Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Kentucky Football: Tee Martin Reportedly Leaving for USC

BCS System Alternatives

With the exception of an "elite" few and the BCS itself, I think it's fair to say there is a general consensus that the current BCS system is inadequate in determining a true national champion. There is also a sentiment of both lovers and haters of the system that they are tired of talking about. "BCS = BS" has become a broken record. But a change to the system is, to some degree, inevitable. As tiring as the conversation is, it's important that it does get talked about, over and over again like a 4-year-old repeatedly begging for candy until the parent gives in just to shut them up.

Naturally, I am not the first to bring it up or to propose something like the following, but the intention is to generate conversation between knowledgeable football nerds that consider all factors and the future issues that a particular change might encounter. This proposal is far from perfect and I don't pretend to understand all that is involved, so by all means, correct me or, better yet, propose a better system.



1) Keep the polling as is, if you must. The computers drive me the craziest despite the logic in utilizing a formula to evaluate the magnitude of a team's results. There seems to be something inherently wrong with the coaches poll to me, but then again, I understand why it's there.

I hear a lot of arguments about the regular season. If the 12 or 13 games leading up to the postseason have a bearing in making the top ranked teams that get in, then regular season will no doubt play a factor.

2) 8 teams. Go ahead with the response on how this is a slippery slope to 16 or 32, but expanding the playoff does not have to be inevitable. The top 8 ranked teams advance into a playoff while the remaining continue on with the other non-BCS bowl games.

3) The 8 teams are seeded in the four BCS bowls: Rose, Fiesta, Orange and Sugar. Each of these games would represent the first round of playoffs. The interest would be there and thus, the money would follow. Of course, there is now an issue with Conference bids, but if we're talking about a true playoff system, screw Conference bids (easier said than done, $$$). The networks should only eat up the additional games, as would the host cities. Perhaps make the networks pay and let the conferences distribute the money how they see fit. May the best 8 make it.


4) The Semi-Finals could be rotated among the BCS bowls, much like the NC game is now which would also rotate.

Of course, there are a lot of other factors to be considered here, so we can address those too.

Here's a visual look at what I'm thinking:

Bcsbracket_medium

via i978.photobucket.com


All comments, FanPosts, and FanShots are the views of the reader-authors who create them.

Comment 28 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Meh, just keep honing the BCS

It’s sort of a living document. Keeps changing as the need for innovation presents itself. I have little interest in seeing a “hot” two-loss team have a shot at a national championship.

by burntorangehorn on Nov 6, 2009 8:53 PM CST reply actions  

So what happens if we only have ‘hot’ two-loss teams at the end of the season? The regular season is a play off, right? So no one should get the MNC that year.

by UT_BKC on Nov 7, 2009 12:50 AM CST up reply actions  

I have said this before...

the fear amongst playoff haters is that a hot team will “steal” the NC. In college football, that is going to be very difficult to do. In basketball, one player can carry a team…see Davidson of two years ago. But, not in Div 1 college football against top tier talent. The best teams are going to win.

So, fear not playoff haters. While I know you covet the regular season’s best which may have up to 6 undefeated teams asking questions prior to the BCS standings being released this early December, I personally think, well, this system just sucks.

Texas was hosed last season…USC in 2003, Auburn in 2004, LSU was given the nod in 2007 as the first two loss team to make it to the CG. So, don’t come in here and give me the reg. season means so much. It means a great bit of confusion and heartache based on subjectivity.

8 Teamer please…let’s settle it on the field.

"Stats are for losers. I like winning games." - Will Muschamp
"Somebody will always break your records. It is how you live that counts." - Earl Campbell

by Mulliganville on Nov 7, 2009 8:01 AM CST up reply actions  

LSU was a travesty

No way they should’ve been there. However, that’s something that could more satisfactorily be remedied by refining the BCS than wholesale format change. I’ve already specified that two-loss teams should not be allowed to compete for the championship unless not enough undefeated and one-loss teams exist.

by burntorangehorn on Nov 7, 2009 8:16 AM CST up reply actions  

Who the hell else should have been there then?
http://espn.go.com/college-football/rankings/_/year/2007/week/15

There was NO ONE else with less than 2 losses except Kansas. Should Kansas have been there? Should we have just crowned OSU after they beat Michigan? The national champion should be the best team that year. Depending on how the competition works out, how teams schedule, ect the best team in the country isn’t necessarily going to be undefeated

by UT_BKC on Nov 7, 2009 3:04 PM CST up reply actions  

So do you think USC should have been the national champion in '05?

