What was better? BCS or old system? - Page 4

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, 12:39 PM

I'd give the 6 BCS champs an automatic berth. Then, i'd give the Non-BCS conference champs a berth only if they had 10 regular season wins. Then, i'd choose at larges based on win totals, and strength of schedule.

If Notre Dame wants to cry about this, they can join a ****ing conference.

**Saulbadguy** · 11-29-2006, 12:45 PM

^^

Based on that...OTOH..here would be the tournament -

1. Ohio State
2. USC
3. Florida
4. Rutgers
5. Oklahoma
6. Georgia Tech
7. Boise State
8. BYU
9. Louisville
10. Notre Dame
11. Arkansas
12. Michigan
13. Virginia Tech
14. LSU
15. Wisconsin
16. Auburn

Now tell me that wouldn't be awesome.

**Bearcat** · 11-29-2006, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chief Chief

For you play-off lovers:

OK, let's say they go with a 4-team play-off and they use the BCS (or any other) rankings to determine the top 4 teams: There are still those #5-/#6-/#7-(etc.)-ranked teams and their fans who will say that the play-off system sucks!! Bottom line: Ya'll will still whine about it! It's not like these team's players, coaches, etc., are gonna lose their jobs over it! SO STOP WHINING!!

Actually, the BCS rankings drop off significantly after 8-10 teams every year, and a playoff eliminates the argument of 3 teams going undefeated. Yes, the teams that don't make it will complain even if they didn't have a legit shot at a NC, just like March Madness, but it's on a lesser scale because you're talking about 0-1 loss teams with very weak schedules or 2 loss teams.

The argument that "it'll never be perfect" doesn't mean you shouldn't make it better.

Calcountry · 11-29-2006, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saulbadguy

^^

Based on that...OTOH..here would be the tournament -

1. Ohio State
2. USC
3. Florida
4. Rutgers
5. Oklahoma
6. Georgia Tech
7. Boise State
8. BYU
9. Louisville
10. Notre Dame
11. Arkansas
12. Michigan
13. Virginia Tech
14. LSU
15. Wisconsin
16. Auburn

Now tell me that wouldn't be awesome.

I would be fine with that, anything to get it going, then we could tweak it and expand it after it is rolling and a huge success.

Calcountry · 11-29-2006, 01:03 PM

Heck, I would take a 4 team playoff just to get it started.

**Bearcat** · 11-29-2006, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saulbadguy

Playoffs would guarantee alot of advertising revenue, but that would have to be split between the conferences that have teams that make the playoffs, plus Notre Dame (****ers).

That would reduce the available amount of advertising money for traditional bowl games, because people would care about the playoffs much much more. The old bowls would quickly become the NIT.

Couldn't they split the money between the 8 teams and their conferences the same way regardless of the format?

There would be more focus on the playoffs, obviously, but I think the smaller bowl games would have as much recognition as they have now, which isn't a lot. The fans of the teams would still care, and the hosting city would care... just like now though, I pay attention to matchups during the bowls, and those matchups would matter no less if there was a playoff. Just like someone said, it's already the NIT... you can strive for a bowl or a BCS bowl, so there's already a difference. We're just changing the format.

FringeNC · 11-29-2006, 01:06 PM

In a 16-team playoff, the big conferences' championship game could be part of the first round of the playoffs...

**Saulbadguy** · 11-29-2006, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bearcat

Couldn't they split the money between the 8 teams and their conferences the same way regardless of the format?

There would be more focus on the playoffs, obviously, but I think the smaller bowl games would have as much recognition as they have now, which isn't a lot. The fans of the teams would still care, and the hosting city would care... just like now though, I pay attention to matchups during the bowls, and those matchups would matter no less if there was a playoff. Just like someone said, it's already the NIT... you can strive for a bowl or a BCS bowl, so there's already a difference. We're just changing the format.

The smaller bowls still get televised. Before the Final Four of the NIT, none of it gets televised.

I'm not sure they can agree on a way to split the money.

JBucc · 11-29-2006, 01:09 PM

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.

ChiefsCountry · 11-29-2006, 01:17 PM

The only way you could get a playoff is have the champion from all conferences in it. That would be 11 plus 5 at large bids. I would rather see all BCS schools but the only way you get it passed by the NCAA is do that way.

First Round - Campus Sites
Second Round - 2 BCS bowl spots + Cotton and Capital One Bowl
Semi Finals - 2 BCS bowl spots
Championship - rotate through 4 BCS bowl spots

ChiefsCountry · 11-29-2006, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saulbadguy

The smaller bowls still get televised. Before the Final Four of the NIT, none of it gets televised.

