BCS. Why didn't they just do 1v4 and 2v3 and have a Final Championship game?

PlatinumGold

Lifer
Aug 11, 2000
23,168
0
71
i mean they are soo close to a playoff system, they could have left EVERYTHING exactly as it is including using the bowl games and EVERYTHING except, play seed 1 vs seed 4 in one bcs bowl game and seed 2 vs seed 3 in the other bcs bowl game. then have the winners play each other the next week in a final bowl game.

it wouldn't have been perfect but no playoff system is, and it would have pretty much quelled this type of speculation.

 

Izzo

Senior member
May 30, 2003
714
0
0
That would be okay with everyone else except the people that profit from the BCS. They have a damn monopoly on the situation. I wouldn't see anything wrong with having, say, the Rose Bowl host the 1 v 4 matchup and the Orange Bowl hosting the 2 v 3 matchup on Jan 1. Then play the winners on Jan 7 at the Sugar Bowl. Each year, the three big games would rotate between the 4 major bowls.

There would still be controversy on who gets in and who gets left out though. Hell, there's even controversy when you invite 65 teams to your playoffs (basketball).

There's no truly fair way to do it, but the BCS is the best we got. Every team knows what they have to do to get to the top of the standings: win all of your games, play tough opponents, get enough quality wins, and rise to the top of the polls. USC did not do that. TCU, when they were undefeated, was bitching and whining about not being included. Well, they knew the criteria that the BCS was based on, so tough sh|t. Maybe USC and other teams will learn from this and get rid of that stupid idea of playing below average teams during the nonconference just to earn W's. USC had 12 games to prove they deserved to play in the title game. But they did not put themselves in position to do so.
 

Alkaline5

Senior member
Jun 21, 2001
801
0
0
In the bowl selection show, Carroll challenged the Sugar Bowl winner to an unofficial matchup. So we may get a wierd delayed playoff later in 2004. It's true that USC had an easier schedule than som MAC teams. They're in a terrible conference, they can't really help that. But I don't think you can blame USC for scheduling crappy non-Conference teams. Their first opponent of the year, Auburn, was supposed to have a shot at the championship this year and look how they ended up. Notre Dame just isn't Notre Dame lately, either.

If Michigan beats USC then that proves they were just riding their weak SoS and the BCS still works.
 

Mookow

Lifer
Apr 24, 2001
10,162
0
0
Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
i mean they are soo close to a playoff system, they could have left EVERYTHING exactly as it is including using the bowl games and EVERYTHING except, play seed 1 vs seed 4 in one bcs bowl game and seed 2 vs seed 3 in the other bcs bowl game. then have the winners play each other the next week in a final bowl game.

it wouldn't have been perfect but no playoff system is, and it would have pretty much quelled this type of speculation.

I'd prefer an 8 or 16 team playoff, myself... and of the two, I would much rather see a 16 team playoff. That should stop all the b!tching. I know it wont, but at least those b!tching will not have nearly as strong of a case.
 

Nitemare

Lifer
Feb 8, 2001
35,466
3
76
They fell off the short bus as kids and bumped their heads on the Loomis Fargo armored truck?
 

Mookow

Lifer
Apr 24, 2001
10,162
0
0
Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl
Izzo hit it right on the head. A playoff system simply wouldn't be as profitable.

Wouldnt be? A playoff system would make so much cash it would be recockulous. Think about it, current BCS system vs Playoff system:
BCS:
4 major games, involving 8 of the best teams (though not necessarily THE 8 best with the conference tie-ins) in the country.

16 team Playoff:
Games that are required to be played:
8 games between the top 16 ranked teams in the country
4 games between the winners of the above
2 semi finals
1 national championship game... and a TRUE national championship.
Probably games, not strictly necessary to determine the champion, but should be good games and would likely happen:
-a game between the teams that lost in the semi finals
-a couple of bowl games for the teams that lost in the 2nd round of the championship

The "probable" games + the actual NC game would be comparable to the current BCS bowls. But with the advantage of many less people complaining about who goes to the NC game.

Do you really think that the above playoff system would not make more cash than the current BCS. If anything, the problem with the playoffs is that there would be so MUCH money that not giving some to the players (you know, the guys providing all the talent and taking all the risks) would be very hard to justify. The problem with that, as schools see it, is that then they might have to give some $$ to scholarship tennis, rugby, etc players who do not make money for the school
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
25,055
3,408
126
See this thread (near the end) for my answer to this problem. It is an 8 team playoff (actually it is a 16 team playoff - but not all winners of the first game advance - if you think about it).