If you're so sure of what it ain't, how about telling us what it am!

by circa1015 on Nov 7, 2009 4:17 PM CST up reply actions  

So?

USC was #1 at the end of the regular season. “Playoffs” over, we have a champion. The BCS title game is a 2-team playoff, and the fact that Texas won it should help your case that we shouldn’t even be playing the game, because the lower-ranked team won, and was just better at postseason play, not the better team.

If you're so sure of what it ain't, how about telling us what it am!

by circa1015 on Nov 7, 2009 5:05 PM CST up reply actions  

You're completely missing the point

I didn’t say tOSU should’ve been given it based on their ranking. I said it because they had just one loss, and there was a clear drop after them. LSU should have been considered eliminated, for all intents and purposes. Va Tech would’ve even been a better option, but IIRC, stupid voters hopped them.

by burntorangehorn on Nov 7, 2009 7:04 PM CST up reply actions  

Which was silly

Head-to-head does matter, but that should have already been factored into the polls to that point, so retroactively making that move was dumb, IMO, and was probably just a result of human pollsters buying into SEC talking points.

by burntorangehorn on Nov 7, 2009 11:14 PM CST up reply actions  

I assume you're talking BCS conferences. Hawaii was 12-0.

Not that Hawaii deserved it, but I don’t think there are great arguments for LSU over any other team that didn’t have 3 losses or more. I think KU, Mizzou, OU, UGA, USC and Hawaii all had arguments for being there that were as good as LSU’s.

by ajax77777 on Nov 7, 2009 11:01 PM CST up reply actions  

I think you know the answer

The problem isn’t so much giving the shot to those teams, so much as giving it to them over teams that have not lost two games. If there ever ends up being a playoff, it needs to include all undefeated teams, and if the number of those is odd, at the top one-loss team to round out the field.

by burntorangehorn on Nov 7, 2009 8:13 AM CST up reply actions  

Nothing will ever go through without auto bids for the BCS conf champs. I don’t have too much of a problem with that since USUALLY the BCS conferences are more difficult to navigate through than the non BCS conferences.

I’d like a 10 team play off. Give the top 6 teams (BCS conf champs) a bye. Take the highest ranked 4 other teams and play them early to mid december. If you don’t do that, then you’ll never have any non BCS teams making it, and then they might as well not play. Do the other games as you said.

by UT_BKC on Nov 7, 2009 12:55 AM CST reply actions  

Mine is similar to yours

Except I would have 12 teams, with the top 4 BCS (or AP, or whatever method you want to rank teams) getting byes, so that during the season it is still important to be ranked at the top. This is under the assumption that there will be no playoffs without conference auto-bids. Six conference champs, six at-large. If a playoff didn’t have to include conference winners, I would do six teams, with top two getting byes.

And frankly, if I woke up tomorrow and found out there was a sixteen-team playoff, I would be like a kid on christmas. The purist’s heads would explode, and they can go on crowning the team who looks the best during the season (despite not playing most of the other ranked teams) as the “regular season national champion” or whatever they want to call it, but it sure as hell would be a great way to end a season, and I don’t think anybody would disrespect the team who came out of that bracket on top.

If you're so sure of what it ain't, how about telling us what it am!

by circa1015 on Nov 7, 2009 2:33 AM CST up reply actions  

I have a few ideas for changes in the auto bids

One would be to only give automatic bids to the six highest-rated conference champions, no matter what the conference is. That way we don’t have to watch a three- or four-loss Big East or ACC team in there over an undefeated MWC team.

The other would be to set a cutoff point at which a BCS automatic bid would be forfeit. Say it were set at 15. That would mean that any team that would normally have an automatic bid would forfeit said bid if it were ranked outside the top 15.

by burntorangehorn on Nov 7, 2009 8:20 AM CST up reply actions  

I like a 12 team tournament

so we can reward the top 4 teams with a BYE, which still adds intrigue to the BCS. With 12 teams, mid-major teams will surely be represented.

