First BCS Rankings

[dooley_womack1]

That's assuming that the casual fans are the lion's share of the audience for the title game, which I don't think is the case. And ratings should in no way, shape or form be a basis for determining a champion. That's why you have marketing and promotions departments.

 

[zagoshe]

No, no, no - the system is not a joke because EVERY game matters!!!

Never mind that a week 2 loss means your season is over and the rest of your games are basically exhibition games -- the SYSTEM KEEPS EVERY GAME relevant and protects student-athletes from missing too much class.....[\idiots in ugly blazers and pinhead college presidents....]

 

[albert77]

I'm always amused by the mid-major fans who honestly believe that a D-1 playoff system would magically solve their school's self-esteem problems. In fact, short of a 24 or 32-team system, a playoff would effectively shut out all but the so-called BCS conferences from any chance of winning a national championship. Like it or not, the current system is as good as we're going to get.

 

[BTExpress]

If Cincinnati beats two stud programs in the quarters and semis of an 8-team playoff, they are totally legitimized in a title game.

Interest is greater.

They're legitimized. But it doesn't mean Joe Fan has more interest. Mayby they should because of the novelty. But it just doesn't work like that.

A journeyman can beat Rafael Nadal and Andy Roddick en route to a Wimbledon final meeting against Roger Federer.

His spot in the final is legit. But that doesn't mean the average fan wouldn't rather see Federer face Nadal or Roddick.

That's the way it works with fans. "Big names" mean something to them. The difference between Nikolay Davydenko and Roger Federer is miniscule as far as what they do with a tennis ball. But no one wants to see Davydenko.

Cincinnati-Boise State = Nikolay Davydenko-Gilles Simon

No, no, no - the system is not a joke because EVERY game matters!!!

Please stop. We're not playing today. Thanks.

 

[zagoshe]

I'm always amused by the mid-major fans who honestly believe that a D-1 playoff system would magically solve their school's self-esteem problems. In fact, short of a 24 or 32-team system, a playoff would effectively shut out all but the so-called BCS conferences from any chance of winning a national championship. Like it or not, the current system is as good as we're going to get.

You really think Utah last year -- which kicked the **** out of Alabama by the way -- wouldn't have been able to make it to the national title game and perhaps even win it?

You are kidding yourself.

 

[albert77]

I'm always amused by the mid-major fans who honestly believe that a D-1 playoff system would magically solve their school's self-esteem problems. In fact, short of a 24 or 32-team system, a playoff would effectively shut out all but the so-called BCS conferences from any chance of winning a national championship. Like it or not, the current system is as good as we're going to get.

You really think Utah last year -- which kicked the **** out of Alabama by the way -- wouldn't have been able to make it to the national title game and perhaps even win it?

You are kidding yourself.

Utah would have never gotten a chance to prove it, because under the 8-team system favored by most fans, the WAC champion wouldn't been in the field to begin with.

 

[zagoshe]

Yes, they would have been the first wild card in the field. There would have been six BCS conference champs and two wild cards -- Utah would have been one of them.

 

[Stoney]

The current system gives us illegitamate results anyways. I want the system changed. It will not change unless it becomes entirely clear to those ****heads in charge that the current system isn't working for them (because they don't give a **** about what we want). NHLesque TV ratings for a championship game would pound that message home about as well as anything I can imagine.

Nothing would bring us an NCAA football tournament quicker than Boise State vs. Cincinnati for the national championship.

And what happens if the playoffs give us Boise State vs. Cincinnati in the title game? Lower ratings than Florida-Texas or USC-Penn State. Which is what would happen anyway. It's not like going to a playoff is going to make a hill of difference in perception of those cuddly-wuddly mid-majors.

\
Certainly as **** does.

If Cincinnati beats two stud programs in the quarters and semis of an 8-team playoff, they are totally legitimized in a title game.

Interest is greater.

Exactly. And if they're not legitimate, they'll get the asses handed to them in the first round of that 8 team playoff. But, either way, we'll know, because they had the opportunity to prove it on the field. That's immensely preferable to this system.