Edit: I might as well list it here too.

1) A regular season is 12 games.
2) All conferences have a conference championship game. This will affect a few teams, but most either won't make it there, or already have a conference championship game.
3) The conference champion is guaranteed a playoff game IF they finish in the top 10 of the BCS (this number may be adjusted slightly, top 15 would work as well). Thus no conference is favored - and all conferences have a chance of getting into the playoffs if they can be in the top 10 (no unfair conferences with no good teams getting an automatic bid).
4) There are 8 playoff teams. Most likely step #3 will define ~5 of them leaving ~3 wildcards. These wildcards can be any team from any conference. Heck all the wildcards could be from one conference if need be. The wildcards will be selected by the top BCS teams that didn't get an automatic bid from step #3.
5) The quarter finals will be used in the minor bowls in mid December (and rotated yearly). The semi finals and the final will be in the major BCS bowls in late December and early January (also rotated yearly). This will require only 3 major bowls, and the rose bowl when not the national championship game can revert to a pac-10/big-10 bowl. The remaining minor bowls can play teams that don't make it to the playoff system.
6) Slightly alter the BCS to fix some of its current problems. Ie more quality win points for beating teams 10-15, SOS fixes, and a wider variety of computers (instead of all using basically the same formula like they currently are forced to do).

Benefits:
1) This changes very little of the current system,
2) It keeps the conferences and independants as they are,
3) It doesn't add many games to many teams. Only the top teams get one or two extra games. The teams in the national championship game will only play 16 games, teams that make it to the semi finals will only play 15, teams that make it to the quarter finals only play 14.
4) It doesn't lengthen the season.
5) It is the most fair solution I can think of. Having #1 USC in both polls highlights the unfairness of only having a 2 team playoff that we currently do. Plus if you can't win your conference championship, you really can't claim to be screwed if you just miss the top 8 teams.
6) The bowl system is still largely intact with only a few minor changes.
 

fastz28

Golden Member
Mar 27, 2001
1,794
0
0
Originally posted by: Mookow
Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl
Izzo hit it right on the head. A playoff system simply wouldn't be as profitable.

Wouldnt be? A playoff system would make so much cash it would be recockulous. Think about it, current BCS system vs Playoff system:
BCS:
4 major games, involving 8 of the best teams (though not necessarily THE 8 best with the conference tie-ins) in the country.

16 team Playoff:
Games that are required to be played:
8 games between the top 16 ranked teams in the country
4 games between the winners of the above
2 semi finals
1 national championship game... and a TRUE national championship.
Probably games, not strictly necessary to determine the champion, but should be good games and would likely happen:
-a game between the teams that lost in the semi finals
-a couple of bowl games for the teams that lost in the 2nd round of the championship

The "probable" games + the actual NC game would be comparable to the current BCS bowls. But with the advantage of many less people complaining about who goes to the NC game.

Do you really think that the above playoff system would not make more cash than the current BCS. If anything, the problem with the playoffs is that there would be so MUCH money that not giving some to the players (you know, the guys providing all the talent and taking all the risks) would be very hard to justify. The problem with that, as schools see it, is that then they might have to give some $$ to scholarship tennis, rugby, etc players who do not make money for the school

That would make sense if it's just the 4 BCS bowls. But look at the entire college bowl system, how many bowl games are there? How many schools get to play? In your playoff system, there are only 15 games total, 16 schools.

Or are you saying playoff for the top 16 then the rest can go to whatever bowl?

 

Mookow

Lifer
Apr 24, 2001
10,162
0
0
Originally posted by: fastz28

That would make sense if it's just the 4 BCS bowls. But look at the entire college bowl system, how many bowl games are there? How many schools get to play? In your playoff system, there are only 15 games total, 16 schools.

Or are you saying playoff for the top 16 then the rest can go to whatever bowl?

The other bowls can still exist, and whichever schools they want to take. My system would provide 15 games, and some of the bigger name, but non-BCS bowls, would probably end up holding a bowl game that is also a playoff game. I say that since the bowls that take teams like Texas would not get Texas under my system if they were outside the system, since Texas would be in the playoff.

My idea (including the "non-necessary, but a good idea" games) provides for:
-A national championship with the top teams (roughly the top 10% of college footbal) all getting a shot
-A series of games that would be roughly equal in prestige to the current BCS bowls when they are not hosting the NC, although I think there would be 5 + NC, not just the 3 + NC, of the same caliber and with the same amount of competition.
-A lot more interesting post-season matchups, determined more by who is actually good than by who is in a conference with what tie-ins.