I guess I’m fine with the way they’re ranked. Would like to add more computers, and thus, more outliers.

by goingforthecorner on Nov 7, 2009 11:01 AM CST reply actions  

Until there's at least an 8 team playoff...

there isn’t a real champion. I don’t care if a streaky team wins the NC because then they won it on the field not in some poll. Otherwise I’ll just half ass pay attention to NCAA football. March Madness is one of the greatest things in sports, why wouldn’t everyone want that in football.

by osa1011 on Nov 7, 2009 6:15 PM CST reply actions  

i agree with you

but basketball is able to play more games consecutively, with more games in reg season allowing a more accurate seeding, plus getting through 64 teams is more defining. That said, many will argue that the expansion of the playoffs is inevitable. But, I agree:

I don’t care if a streaky team wins the NC because then they won it on the field not in some poll

by Infield Elephant on Nov 7, 2009 7:15 PM CST up reply actions  

Again, that diminishes the value of the regular season

If OU and UT both make it to the national championship, then it almost doesn’t matter who wins in Dallas, for example.

by burntorangehorn on Nov 7, 2009 7:20 PM CST up reply actions  

but the regular season plays a big factor in who the top 8 are, regardless. As for conf champ games, either all of the conf play it out or none. And if it becomes an issue with conf $, let the networks pay em.

boh, you make very good points. are you a proponent for our current system? I’m not sure what you would prefer to have.

by Infield Elephant on Nov 7, 2009 7:31 PM CST up reply actions  

I don't want things to stay as they are, but I don't want a playoff anywhere near 8 teams

I would prefer to modify the existing system incrementally, rather than make wholesale changes.

by burntorangehorn on Nov 7, 2009 7:35 PM CST up reply actions  

Less than 8 last year...

and many would be screwed. I know you know this.

"Stats are for losers. I like winning games." - Will Muschamp
"Somebody will always break your records. It is how you live that counts." - Earl Campbell

by Mulliganville on Nov 7, 2009 9:45 PM CST up reply actions  

tell me you can make sense of who was most deserving last year...

http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/2008_archive_bcs.html

"Stats are for losers. I like winning games." - Will Muschamp
"Somebody will always break your records. It is how you live that counts." - Earl Campbell

by Mulliganville on Nov 7, 2009 9:48 PM CST up reply actions  

Utah vs. BSU

Unless you’re saying it’s fair to eliminate those teams no matter WHAT they do, it’s unfair to not allow the only two undefeated teams in the nation to take backseats to teams with losses.

by burntorangehorn on Nov 7, 2009 10:59 PM CST up reply actions  

And here we have the disconnect...

Utah had a weak schedule as well as Boise. The old time stuffies in college football do not want to admit these programs are deserving. And that is a travesty. Answer me this: which Dallas Cowboys receiver is sucking it up the most right now that is receiving playing time? The Monmouth Grad or the Texas Grad? We are too quick to dismiss based on pedigree. They deserve a shot…

"Stats are for losers. I like winning games." - Will Muschamp
"Somebody will always break your records. It is how you live that counts." - Earl Campbell

by Mulliganville on Nov 9, 2009 9:43 AM CST up reply actions  

Committee

I keep saying that the problem is not in the structure of the playoffs but in the selection of the teams. An 8 team elimination would work fine. My point is that the polls and computer formulas should be dumped and we should go to a selection committee. Just like basketball, which seems to work well.

Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. If they get mad, you're a mile away AND you have their shoes.

by Caradoc on Nov 8, 2009 8:16 AM CST reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to Burnt Orange Nation, a blog dedicated to University of Texas athletics. Get BON updates via Twitter.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Photo_57_small
Y'all Can Still Call Me GoBR

Recent FanPosts

Small
Javan Felix Interview
Silhouette_bull_crop_small
OU 2012 FB Schedule
Caters-lizard-help-03_181614_small
Next Big Rivalry?
Ff_519532_xl_small
No love for Shakeem Jefferson
Small
Texas Women's Basketball
Tabasco-gallon-jugs-9_small
Nike helmet redesign
Horns_small
Rivals 100 released
Small
Don't mess with Texas.
Superman_small
Breakdown of Each Position (Defense)
Superman_small
Breakdown of Each Position (Offense)

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Site Editors

Pb3_small Peter Bean

Dark_pumpkin_small awiggo

Photo_57_small Wescott Eberts (GoBR)

Contributing Authors

Gse_multipart20834_small 40AS

Pigeons_small billyzane

Zombie_profilepic_small Horn Brain

220px-learnedhand_small learned hand

Jersey_front_small 54b

Small whills

Me_small burnt in ny

600px-lorenz_attractor_ybsvg_small pleaseplaykindle

Small TheElusiveShadow

Rosebowl_small txtwstr7

Silhouette_bull_crop_small TXStampede

Brandedbevo1024x768_small dimecoverage

Whataburger_small Hopkins Horn

Pic_small Reggieball

Debonair_pic_small GoHornsGo90

Dkr_small InDKR'sShadow

Profile_pic_small billfromlaketravis

Peterson_small ElongatedHorn

Small Cat8