What was better? BCS or old system? - Page 5

South Dakotan · 11-28-2006, 10:30 PM

I assume a majority of college football fans believe a playoff is an upgrade over the BCS and pre-1995 system, so I don't think there's much suspense in asking that question.

One of the arguments in favor of the BCS today, "it's better than the old system".

Is this true? Did you like the traditional system where it always was Pac-10/Big Ten in the Rose Bowl, Big 8 in the Orange, SEC in the Sugar, SWC in the Cotton? Or do you really think the new system is an improvement even though the computer rankings are bogus?

**Saulbadguy** · 11-29-2006, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chief Chief

Normally I'd agree with you on this plan, but it's obvious you didn't waste enough brain cells in devising it. Put a little more thought-process into it..y'know, mix in some 1-AA teams, add some byes, etc.,..then get back to me on it over lunch next week. That's right: Have your people call my people!

1-AA has their own playoffs.

Calcountry · 11-29-2006, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JBucc

Here's my system: There's twelve conferences, Each one would be split into two divisions, North and South, East and West, A and B, whatever it doesn't really matter. The Winner of each would be seeded and put in a 12 team playoff with the top four seeds getting a bye. Playoffs commence and a true Champion is decided. This way there's no whining about being left out. Didn't win your conference? Tough luck. Play better next year. The conferences may have to be reorganized and the independents would have to join. Also the season would be cut to 10 or 11 games, 7 being conference games (4 from your division, 3 from the other) to prevent any ties. The Non-conference games would not matter as far as winning a division, but would be considered in seeding.

edit: To keep the BCS people happy, I guess the first four games could be called bowl names, then the next four more prominent bowls, then the next two probably the Sugar and Rose Bowl, then the Championship game. An NIT like playoff for conference runner ups could be a possibility for even more football fun.

Too complicated. Just have the Champions get an automatic bid, then have a certain number of at large bids. If 16 teams, then 4 bids go out.

If 32 teams, then 20 bids. I don't see why this would be difficult. 5 weeks from thanksgiving to New Years is easily managable.

Each University could decide for itself, how to or whether or not they want to allow flexibility on their Student athletes academic schedules.

Chief Chief · 11-29-2006, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saulbadguy

1-AA has their own playoffs.

So how can there truly be only ONE national champion if there really are TWO (or more) national champions?

I'm tellin' ya: Ya gotta mix in them 1-AA teams. Now burn some brain cells and get-R-dun!

**Saulbadguy** · 11-29-2006, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chief Chief

So how can there truly be only ONE national champion if there really are TWO (or more) national champions?

I'm tellin' ya: Ya gotta mix in them 1-AA teams. Now burn some brain cells and get-R-dun!

Mojo Rising · 11-29-2006, 08:03 PM

It would be fun to have a 16 team tourney, but it will never happen.

One way to have a true Champ is to take the top 4 teams and have them play in (1 vs 4) and (2 vs. 3.) The winners go to the BCS Champ game the following week.

They already have the newly created BCS Champ Game so it would work well. They would only have to add 1 game.

If you're #5 then you can complain all you want but you should have been ranked in the top 4. This can be accomplished by not losing, and scheduling a tough, non conference schedule.

I really think this has a shot in the future. It wouldn't disrupt the current Bowl system and would only add 1 game, which has already been created.

**Dave Lane** · 11-29-2006, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Valiant

Where is the ****ing neither option..

I agree I'll give BCS a slight nod but both are ridiculous.

Dave

Thig Lyfe · 11-29-2006, 08:16 PM

A playoff would be great, and I can't believe people who talk about how lucrative bowls are don't realize that you can have each game in the playoff be a different "bowl". Still get the ad money but with better matchups.

Chief Chief · 11-30-2006, 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo Rising

One way to have a true Champ is to take the top 4 teams and have them play in (1 vs 4) and (2 vs. 3.) The winners go to the BCS Champ game the following week.

They already have the newly created BCS Champ Game so it would work well. They would only have to add 1 game.

If you're #5 then you can complain all you want but you should have been ranked in the top 4. This can be accomplished by not losing, and scheduling a tough, non conference schedule.

Well..DUHH!! Under the current system, if you're #3 then you can complain all you want but you should have been ranked in the top 2. No matter how many teams you have in the tournament, there's always gonna be several teams left out who feel they should be included.

And just how does one go about scheduling a so-called "tough" schedule when games are lined up 5 or more years ahead of time? Who knows the quality of the 2011 team at USC, Ohio State, Notre Dame, Michigan, etc.? Who knew 5 years ago that Bobby Bowden and his 2006 FSU team would suck big-time?

Fairplay · 11-30-2006, 06:46 AM

Where is the Gaz option in the polls?

View Poll Results: College football was better with what system in place?
Old system	7	25.93%
BCS	20	74.07%
Voters: 27. You may not vote on this poll

11-28-2006, 10:30 PM
South Dakotan Banned Join Date: Oct 2006 Casino cash: $10004900	What was better? BCS or old system? I assume a majority of college football fans believe a playoff is an upgrade over the BCS and pre-1995 system, so I don't think there's much suspense in asking that question. One of the arguments in favor of the BCS today, "it's better than the old system". Is this true? Did you like the traditional system where it always was Pac-10/Big Ten in the Rose Bowl, Big 8 in the Orange, SEC in the Sugar, SWC in the Cotton? Or do you really think the new system is an improvement even though the computer rankings are bogus?
Posts: 28

11-29-2006, 08:03 PM	#65
Mojo Rising Veteran Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: OC Casino cash: $10009560	It would be fun to have a 16 team tourney, but it will never happen. One way to have a true Champ is to take the top 4 teams and have them play in (1 vs 4) and (2 vs. 3.) The winners go to the BCS Champ game the following week. They already have the newly created BCS Champ Game so it would work well. They would only have to add 1 game. If you're #5 then you can complain all you want but you should have been ranked in the top 4. This can be accomplished by not losing, and scheduling a tough, non conference schedule. I really think this has a shot in the future. It wouldn't disrupt the current Bowl system and would only add 1 game, which has already been created.
Posts: 1,792

11-29-2006, 08:16 PM	#67
Thig Lyfe Banned Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Thigpen's America Casino cash: $10004900	A playoff would be great, and I can't believe people who talk about how lucrative bowls are don't realize that you can have each game in the playoff be a different "bowl". Still get the ad money but with better matchups.
Posts: 25,680

11-30-2006, 06:46 AM	#69
Fairplay A certain set of skills Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: texas Casino cash: $10026683 VARSITY	Where is the Gaz option in the polls?
Posts: 25,265