Page 10 of 26
Re: Latest BCS Rankings: Mizzou @ #6
Posted: November 12 07, 9:23 am
by Popeye_Card
lukethedrifter wrote:I've heard some great arguments against. The other day I heard someone from college football talking about how meaningful the regular season is and how that would change with playoffs.
Also, consider that if you are searching for the best team, I think we can all agree- yeah, right- that playoffs don't always determine that either.
I'm not opposed to a playoff, I'm just not sold that it will solve the worlds ills.
I've not heard any great arguments against.
1.) You go undefeated in the regular season, and you get an automatic bid.
2.) You fill out the rest of the 8 total spots with the top teams from a BCS-type of system.
That's 1 game for the top 8 teams (which they would play anyway in the current setup), 1 more game for the final 4, 1 more game for the top 2. That isn't adding that much, and it's not like there isn't time in the schedule.
That's 7 big games worth of TV money, and attendence. You can play them in the traditional major bowls if you so desire, elevating two bowls to major bowl status. It actually increases the importance of all of the major bowls, because right now they're "consolation" type of games, rather than helping determine the national champion. All of the non-major bowls are just TV time-fillers during the holidays anyway.
It's not about finding "the best team". It's about giving every team in the sport at least a chance to settle it on the field, and not on computers and/or what conference you play in. And an 8 team playoff means you better play your arse off in the regular season still if you want one of the spots.
--P--
Re: Latest BCS Rankings: Mizzou @ #6
Posted: November 12 07, 2:31 pm
by GatewaySnayke
An eight-team playoff is the suck.
This year is the first time I've had to re-think the BCS, and it's only because of Missouri. Normally there are a couple of elite teams (UT/USC, Miami/OSU, OU/USC) and I have no problem with them playing for the national championship. But clearly college football has parity, and it would make for an interesting playoff.
Re: Latest BCS Rankings: Mizzou @ #6
Posted: November 12 07, 2:45 pm
by Popeye_Card
GatewaySnayke wrote:An eight-team playoff is the suck.
This year is the first time I've had to re-think the BCS, and it's only because of Missouri. Normally there are a couple of elite teams (UT/USC, Miami/OSU, OU/USC) and I have no problem with them playing for the national championship. But clearly college football has parity, and it would make for an interesting playoff.
Tulane finished the 1998 season undefeated, and didn't even get a BCS bowl bid, much less a championship bid.
Marshall finished the 1999 season undefeated, and didn't get a BCS invite.
Utah, Boise State, and Auburn all finished the 2004 season undefeated. No chance to win the title.
Boise State went undefeated last season. A team with 1 loss was the champion.
Hawaii might finish this season undefeated. A team with 1 loss will likely be the champion again.
Are any of these teams as good as the team crowned champion that season? Most likely not. But the point is, they never even got a chance. They beat every team on their schedule, and were given no chance to win the championship of their sport. This is the only sport that I know of that you can go undefeated, and not have a chance to win the ultimate prize.
But this stretches past prior to the BCS too. 1994 Penn State may have been one of the best college football teams ever, and they were not crowned national champs despite an undefeated season.
--P--
Re: Latest BCS Rankings: Mizzou @ #6
Posted: November 12 07, 2:51 pm
by Secret Weapon
People who defend the BCS like to argue that this system makes every game important. But as popeye points out, this is a system that can make every game irrelevant for some teams, because even if they win them all they don't have a chance to win the championship. That's just stupid.
Re: Latest BCS Rankings: Mizzou @ #6
Posted: November 12 07, 2:55 pm
by Popeye_Card
Secret Weapon wrote:People who defend the BCS like to argue that this system makes every game important. But as popeye points out, this is a system that can make every game irrelevant for some teams, because even if they win them all they don't have a chance to win the championship. That's just stupid.
The BCS actually makes things worse in this regard. In the old system, a couple bowl games meant something, because depending on who came out on top and undefeated, you could have different champions. Now, 1 game has it all on the line, and the rest are consolations. You get some good games, but they don't really mean anything except for determining the rest of the top 5.
--P--
Re: Latest BCS Rankings: Mizzou @ #6
Posted: November 12 07, 5:51 pm
by Transmogrified Tiger
Popeye_Card wrote:OK, time for me to rant about the BCS again.
The current top 10 features only 1 team that is undefeated. Theoretically, that one team (Kansas) will make the championship game if they win out, because that will mean that they beat two other top 5 teams on the way.
Then you have Hawaii at 9-0, and at #16. I can understand this--they haven't played anyone of note. They probably aren't as good as the 15 teams ahead of them.