Downsides:
-more games in a team's schedule
 

amndouglas

Member
Aug 17, 2001
155
0
0
When Michigan whoops the crap out of USC by taking out their deep ball with one of the best (and deepest) secondaries in the NCAA and gives them a good solid dose of Chris Perry, USC won't have any claim to #1 and this circus will all be over. Who did USC pay off to get to #1 in both polls anyway? USC lost to a barely over .500 team (7-6, 5-3 Cal) in the "weak" pac-10 conference, while LSU only lost to Florida (who beat Georgia and nearly beat Florida State.) Everyone's calling the BCS wrong, and I think it's the human polls that are f-ed up. The HOLLYWOOD HYPE MACHINE has too much power over the media. USC is mostly hollywood hype, and the Wolverines will prove it with Roses in Pasadena.
 

PlatinumGold

Lifer
Aug 11, 2000
23,168
0
71
Originally posted by: Mookow
Originally posted by: fastz28

That would make sense if it's just the 4 BCS bowls. But look at the entire college bowl system, how many bowl games are there? How many schools get to play? In your playoff system, there are only 15 games total, 16 schools.

Or are you saying playoff for the top 16 then the rest can go to whatever bowl?

The other bowls can still exist, and whichever schools they want to take. My system would provide 15 games, and some of the bigger name, but non-BCS bowls, would probably end up holding a bowl game that is also a playoff game. I say that since the bowls that take teams like Texas would not get Texas under my system if they were outside the system, since Texas would be in the playoff.

My idea (including the "non-necessary, but a good idea" games) provides for:
-A national championship with the top teams (roughly the top 10% of college footbal) all getting a shot
-A series of games that would be roughly equal in prestige to the current BCS bowls when they are not hosting the NC, although I think there would be 5 + NC, not just the 3 + NC, of the same caliber and with the same amount of competition.
-A lot more interesting post-season matchups, determined more by who is actually good than by who is in a conference with what tie-ins.

Downsides:
-more games in a team's schedule

hence my initial suggestion. i know it isn't the best or ideal system but it seems to be only system likely to get implmented as it would have minimal impact on current the current system and yet provide some kind of playoff tho not necessarily the best playoff system, at this point i'd settle for it.


again, keep all the bowls, just change who plays in the #1 and #2 BCS bowl games.

and finally have the championship game based on winners of the respective games.

it does a couple of things, it takes it from 2 to 4 teams contending, it forces at bid entries to actually win a big game before going on. it galls me that OU lost their conference championship game and is going on to play the national championship game.
 

Izzo

Senior member
May 30, 2003
714
0
0
Originally posted by: amndouglas
When Michigan whoops the crap out of USC by taking out their deep ball with one of the best (and deepest) secondaries in the NCAA and gives them a good solid dose of Chris Perry, USC won't have any claim to #1 and this circus will all be over. Who did USC pay off to get to #1 in both polls anyway? USC lost to a barely over .500 team (7-6, 5-3 Cal) in the "weak" pac-10 conference, while LSU only lost to Florida (who beat Georgia and nearly beat Florida State.) Everyone's calling the BCS wrong, and I think it's the human polls that are f-ed up. The HOLLYWOOD HYPE MACHINE has too much power over the media. USC is mostly hollywood hype, and the Wolverines will prove it with Roses in Pasadena.

LOL. The hollywood hype machine and human polls are the only reason that Michigan is ranked number 4 in the first place. Let's say that UM beat Oregon and went into the OSU game and lost. Looking back that would seem like a good thing because it would throw out a loss to bad team and assign it to a good team. But that's not the case with the human polls. If you were to swap the Oregon loss with a OSU loss, UM would be no higher than 8th and that's a fact. Teams are rewarded for losing early and penalized heavily for losing late.
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
25,055
3,408
126
Originally posted by: Izzo
Teams are rewarded for losing early and penalized heavily for losing late.
That phrase always bothers me. It just simply isn't true. Case in point: 2003 - Oklahoma lost the last game of the year and is still #1 in the BCS. Example #2: Nebraska lost their last game of the year in 2001 and was #2 in the BCS. Both teams went to the national championship game. Losing late doesn't do any more harm than losing early.
 

gistech1978

Diamond Member
Aug 30, 2002
5,047
0
0
another reason why playoffs cant and wont work.
say your team is playing in the orange bowl and you live in cali?
who has the money and the time off work to go to an away game in florida or wherever it is every week until the playoffs are over?
there wouldnt be nearly the fan support.