And btw, mystery meat, it ain't just the "mid-majors" that get screwed over by the current system. Seems like every year year at least one team gets in that game by little more than a coin flip over another that was equally deserving. Last year it was Texas that got the shaft, they beat Oklahoma by the exact same margin as Florida, their only loss was on the road on a last second play to a top 10 team, Florida's only loss was at home to Mississippi. So how was Texas any less deserving of being in that game than Oklahoma and Florida? They lost their shot at a national championship essentially by a coin flip. Someone gets screwed like that nearly every year.

And comparing it to the system we had before is a bull**** argument. Obviously I'm not advocating a return to that. Instead, the comparison is to a playoff system the way football champions are determined in every other college division, high school association and professional league in existence.

 

[sportschick]

I'm always amused by the mid-major fans who honestly believe that a D-1 playoff system would magically solve their school's self-esteem problems. In fact, short of a 24 or 32-team system, a playoff would effectively shut out all but the so-called BCS conferences from any chance of winning a national championship. Like it or not, the current system is as good as we're going to get.

You really think Utah last year -- which kicked the **** out of Alabama by the way -- wouldn't have been able to make it to the national title game and perhaps even win it?

You are kidding yourself.

Utah would have never gotten a chance to prove it, because under the 8-team system favored by most fans, the WAC champion wouldn't been in the field to begin with.

Um, Boise State was last year's WAC champion. Utah won the Mountain West.

 

[Sam Mills 51]

I'm always amused by the mid-major fans who honestly believe that a D-1 playoff system would magically solve their school's self-esteem problems. In fact, short of a 24 or 32-team system, a playoff would effectively shut out all but the so-called BCS conferences from any chance of winning a national championship. Like it or not, the current system is as good as we're going to get.

Feel free to settle. I won't. And, hopefully, everyone else who realizes that the high-and-mighty have widened the gap between themselves and the Great Unwashed with these ignorant systems won't, either.

No one does this in the NCAA basketball tournament. The little guys are allowed to play ... even the No. 16 seeds who get fed to Kansas, Chapel Hill, Duke and Michigan State every year. Why should football be any different (BTW, the "they would play more games" argument will not work. NCAA keeps stretching to allow more regular-season games, so somehow, it's pretty doubtful that they're overly concerned with "student-athletes" missing class or study time).

 

[albert77]

Yes, they would have been the first wild card in the field. There would have been six BCS conference champs and two wild cards -- Utah would have been one of them.

Maybe, but it would have been the very rare exception, and I'm not certain they would have taken Utah as one of the two wild-cards. Alabama would have definitely been one of them and I could see Texas getting the other over the Utes. Oh, and WAC-MWC, what's the diff (LOL). ;D

 

[zagoshe]

One of the many reasons the BCS is such horse **** is the power rankings seem to overrate the strength of the SEC, Big 12, Big Ten and Big Ten every year and those teams seem to benefit in terms of getting overrated in the BCS standings, even in years when those conferences are down.

And like I said before, the argument that the system makes the regular season more relevant is bull**** as well.

 

[zagoshe]

Yes, they would have been the first wild card in the field. There would have been six BCS conference champs and two wild cards -- Utah would have been one of them.

Maybe, but it would have been the very rare exception, and I'm not certain they would have taken Utah as one of the two wild-cards. Alabama would have definitely been one of them and I could see Texas getting the other over the Utes. Oh, and WAC-MWC, what's the diff (LOL). ;D

Alabama, coming off a loss in the SEC title game would not have been one of them. Perhaps USC and Texas, though I think it would have been Texas and Utah.

 

[Stoney]

In fact, short of a 24 or 32-team system, a playoff would effectively shut out all but the so-called BCS conferences from any chance of winning a national championship.

Nonsense. An 8 team playoff would not shut out the 1 or 2 non-BCS conference schools each year that have a legitimate claim. It would not have shut out Boise State in 06, who absolutely proved in the Fiesta Bowl vs. Oklahoma that they belonged. It would not have shut out Utah last year, who absolutely proved in the Sugar Bowl vs Bama that they belonged. Those teams deserved a fair opportunity at the title.

