BCS poll

[imported_anacardo]

Not really. Eight team playoff. Use current BCS system and award a statistically-appropriate bonus to the conference champions. (Take THAT, ND.) The BCS bowls then become the quarterfinals. Semis and championships rotate between the bowls, or else occur at newly-designated permanent sites. Simple, elegant, makes infinitely more sense than what we do now.

[DougOzzzz]

[ QUOTE ]
Not really. Eight team playoff. Use current BCS system and award a statistically-appropriate bonus to the conference champions. (Take THAT, ND.) The BCS bowls then become the quarterfinals. Semis and championships rotate between the bowls, or else occur at newly-designated permanent sites. Simple, elegant, makes infinitely more sense than what we do now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Playoffs add excitement, but don't really do much towards determining the best champion. Compare college basketball to college football - the best team is the national champion in CFB much more often than in CBB.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not really. Eight team playoff. Use current BCS system and award a statistically-appropriate bonus to the conference champions. (Take THAT, ND.) The BCS bowls then become the quarterfinals. Semis and championships rotate between the bowls, or else occur at newly-designated permanent sites. Simple, elegant, makes infinitely more sense than what we do now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Playoffs add excitement, but don't really do much towards determining the best champion. Compare college basketball to college football - the best team is the national champion in CFB much more often than in CBB.

[/ QUOTE ]

I totally agree with this. A team to win a college football Championship needs to win all their games over the long season. Where as, with a CBB tournament a 19-11 team can go on to win a Nat'l chapionship if they play well enough during the tourney or catch teams on a down day. I think they should do away with the BCS alltogether and go back to the old bowl system as the BCS hasn't really improved much as there has been a split Nat'l Championship and Auburn went undefeated and didnt even get a chance to win it. Every system is going to have it flaws though.

[antidan444]

[ QUOTE ]
The computer rankings in the BCS should only be used as a tiebreaker if the AP and Coaches poll don't agree.

[/ QUOTE ]

The AP poll has no bearing on the BCS anymore. The AP asked for its poll to be removed from the process earlier this year. It has been replaced by a "college coaching legends" poll (that's not the actual name of it, but that's essentially who is voting, a handful of former coaches).

[pokerdirty]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i forgot to add...

8 team playoffs please.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is ridicoulous, you need at least 12 so you can award the top teams a bye as a reward for playing so well during the season. You cant have a 12-0 USC team having to win as many playoff games as a 10-2 Miami team to win a National Championship. Oh and if you are USC and alreayd ahve 10 wins and are #1 why not sit all your starters to make sure they are healthy for the "playoffs" considering you are gauranteed at least the 8th spot. It is harder to put together a playoff sytem then to just say make an 8 team playoff.


[/ QUOTE ]

First off, in most conferences (not counting big 10 and pac 10) the last game is the conference championship, there would not be people sitting (and when it is the big 10, the big game is OSU/Mich, which normally decides the big 10 race in one form or another, and you would never see guys benched in this game).

Second off, 12 teams is too many. It makes the bowl season a week longer than it needs to be. It waters down the accomplishment of making it to the playoff (I would think that 3 loss teams would begin to make it if there were 12 teams in).

And who is to say that an undefeated team is the best going in anyways? Just because USC is undefeated, they play in a bakery of a conference. Who's to say a 1 loss team out of the SEC couldn't beat them consistantly, but is penalized because they play in a well rounded conference?

[utmt40]

BCS= Big Crocko S hit!

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i forgot to add...

8 team playoffs please.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is ridicoulous, you need at least 12 so you can award the top teams a bye as a reward for playing so well during the season. You cant have a 12-0 USC team having to win as many playoff games as a 10-2 Miami team to win a National Championship. Oh and if you are USC and alreayd ahve 10 wins and are #1 why not sit all your starters to make sure they are healthy for the "playoffs" considering you are gauranteed at least the 8th spot. It is harder to put together a playoff sytem then to just say make an 8 team playoff.