But there is a very likely possibility that both teams in the championship game will have 1 loss. There is a rather likely possibility that Hawaii goes undefeated, and doesn't even receive an invite to a BCS bowl.
And that's BS.
Why? Because it's BS that a team has zero possibility of winning their sport's championship, no matter how well they play. Every other sport in the world, any team has a chance of winning the championship. But not in Division I (or whatever it's called now) college football. If you're not going to give teams from the WAC, etc. a shot at winning a championship, then don't include that conference in Division I. Heck, just a few years ago a team went undefeated in the SEC and wasn't given a chance to win the championship.
Playoffs. Now. Please.
--P--
Hawaii has control over their non-conference schedule. They are well aware of the strength of their conference. If they want to be a title contender, then they should do better than Northern Colorado and Charleston Southern for their non-con.
Re: Latest BCS Rankings: Mizzou @ #6
Posted: November 13 07, 1:43 am
by Secret Weapon
Transmogrified Tiger wrote:
Hawaii has control over their non-conference schedule. They are well aware of the strength of their conference. If they want to be a title contender, then they should do better than Northern Colorado and Charleston Southern for their non-con.
How many big time school will actually schedule Hawaii as part of their non-conference schedule though? A school like Ohio St has no incentive to risk a loss against a team like Hawaii when they can just schedule cupcakes to give them their best shot at a title. That makes it hard for Hawaii to schedule more credible games.
Re: Latest BCS Rankings: Mizzou @ #6
Posted: November 13 07, 2:28 am
by Transmogrified Tiger
Secret Weapon wrote:Transmogrified Tiger wrote:
Hawaii has control over their non-conference schedule. They are well aware of the strength of their conference. If they want to be a title contender, then they should do better than Northern Colorado and Charleston Southern for their non-con.
How many big time school will actually schedule Hawaii as part of their non-conference schedule though? A school like Ohio St has no incentive to risk a loss against a team like Hawaii when they can just schedule cupcakes to give them their best shot at a title. That makes it hard for Hawaii to schedule more credible games.
Even if that's true, it's still a matter of degrees. It's not only that Hawaii doesn't have any real good teams on it's schedule, but most of the non-con this year is really terrible teams.
Re: Latest BCS Rankings: Mizzou @ #6
Posted: November 13 07, 8:21 am
by Popeye_Card
Transmogrified Tiger wrote:Secret Weapon wrote:Transmogrified Tiger wrote:
Hawaii has control over their non-conference schedule. They are well aware of the strength of their conference. If they want to be a title contender, then they should do better than Northern Colorado and Charleston Southern for their non-con.
How many big time school will actually schedule Hawaii as part of their non-conference schedule though? A school like Ohio St has no incentive to risk a loss against a team like Hawaii when they can just schedule cupcakes to give them their best shot at a title. That makes it hard for Hawaii to schedule more credible games.
Even if that's true, it's still a matter of degrees. It's not only that Hawaii doesn't have any real good teams on it's schedule, but most of the non-con this year is really terrible teams.
I imagine that it's not easy for Hawaii in particular to schedule non-conference games. No one wants to take college kids all the way to Hawaii and back for a game.
Plus schedules are made up like 5 years in advance.
And even if you have a tough schedule--say, Auburn in 2004--you can win all of your games, including 2 wins against top 5 teams and 2 more wins against top 15 teams, and not win the championship of your sport.
--P--
Re: Latest BCS Rankings: Mizzou @ #6
Posted: November 13 07, 10:19 am
by maddash
Transmogrified Tiger wrote:Secret Weapon wrote:Transmogrified Tiger wrote:
Hawaii has control over their non-conference schedule. They are well aware of the strength of their conference. If they want to be a title contender, then they should do better than Northern Colorado and Charleston Southern for their non-con.
How many big time school will actually schedule Hawaii as part of their non-conference schedule though? A school like Ohio St has no incentive to risk a loss against a team like Hawaii when they can just schedule cupcakes to give them their best shot at a title. That makes it hard for Hawaii to schedule more credible games.
Even if that's true, it's still a matter of degrees. It's not only that Hawaii doesn't have any real good teams on it's schedule, but most of the non-con this year is really terrible teams.
I don't buy the non-con games thing. Look at Mizzou's schedule for '08. Sure Illinois is tough, but SEMO? Nevada? Buffalo? Every team schedules non-conference cupcake games (Mizzou had plenty of them this year) and it's doesn't hurt their standings. There's really no benefit to scheduling tough non-con games (outside of drawing in more fans from popular teams), which is why you never see teams taking that risk. The way the format is now, cupcake games are here to stay.