 

[albert77]

I'm always amused by the mid-major fans who honestly believe that a D-1 playoff system would magically solve their school's self-esteem problems. In fact, short of a 24 or 32-team system, a playoff would effectively shut out all but the so-called BCS conferences from any chance of winning a national championship. Like it or not, the current system is as good as we're going to get.

Feel free to settle. I won't. And, hopefully, everyone else who realizes that the high-and-mighty have widened the gap between themselves and the Great Unwashed with these ignorant systems won't, either.

No one does this in the NCAA basketball tournament. The little guys are allowed to play ... even the No. 16 seeds who get fed to Kansas, Chapel Hill, Duke and Michigan State every year. Why should football be any different (BTW, the "they would play more games" argument will not work. NCAA keeps stretching to allow more regular-season games, so somehow, it's pretty doubtful that they're overly concerned with "student-athletes" missing class or study time).

Sam, I would be all for a D-1 playoff if they would set it up like the NCAA hoops tournament. Make it a 24-team or 32-team field, give the champions of all 11 D-1 conferences an automatic bid, plus 13 at-large teams (21 if you make it a 32-team field) based on the BCS rankings (or whatever you want to call them), and make it a true national tournament. I'm all for it. But I'm not in favor of some elite 8-team (or even 16-team) field that locks out the little guys.

 

[zagoshe]

I'm always amused by the mid-major fans who honestly believe that a D-1 playoff system would magically solve their school's self-esteem problems. In fact, short of a 24 or 32-team system, a playoff would effectively shut out all but the so-called BCS conferences from any chance of winning a national championship. Like it or not, the current system is as good as we're going to get.

Feel free to settle. I won't. And, hopefully, everyone else who realizes that the high-and-mighty have widened the gap between themselves and the Great Unwashed with these ignorant systems won't, either.

No one does this in the NCAA basketball tournament. The little guys are allowed to play ... even the No. 16 seeds who get fed to Kansas, Chapel Hill, Duke and Michigan State every year. Why should football be any different (BTW, the "they would play more games" argument will not work. NCAA keeps stretching to allow more regular-season games, so somehow, it's pretty doubtful that they're overly concerned with "student-athletes" missing class or study time).

Sam, I would be all for a D-1 playoff if they would set it up like the NCAA hoops tournament. Make it a 24-team or 32-team field, give the champions of all 11 D-1 conferences an automatic bid, plus 13 at-large teams (21 if you make it a 32-team field) based on the BCS rankings (or whatever you want to call them), and make it a true national tournament. I'm all for it. But I'm not in favor of some elite 8-team (or even 16-team) field that locks out the little guys.

A 16-team playoff -- with 11 champs and five at-larges would not "lock out" the little guys

 

[albert77]

In fact, short of a 24 or 32-team system, a playoff would effectively shut out all but the so-called BCS conferences from any chance of winning a national championship.

Nonsense. An 8 team playoff would not shut out the 1 or 2 non-BCS conference schools each year that have a legitimate claim. It would not have shut out Boise State in 06, who absolutely proved in the Fiesta Bowl vs. Oklahoma that they belonged. It would not have shut out Utah last year, who absolutely proved in the Sugar Bowl vs Bama that they belonged. Those teams deserved a fair opportunity at the title.

It also wouldn't have shut out Hawaii the year they stunk up the Sugar Bowl against Georgia.

 

[Mystery Meat II]

The current system gives us illegitamate results anyways. I want the system changed. It will not change unless it becomes entirely clear to those ****heads in charge that the current system isn't working for them (because they don't give a **** about what we want). NHLesque TV ratings for a championship game would pound that message home about as well as anything I can imagine.

Nothing would bring us an NCAA football tournament quicker than Boise State vs. Cincinnati for the national championship.

And what happens if the playoffs give us Boise State vs. Cincinnati in the title game? Lower ratings than Florida-Texas or USC-Penn State. Which is what would happen anyway. It's not like going to a playoff is going to make a hill of difference in perception of those cuddly-wuddly mid-majors.

\
Certainly as **** does.

If Cincinnati beats two stud programs in the quarters and semis of an 8-team playoff, they are totally legitimized in a title game.