[/ QUOTE ]

First off, in most conferences (not counting big 10 and pac 10) the last game is the conference championship, there would not be people sitting (and when it is the big 10, the big game is OSU/Mich, which normally decides the big 10 race in one form or another, and you would never see guys benched in this game).

Second off, 12 teams is too many. It makes the bowl season a week longer than it needs to be. It waters down the accomplishment of making it to the playoff (I would think that 3 loss teams would begin to make it if there were 12 teams in).

And who is to say that an undefeated team is the best going in anyways? Just because USC is undefeated, they play in a bakery of a conference. Who's to say a 1 loss team out of the SEC couldn't beat them consistantly, but is penalized because they play in a well rounded conference?

[/ QUOTE ]

So now we have just proved why it much harder to put together a playoff system then to just say they should do it. Also if you are going to hold which conference a team plays in against then there could be a situation where an undefeated team doesn't get into the playoff (Utah last year) which doesn't seem fair. Not trying to argue just discussing.

[pokerdirty]

There will never be a perfect system.

Take CBB for example, there are 65 teams that play. Every year, ESPN or CBS has the selection show, and at the end, they talk about the snubs. "Oh man, baby! (Insert your team here) should have gotten in! It's a travesty baby!" And you almost buy into it, and then you realize the team is 18-12, and has a slim chance to make it to the sweet 16, let alone the final four.

The same thing would essentially happen in football. You would have 8 of the top 117 in the nation, and there would probably be a few teams that would get snubbed, but in the end, the chance that the team would make it to the finals or win it all would have to be slim.

When it comes to conferences, the reason the current system is set up the way it is is all about money distribution. Once you get out of the major 6 conferences, you usually only have 1 team that isn't in these major conferences that is a major threat to break through.

[Dudd]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not really. Eight team playoff. Use current BCS system and award a statistically-appropriate bonus to the conference champions. (Take THAT, ND.) The BCS bowls then become the quarterfinals. Semis and championships rotate between the bowls, or else occur at newly-designated permanent sites. Simple, elegant, makes infinitely more sense than what we do now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Playoffs add excitement, but don't really do much towards determining the best champion. Compare college basketball to college football - the best team is the national champion in CFB much more often than in CBB.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this. Yes, college football has the best team end up as the national champion more often than college basketball, but that has more to do with the nature of college basketball's playoffs than with the general idea of a playoff. In basketball, the talent difference between a 4 seed and a 1 seed is much smaller than between comparatively ranked football teams, so a single elimination tournament doesn't do much to determine who's best. That's why all other sports with similar differences in skill play best of 5/7 series. Even that's not enough, look at how little the best regular season baseball team wins the World Series. However, football is different. The best team win a very high percentage of the time, so a single elimination playoff has a good chance to end up with the best team in the country winning. Not mention, the regular season already serves as a defacto single elimination playoff, as one loss is usually enough to ruin your chances at the national title. A true single elimination playoff wouldn't do anything to change the status quo of one loss and you're done, but would allow teams with genuine claims to being the best (see, USC two years ago, LSU last year) a chance to decide things on the field.

[ QUOTE ]
That's why all other sports with similar differences in skill play best of 5/7 series. Even that's not enough, look at how little the best regular season baseball team wins the World Series.

[/ QUOTE ]

From what I've gathered of all major sports. Best Regular Season Record=Best Offense, Championship=Best Defense, with a good enough offense to bail you out on occasion. That why teams like NE continue to beat Indy every year and the Spurs showed the world why the Suns weren't that good last year. A great example is my Detroit Red Wings every year that have a great offense but once the playoffs role around the whole game changes and all the sudden if they get down a goal or two its over because offense can't overcome great defense in the playoffs with the same success as it seems to in the Regular Season.

However, I think the one thing we all agree on is that something needs to be done about CFB. I used to be a huge CFB fan but the rules, and the BCS, and other changes have caused the game to become much less entertaining and the bowl season is such a joke it doesn't have the same "energy" it used to. Oh and would it [censored] kill you to re-start the clock after the ball is set on a play that went out of bounds NCAA. That way maybe we could watch a game that doesn't take 4 hours.