Love 'em or Hate 'em: Volume 2 The BCS

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by Atocep

What the NCAA tourney does is make the regular season less meagingful. Lets take Ohio State (in football) from last year. They were clearly the #1 team in the country and deserved over any other team to at least play for the national title. It was clear to everyone. So a playoff increases in the chances of them not playing for the national title just so people can have a false feeling of crowning a "true champion" and giving everyone an equal shot.

To me the BCS is the one creating a "true champion." I don't understand this notion that you just pick the best two teams. They don't do it in basketball, baseball, lacrosse, soccer or any other NCAA sport. I don't care what contrived reasons you have for why it works in those sports but not baseball, they just aren't true. Regardless of the number of games, revenue streams, etc, the argument that a playoff system creates a "true champion" (therefore implying a fake champion) is just ludicrous. People don't "deserve" to be in the championship game because people think they did well in the regular season.

[Warhammer]

I think he was quoting me there.

But you do sum up a point that I have believed but not stated in this thread. The whole purpose of the BCS was to provide us with a undisputed National Champion. I don't see how you do that without a playoff.

EDIT: And per my previous post, I don't see how you can have an undisputed National Champion without having a consensus challenger as well.

[KWhit]

Th BCS sucks (as does the old bowl system). There is no way after a 12 game season to accurately determine the 2 best teams - especially when the strength from conference to conference is so wide and unmeasurable.

Is a 1 loss SEC team better than an undefeated Big 10 team? Sometimes yes (see last year), sometimes no. But it's impossible to know that until they play. The #3 team each year usually has as much claim to play in the title game as the #2 team. I would much rather have that argument about the #8-#9 teams than #2 and #3.

An 8 team playoff would be un-fucking believable. And it would NOT lessen the impact of the regular season. It might make a few games less important, but it would make a ton of other games important that are meaningless today.

Think of it this way. Most teams cannot make a title game with 1 loss, no matter how well they play the rest of the year. Some can, due to reputation, schedule, strangth of conference, etc. But if you aren't one of the prestigous schools, you can be eliminated from the national championship picture after WEEK ONE. So for (estimating) 30-40% of the teams in the NCAA, they are eliminated after their first game. How does that make their regular season games important?

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Let me get this straight, should Boise State have been allowed to play Oklahoma last year in the Fiesta Bowl? Who won that game? Is that any different than George Mason going to the Final Four a few years back?

Was George Mason one of the 4 best teams in the country or were they a team that played well at the end of the season? If you want to reward teams for playing well at the end of the season thats fine, but don't pretend that actually means they're one of the best teams.

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Who did Michigan lose to again? Appalachain State? They actually played that game? I mean come on, Michigan is so much better. They actually play 1A football in the Big 10! What? Appalachain State won? That can't happen! I didn't think it could happen!

And Michigan can win the Big 10 and be in your playoff scenario too because you want to reward teams soley for play in conference games, that Appalachain State loss would have been meaningless.

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I don't think so. Again, over time, your record speaks to who you are, not what we think you are. LSU is thought to be the best team in the nation right now. Sure, they've looked good. But, they are very close to being 5-3 right now. A few breaks the other way in the Auburn and Florida game and they are 5-3. Would that 5-3 team still be considered one of the top teams in the nation?

So you want to knock me for what I think is going to happen with Troy and you want to go back and play "what if" games on stuff thats already happened....

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Let's take Florida, another team that everyone was calling one of the top teams in the nation even though they were 5-2. Not a lot of people are talking about them now since they lost to Georgia.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but its the regular season now and thats what is showing us who the best teams are right now, as you point out here.

Originally Posted by Warhammer

How can any team claim to be a National Champion when they are not even the best team in their own conference? (For the record, this is my single issue with the NCAA Basketball Tournament) Currently, you have no shot at being the NCAA 1A National Champion in Football unless you are in a BCS Conference or you are Notre Dame.

Please name the number of national champions that didn't win their conference title under the BCS.

Originally Posted by Warhammer

So if they were clearly the #1 team in the country, why weren't they crowned the national champions? Everyone thought they were going to crush Florida. Not many people gave Florida a chance. What was the score of that game? By your logic, we shouldn't even play the game. It was clear to everyone that they were the #1 team in the country. Well, they were, until they played Florida.

My point is that in a playoff system there is a chance that they might get knocked off, but in that case, they do not deserve to be the national champion. You're playing in a tournament of champions, each team that is there has won something tangible, they are not the #2 team in the Big 10, they are not the #3 team in the SEC East Division, they are a champion of a conference.

This is my main problem with playoff supporters. You seem to think the best team wins every game. You brought up basketball and baseball earlier in the thread, the Red Sox lost 66 games during the regular season and would have been eliminated by Cleveland under the playoff format from a couple years ago.

Teams do not play their best week in and week out. No team does. What a playoff does is put more value on games at the end of the season. What your system does is say the Sun Belt, MAC, and Mountain West teams are just as good as the SEC, PAC-10, and Big 12 teams.

