Tech beats them? Hey, Miami had their chance... at least, under this system, NC State and Bowling Green and Air Force have their chances, too.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Guynemer
|
|
quote: Originally posted by DanS
"THAT'S an inequitable system. NC State could finish undefeated and it won't get a whiff of the Fiesta Bowl, simply because it started the season completely out of the polls"
Not so. ND started the season completely out of the polls as well. NC State has a weak schedule. ND doesn't. Should we reward the weakness of their schedule at the expense of other, more deserving teams?
|
Notre Dame is Notre Dame. Of course they are going to jump up the list (and deservedly so--as I said, I think they're going to win the whole enchilada). But NC State, despite playing in a "major" conference, doesn't have that opportunity, because they don't have the same prestige. (But you watch what happens if Florida, Florida State, or Nebraska start the season out of the polls and then start winning.) I really don't think that it ought to be a controversial statement to say that if a team goes undefeated, it deserves a chance to play for the national championship.
quote:
"How is it inequitable?"
Because the toughness of schedule would be insufficiently accounted for each and every year. |
Mostly irrelevant, with the remainder being false. Every team in a conference has an equal shot of making the playoffs, period. Plus, the independants (4 or 5 of 'em left in a couple years) and all the good teams that didn't win their conference still have a shot at the twelfth slot, based ENTIRELY on strength of schedule.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, one year Oregon goes 10-1 (8-0) in the Pac-10, and Washington goes 10-1 (7-1). Meanwhile, over in the Sun Belt, Middle Tennessee State goes 7-4 (6-0). Orgeon and MTSU are in. Washington can pitch a fit up and down all they want about MTSU going and they staying home, but that's just too damned bad--1) they shoulda beat the Ducks, and 2) they still qualify for slot #12. If they don't get it, well, guess their strength of schedule isn't so hot after all.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23. Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|