Wetzel again blasts the BCS for some fuzzy math

To show consequences, what I would really like, deep down, is for the top 4-5 conferences to have their own system. And the teams in that system to play only within that system. No loading up on North Texas or Bowling Green or Wofford. So unless you'd be able to set up a non-conference slate that had Duke, Vanderbilt (in most seasons) and Indiana, you wouldn't be necessarily assured of a 3-0 or 4-0 slate entering conference play. So instead of teams being in the middle or a little below of the standings at 7-5 or 6-6, they'd be there at 5-7 or 4-8.

I would think a whole bunch of schools would much rather have a better shot at 8-4, even if the tradeoff would be a playoff that would include the MAC and Sun Belt champions. Because the system as it is right now isn't going to stand up to the congressional and/or legal challenges it will someday face.

 

Just curious Shoeless Joe, are you a fan of any postseason for team sports in the country?

 

I don't have a problem with postseasons/playoffs. I'm just saying that any system is flawed and not guaranteed to sort out the best team over the course of a season other than a European soccer model where everyone plays everyone else home and away. That's not a possibility with college football.

I guess my real stance is that if people want a playoff, have a playoff. It won't write in stone that the best team wins, and you can take it to the bank that people will still complain.

 

People complain about getting left out of the NCAA Tournament every year. Nobody listens. It's accepted that at the margins of a 68 team field, there will be tough judgment calls. It will be accepted that at the margins of a 16 team football playoff, there will be judgment calls. But there won't be any judgment calls about the two teams in the championship game.
Piotr, your reading comprehension is atrocious. I specifically pointed out that the big schools win the NCAA tourney every year. Competition means a fair chance to win, not winning.

 

My "reading comprehension is atrocious"?

I sense danger, Will Robinson.

I saw what you posted. My point was, who cares if they have to "take on all comers"? The big boys still always rise to the top, so the entire idea that the NCAA Tournament is some kind of opportunity doesn't really wash, since it ends with a BCS-type scenario even after all that.

 

I find it hypocritical that the NCAA can put together playoffs for all of its sports, including football, except for Division I-A/BCS football (sorry, it will always be Division I-A to me).
I realize that even those are somewhat flawed since they rely on human polls to help pick the participants, but for the NCAA to continuously say a Division I playoff is unneeded or would be a distraction for the student-athletes involved is insulting.

 

Why are so many people hung up on this notion that if you don't win your conference, you don't "deserve" to be in the national title discussion? They are separate championships with separate standards for winning them. One is based on your performance in conference, one is (ostensibly) based on your performance in general. The two don't have to go hand in hand. If Alabama's only loss is to the consensus No. 1 team by three points, why does the fact it took place in conference mitigate everything else they've done?

As for playoffs: Shake your fists at the school presidents. They're the ones throwing up the biggest roadblocks.