I'm not sure they can agree on a way to split the money.

Not true, ESPN televises a few NIT games. I know Missouri State had two games on ESPN in last year's NIT.

**Bearcat** · 11-29-2006, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saulbadguy

The smaller bowls still get televised. Before the Final Four of the NIT, none of it gets televised.

I'm not sure they can agree on a way to split the money.

I think they still would get televised... ESPN has nothing better to do.

Yeah, and that will always be the issue.. not what's best for the players or fans

Chief Chief · 11-29-2006, 01:47 PM

I agree that 16 teams would be too many, but..HEY!..HOW ABOUT THIS: an 8-team DOUBLE-ELIMINATION tournament! Nobody could even think about bitchin' 'bout that!

Chief Chief · 11-29-2006, 01:50 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.

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!

**Bearcat** · 11-29-2006, 02:34 PM

I don't agree with the all-conference theory, and not just because the big conferences wouldn't ever approve....

Ohio State
USC
Notre Dame
Florida or Arkansas

Wake Forest or Georgia Tech
Nebraska or Oklahoma
Louisville
Boise State
BYU

Southern Miss or Houston
Ohio or Central Michigan
Middle Tennessee

Not only does the first round of this playoff have the same feel as the pre-Christmas bowl games, it leaves out 5 of the BCS top 12.

Saul's bracket looks much better.

Not that any of it matters... I'm just bored at work

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, 12:39 PM	#46
Saulbadguy When a nightmare becomes real Join Date: Nov 2003 Casino cash: $736966	I'd give the 6 BCS champs an automatic berth. Then, i'd give the Non-BCS conference champs a berth only if they had 10 regular season wins. Then, i'd choose at larges based on win totals, and strength of schedule. If Notre Dame wants to cry about this, they can join a ****ing conference.
Posts: 47,020

11-29-2006, 12:45 PM	#47
Saulbadguy When a nightmare becomes real Join Date: Nov 2003 Casino cash: $736966	^^ Based on that...OTOH..here would be the tournament - 1. Ohio State 2. USC 3. Florida 4. Rutgers 5. Oklahoma 6. Georgia Tech 7. Boise State 8. BYU 9. Louisville 10. Notre Dame 11. Arkansas 12. Michigan 13. Virginia Tech 14. LSU 15. Wisconsin 16. Auburn Now tell me that wouldn't be awesome.
Posts: 47,020

11-29-2006, 01:03 PM	#50
Calcountry Shoot the tube Join Date: Oct 2003 Casino cash: $7527870	Heck, I would take a 4 team playoff just to get it started.
Posts: 29,485

11-29-2006, 01:06 PM	#52
FringeNC MVP Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: NC Casino cash: $-1753986	In a 16-team playoff, the big conferences' championship game could be part of the first round of the playoffs...
Posts: 10,234

11-29-2006, 01:09 PM	#54
JBucc MVP Join Date: Oct 2005 Casino cash: $10004952	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. Last edited by JBucc; 11-29-2006 at 01:15 PM..
Posts: 12,016

11-29-2006, 01:17 PM	#55
ChiefsCountry The Insider Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Lake of the Ozarks Casino cash: $-1551248	The only way you could get a playoff is have the champion from all conferences in it. That would be 11 plus 5 at large bids. I would rather see all BCS schools but the only way you get it passed by the NCAA is do that way. First Round - Campus Sites Second Round - 2 BCS bowl spots + Cotton and Capital One Bowl Semi Finals - 2 BCS bowl spots Championship - rotate through 4 BCS bowl spots
Posts: 52,115

11-29-2006, 01:47 PM	#58
Chief Chief Veteran Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Kansas City MO Casino cash: $10004900	I agree that 16 teams would be too many, but..HEY!..HOW ABOUT THIS: an 8-team DOUBLE-ELIMINATION tournament! Nobody could even think about bitchin' 'bout that!
Posts: 3,072

11-29-2006, 02:34 PM	#60
Bearcat Would an idiot do that? Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Arizona Casino cash: $-1035069	I don't agree with the all-conference theory, and not just because the big conferences wouldn't ever approve.... Ohio State USC Notre Dame Florida or Arkansas Wake Forest or Georgia Tech Nebraska or Oklahoma Louisville Boise State BYU Southern Miss or Houston Ohio or Central Michigan Middle Tennessee Not only does the first round of this playoff have the same feel as the pre-Christmas bowl games, it leaves out 5 of the BCS top 12. Saul's bracket looks much better. Not that any of it matters... I'm just bored at work __________________
Posts: 59,580