Originally Posted by Warhammer

If they got upset, would they be one of the best teams in the nation? Again, after how many losses do we reevaluate our thoughts on a team? OSU and Miami were only clearly the best two teams in the country because they had not lost. Were they significantly better than the one loss teams that year? I'm not so sure.

And if they played a playoff and lost a game their loss is somehow much worse than the loss or losses that the team that beat them had. I'll say it again, the best team doesn't win every week. You have to look at their body of work over the course of the season and those two teams were clearly the best in the country.

Originally Posted by Warhammer

There may not be debate about one of the teams in the BCS game, but there is typically a ton about who the #2 team is.

So you admit it gets the national champion right?

Originally Posted by Warhammer

2006 - Last year Michigan or Florida. Did they get it right? Michigan lost a close game to OSU in the Horseshoe and then lost to a fired up USC team in the Rose Bowl, not a big surprise as that often happens when a team is playing in a bowl they do not want to be in.

And here you contradict yourself. Michigan had their chance in what was essentially a playoff scenario. Win and they move on. They didn't win and therefore weren't even the best team in their conference, yet since you don't like the BCS you want to point to them as being a team that possibly should have played Ohio State again.

Under your system Michigan wouldn't have been part of a 12 team playoff, but you think they should have possibly had another shot at Ohio State last season?

Originally Posted by Warhammer

2004 - There are 5 undefeated teams, Utah, Boise State, USC, Auburn, and Oklahoma - Auburn, USC, and Utah finish undefeated as Oklahoma loses to USC and Boise State loses a close game to a 1 loss Louisville team.

Oklahoma and Boise both lost and as you said earlier, if they were the better team then they would have simly went out and won. How do I know Boise or Oklahoma were any good? The media was just telling me that.

Originally Posted by Warhammer

2003 - Oklahoma, LSU, and USC all finish with one loss. Oklahoma and LSU play for the title, LSU wins. USC is crowned national champions by the AP. LSU by ESPN and the BCS.

A playoff wouldn't necessarily eliminate this in college fooball unless polls were obligated to vote for the winner (which creates an artificial champion). Lets take last year for instance (I'm going to play a game of what if also), lets say Ohio State loses in the semifinal game to a 2 loss team than in turn went on to lose to Michigan in the national championship game. What is to stop people from voting Ohio State over Michigan under that scnenario?

Your playoff wouldn't guarantee any of these three teams playing against each other. College Basketball would have controversies as well if the voters weren't forced to vote for the winner of the NCAA Tourney.

Originally Posted by Warhammer

2001 - Nebraska is pasted by Colorado, who goes on to win the Big 12 with 2 losses. Oregon also has one loss. But, Nebraska is selected ahead of Oregon and Colorado (who they had just lost to) to play in the title game against Miami. Now, Colorado might not have won against Miami, but that was an awesome football team that was playing the best ball at the end of the season.

And Colorado went on to lose to Oregon by 22. They sure were playing their best ball at the end of the season....

Originally Posted by Warhammer

So, in 7 games beginning in 2000, there have only been two consensus games for the National Championship. Every other game had some question about who should be involved in that game. Every single other season had some debate.

How does a playoff change this? The only way to truely choose a champion is if every team plays every other team. A playoff doesn't make that happen. All you do is put more hurdles in front of the better teams.

Originally Posted by Warhammer

In 2004, would Auburn have been able to beat USC? Would either have been able to beat Utah? We will never know. In 2001, would Colorado have been able to beat Miami? Maybe not, but they were certainly a better team than Nebraska at that time, and had proven it on the field. Would LSU have beaten USC in 2003?

Once again, you can do what if scenarios under any playoff. Team X didn't play Team Y so we don't know who was better between those teams. Nothing you do is going to remove that.

Originally Posted by Warhammer

A playoff is the one way to really determine who the best team is, and that is to do it on the field. What is the best way to determine the teams? If we select teams, we are ultimately back where we started and everyone is bitching about who the #8 and #9 teams are, or who the #16 and #17 teams are, and why does the Big East champion get a free bid, but not the undefeated WAC champion, etc. The only way to do it fairly without bias is to take the conference champions and put them in a playoff.

Yep, the best team in the country is chosen by admitedly putting them up against inferior teams and the team that loses the SEC title game and Michigan of last year is not as good as Troy.

[Atocep]

and would have been eliminated by Cleveland under the playoff format from a couple years ago.

Pointing out my own error here. Boston rolled past the Angels so fast I forgot they were the Divisional Round opponent.

Doesn't change the overall point, though.

[Kodos]

A playoff is the only way to get a true champion. Prove it on the field with elimination on the line.

[Young Drachma]

What's funny is...the BCS IS a playoff. It's just one that only gives two teams a shot at a title.

[SnDvls]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

To me the BCS is the one creating a "true champion." I don't understand this notion that you just pick the best two teams. They don't do it in basketball, baseball, lacrosse, soccer or any other NCAA sport. I don't care what contrived reasons you have for why it works in those sports but not baseball, they just aren't true. Regardless of the number of games, revenue streams, etc, the argument that a playoff system creates a "true champion" (therefore implying a fake champion) is just ludicrous. People don't "deserve" to be in the championship game because people think they did well in the regular season.