16 team playoff get real...you cant play more than one game a week without risking injuries.
that would make the season end in march or something.
if its playoffs it has to be 4 teams max.
 

MaxDepth

Diamond Member
Jun 12, 2001
8,758
43
91
Originally posted by: Alkaline5
In the bowl selection show, Carroll challenged the Sugar Bowl winner to an unofficial matchup. So we may get a wierd delayed playoff later in 2004. It's true that USC had an easier schedule than som MAC teams. They're in a terrible conference, they can't really help that. But I don't think you can blame USC for scheduling crappy non-Conference teams. Their first opponent of the year, Auburn, was supposed to have a shot at the championship this year and look how they ended up. Notre Dame just isn't Notre Dame lately, either.

If Michigan beats USC then that proves they were just riding their weak SoS and the BCS still works.
And speaking of the MAC, Miami (Ohio) has lost just one game, too. The lost to Iowa 21-3 on the first game of the season. True, their schedule was not like one from the SEC or Big 10, but they did beat the crap out of the other teams. But point totals no longer matter, either.

Good BCS article on espn.com
 

pecel

Golden Member
Apr 7, 2000
1,837
0
0
How about playoff among 3 teams that have 1 loss.
it should be enough and will bring more money to them also since they will have more match.

BCS = bull S***
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
25,055
3,408
126
Originally posted by: gistech1978
16 team playoff get real...you cant play more than one game a week without risking injuries.
that would make the season end in march or something. if its playoffs it has to be 4 teams max.
My playoff system doesn't extend the season, and has a max of 16 games (and that is only for 2 teams each year) - and 14 games isn't uncommon now. So this plan isn't much harder on the players.


 

gistech1978

Diamond Member
Aug 30, 2002
5,047
0
0
Originally posted by: dullard
Originally posted by: gistech1978
16 team playoff get real...you cant play more than one game a week without risking injuries.
that would make the season end in march or something. if its playoffs it has to be 4 teams max.
My playoff system doesn't extend the season, and has a max of 16 games (and that is only for 2 teams each year) - and 14 games isn't uncommon now. So this plan isn't much harder on the players.

and what about the fans?
i would say its alot harder on the fans?
do i not have a point there?
you cant reasonably expect your fan base to follow you around for 3 extra games to somewhere 2000 miles away every weekend.
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
25,055
3,408
126
Originally posted by: gistech1978
and what about the fans?
i would say its alot harder on the fans?
do i not have a point there?
you cant reasonably expect your fan base to follow you around for 3 extra games to somewhere 2000 miles away every weekend.
I am from a state (Nebraska) where it is virtually impossible to get a ticket to a bowl game. There are just so many more fans than there are seats. With multiple games, there will finally be enough seats for all the fans that want to go. The same could be said about many of the historical powerhouse teams. I guess there are other teams (the up and coming teams) without that fan base and they will have some empty seats. But that is why the first playoff is in a minor bowl without many seats to begin with (and these are usually empty anyway on the bowl game as it is).

The diehard fan would try to go to as many as possible. Luckilly all will be on TV, so it isn't a big deal if the fan misses one.

A typical fan would go to the championship game (usually just a short drive), since that may be the team's last game of the year.Then there will be ~4 weeks until the national championship game. That fan can go to that too as a bonus if he/she chooses.

The less diehard fans can go any one of four games - whichever fits best in the work schedule, or is the closest, etc.
 

mpitts

Lifer
Jun 9, 2000
14,732
1
76
Originally posted by: Izzo
Originally posted by: amndouglas
When Michigan whoops the crap out of USC by taking out their deep ball with one of the best (and deepest) secondaries in the NCAA and gives them a good solid dose of Chris Perry, USC won't have any claim to #1 and this circus will all be over. Who did USC pay off to get to #1 in both polls anyway? USC lost to a barely over .500 team (7-6, 5-3 Cal) in the "weak" pac-10 conference, while LSU only lost to Florida (who beat Georgia and nearly beat Florida State.) Everyone's calling the BCS wrong, and I think it's the human polls that are f-ed up. The HOLLYWOOD HYPE MACHINE has too much power over the media. USC is mostly hollywood hype, and the Wolverines will prove it with Roses in Pasadena.