Interest is greater.

Exactly. And if they're not legitimate, they'll get the asses handed to them in the first round of that 8 team playoff. But, either way, we'll know, because they had the opportunity to prove it on the field. That's immensely preferable to this system.

And btw, mystery meat, it ain't just the "mid-majors" that get screwed over by the current system. Seems like every year year at least one team gets in that game by little more than a coin flip over another that was equally deserving. Last year it was Texas that got the shaft, they beat Oklahoma by the exact same margin as Florida, their only loss was on the road on a last second play to a top 10 team, Florida's only loss was at home to Mississippi. So how was Texas any less deserving of being in that game than Oklahoma and Florida? They lost their shot at a national championship essentially by a coin flip. Someone gets screwed like that nearly every year.

And comparing it to the system we had before is a bull**** argument. Obviously I'm not advocating a return to that. Instead, the comparison is to a playoff system the way football champions are determined in every other college division, high school association and professional league in existence.

Nobody said you were. But the way people go about the BCS as if it was apartheid, asbestos and puppy killing all rolled into one horrible creation, well, it could (and has been) a LOT worse, and they forget that. And again: school presidents don't WANT a playoff. That's your target. Until they decide to get on board, this isn't happening, even if you get Louisiana-Monroe vs. Akron in the title game.

Throwing a hissy fit every year isn't going to do a damn of difference, yet every year people act as though they found the goose that lays the golden football when they start screaming PLAYOFFS! Only thing that happens is everyone congratulates themselves on such a cunning and brilliant plan, then tut-tut the powers that be and go "well, of course they won't go for it, it makes too much sense" (a phrase, for what it's worth, that seems to get used at least once a day on SJ).

In a perfect world, no BCS. But like it or not, a) no playoffs are on the horizon and b) you have to do the best you can with what you're given. For better or worse, that's the system we have now. Any fixes are going to have to be to that system, because the people with the power aren't interested in changing it.

 

[crimsonace]

A D1 playoff system would have to have, at a minimum, 16 teams.

You have to give automatic bids for any conference champion -- although I could see the NCAA capping the number of conferences at 9 or 10 and using criteria to jettison the weaker members of the Sun Belt back to I-AA (and the better teams likely join CUSA), at-larges for the next few teams, chosen much in the system of the NCAA BB tournament. About 1/2 the teams autobids, 1/2 at-large.

 

[albert77]

I'm always amused by the mid-major fans who honestly believe that a D-1 playoff system would magically solve their school's self-esteem problems. In fact, short of a 24 or 32-team system, a playoff would effectively shut out all but the so-called BCS conferences from any chance of winning a national championship. Like it or not, the current system is as good as we're going to get.

Feel free to settle. I won't. And, hopefully, everyone else who realizes that the high-and-mighty have widened the gap between themselves and the Great Unwashed with these ignorant systems won't, either.

No one does this in the NCAA basketball tournament. The little guys are allowed to play ... even the No. 16 seeds who get fed to Kansas, Chapel Hill, Duke and Michigan State every year. Why should football be any different (BTW, the "they would play more games" argument will not work. NCAA keeps stretching to allow more regular-season games, so somehow, it's pretty doubtful that they're overly concerned with "student-athletes" missing class or study time).

Sam, I would be all for a D-1 playoff if they would set it up like the NCAA hoops tournament. Make it a 24-team or 32-team field, give the champions of all 11 D-1 conferences an automatic bid, plus 13 at-large teams (21 if you make it a 32-team field) based on the BCS rankings (or whatever you want to call them), and make it a true national tournament. I'm all for it. But I'm not in favor of some elite 8-team (or even 16-team) field that locks out the little guys.

A 16-team playoff -- with 11 champs and five at-larges would not "lock out" the little guys

Zag, you know as well as I do that the BCS conferences would never allow a 16-team playoff field to include all 11 D-1 conference champions. They'd set it up so the six BCS leagues would have automatics, with 10 wild-cards, which might allow for 1-2 of the better teams from the non-BCS conferences to get in, but there would be no guarantee that that would be the case.