LOL. The hollywood hype machine and human polls are the only reason that Michigan is ranked number 4 in the first place. Let's say that UM beat Oregon and went into the OSU game and lost. Looking back that would seem like a good thing because it would throw out a loss to bad team and assign it to a good team. But that's not the case with the human polls. If you were to swap the Oregon loss with a OSU loss, UM would be no higher than 8th and that's a fact. Teams are rewarded for losing early and penalized heavily for losing late.

Uhm, OK. Which team with 2 losses is better than Michigan? And the last time I checked, it isn't just the human polls that have Michigan #4.

Where would you rank them?
 

gistech1978

Diamond Member
Aug 30, 2002
5,047
0
0
Originally posted by: dullard
Originally posted by: gistech1978
and what about the fans?
i would say its alot harder on the fans?
do i not have a point there?
you cant reasonably expect your fan base to follow you around for 3 extra games to somewhere 2000 miles away every weekend.
I am from a state (Nebraska) where it is virtually impossible to get a ticket to a bowl game. There are just so many more fans than there are seats. With multiple games, there will finally be enough seats for all the fans that want to go. The same could be said about many of the historical powerhouse teams. I guess there are other teams (the up and coming teams) without that fan base and they will have some empty seats. But that is why the first playoff is in a minor bowl without many seats to begin with (and these are usually empty anyway on the bowl game as it is).

The diehard fan would try to go to as many as possible. Luckilly all will be on TV, so it isn't a big deal if the fan misses one.

A typical fan would go to the championship game (usually just a short drive), since that may be the team's last game of the year.Then there will be ~4 weeks until the national championship game. That fan can go to that too as a bonus if he/she chooses.

The less diehard fans can go any one of four games - whichever fits best in the work schedule, or is the closest, etc.

well thats all good in theory.
but thats not real life.
say i wanted to go to new orleans this year. i would easily drop 700-1000 bucks minimum when its all said and done. those 'diehard' fans better be some rich alumni without jobs. and those same 'diehards' wouldnt ever want to miss a game if their team is playing, who cares if its on TV. im sure there are people in nebraska that havent missed a NU game in 30 years, are you going to be the one to tell them...oh just watch on TV.
 

mpitts

Lifer
Jun 9, 2000
14,732
1
76
Originally posted by: gistech1978
another reason why playoffs cant and wont work.
say your team is playing in the orange bowl and you live in cali?
who has the money and the time off work to go to an away game in florida or wherever it is every week until the playoffs are over?
there wouldnt be nearly the fan support.

16 team playoff get real...you cant play more than one game a week without risking injuries.
that would make the season end in march or something.
if its playoffs it has to be 4 teams max.

An 8-team playoff using the 4 BCS games is VERY doable. And all the tickets to a national semifinal/final would be sold. No doubt.

The season ends in the middle of January instead of the 4th of January.

Name one other sports at any level where the champion is not determined on the field? If Divison 1-AA, II and III can do it, 1-A can to.

 

IF IF IF...
people, the system worked the way it was setup to work.
Just get over it.
 

mpitts

Lifer
Jun 9, 2000
14,732
1
76
Originally posted by: gistech1978
Originally posted by: dullard
Originally posted by: gistech1978
and what about the fans?
i would say its alot harder on the fans?
do i not have a point there?
you cant reasonably expect your fan base to follow you around for 3 extra games to somewhere 2000 miles away every weekend.
I am from a state (Nebraska) where it is virtually impossible to get a ticket to a bowl game. There are just so many more fans than there are seats. With multiple games, there will finally be enough seats for all the fans that want to go. The same could be said about many of the historical powerhouse teams. I guess there are other teams (the up and coming teams) without that fan base and they will have some empty seats. But that is why the first playoff is in a minor bowl without many seats to begin with (and these are usually empty anyway on the bowl game as it is).

The diehard fan would try to go to as many as possible. Luckilly all will be on TV, so it isn't a big deal if the fan misses one.

A typical fan would go to the championship game (usually just a short drive), since that may be the team's last game of the year.Then there will be ~4 weeks until the national championship game. That fan can go to that too as a bonus if he/she chooses.

The less diehard fans can go any one of four games - whichever fits best in the work schedule, or is the closest, etc.

well thats all good in theory.
but thats not real life.
say i wanted to go to new orleans this year. i would easily drop 700-1000 bucks minimum when its all said and done. those 'diehard' fans better be some rich alumni without jobs.

Why are you assuming that only alumni would go to the games? A national semi-final/final would sell out in a heartbeat.