To play devil's advocate here (I don't vote in my own polls just to not show a bias one way or the other I hope) but by seeding teams on a committee of humans there is some "picking" involved. Same in NCAA baseball where teams are not only seeded, but also sent to regionals and super regionals where their is a home field advantage for only 1 team. And the selection process is partially based on what revenue you can bring back for NCAA baseball not basesed solely by on field performance....just an FYI here.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by SnDvls

To play devil's advocate here (I don't vote in my own polls just to not show a bias one way or the other I hope) but by seeding teams on a committee of humans there is some "picking" involved. Same in NCAA baseball where teams are not only seeded, but also sent to regionals and super regionals where their is a home field advantage for only 1 team. And the selection process is partially based on what revenue you can bring back for NCAA baseball not basesed solely by on field performance....just an FYI here.

This is part of my overall point. I don't think the BCS is perfect. I've never stated that. I said it serves its purpose more than a playoff would in college football.

A playoff actually brings in more randomness. Where you play, who you're matched up against in your bracket, who you get to avoid, which team has the easiest path to the title game.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by SnDvls

And the selection process is partially based on what revenue you can bring back for NCAA baseball not basesed solely by on field performance....just an FYI here.

The same principle is involved with the 1-AA football playoff seeding...

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

The same principle is involved with the 1-AA football playoff seeding...

Its actually even worse for 1AA (than most playoff systems) because what type of crowd and TV ratings you'll get is considered just as strongly as how good you are.

I remember Steve McNair's senior year at Alcorn St they were a top 5ish team in 1AA and Marshall was ranked #1. The commitee had considered putting those two teams against each other in the 1st round simply because it would have attracted a large crowd and good TV ratings.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Was George Mason one of the 4 best teams in the country or were they a team that played well at the end of the season? If you want to reward teams for playing well at the end of the season thats fine, but don't pretend that actually means they're one of the best teams.

They beat UConn, UNC, and Wichita State during their run. All of those were considered very good teams with Wichita State being considered a possible Cinderella. They proved on the court that they deserved to be in the Final Four.

George Mason received an at large bid that year. They did not win their conference tournament. They were one of the 34 best teams that did not win their conference. They were given the opportunity to play for the national title and almost pulled it off.

Originally Posted by Atocep

And Michigan can win the Big 10 and be in your playoff scenario too because you want to reward teams soley for play in conference games, that Appalachain State loss would have been meaningless.

Yeah, but even under the current system it would be meaningless if Michigan wins the Big 10. In that case, they still go to a BCS bowl game, just not the National Championship game. Even their Oregon game is pretty meaningless because they can still go to a BCS game.

My point is, let's say that Michigan improves throughout the course of the season, and by season's end are clearly the best team in the country (define that how you will). They would not have a shot to prove it because of their previous losses.

Originally Posted by Atocep

So you want to knock me for what I think is going to happen with Troy and you want to go back and play "what if" games on stuff thats already happened....

I'm not playing "what-if" games with stuff that has already happened. My point is, you are saying that Troy is automatically worse than Georgia because they lost two games on the road to tough SEC teams. Most other teams in the country would lose those games, regardless of the conference they are from.

Originally Posted by Atocep

Please name the number of national champions that didn't win their conference title under the BCS.

None that I can think of, but there have been teams that didn't win the conference title that had the opportunity to do so by playing in the game. The one off the top of my head is the Nebraska team that played FSU.

Originally Posted by Atocep

This is my main problem with playoff supporters. You seem to think the best team wins every game. You brought up basketball and baseball earlier in the thread, the Red Sox lost 66 games during the regular season and would have been eliminated by Cleveland under the playoff format from a couple years ago.

Now you're trying to have it both ways. You just said, "You seem to think the best team wins every game." So what you are insinuating is that the best team does not win every game. Therefore a single game is not a good indicator for which team is better. Then you go on to show that Cleveland would have won under the old system, but they lost under the new system. So how many games in head to head competition do we need? If 7 is good, wouldn't 9 be better? Is that too many games? My whole thing is, we don't think one game is a good indicator, 5 is too few, 9 is too much, etc. THEN WHY DO YOU THINK THE BCS WORKS? It takes two teams and says whoever wins this game is the National Champion.

My belief is that one game can be a fluke. A team should neither be punished or rewarded based upon any one game. However, a series of games can be used to determine who is the best team from a group of teams. For example, you play a conference schedule and then most conferences have a championship game. Over the course of the season, you can determine the best couple of teams from each conference. They play and determine the conference champion.

Then, you take those conference champions and put them through a playoff. Because a team that can win three or four games in a row against the best teams each conference can offer has proven over a series of games that they are better than the other teams. Its not a single game, but over a series of games.

Originally Posted by Atocep

Teams do not play their best week in and week out. No team does. What a playoff does is put more value on games at the end of the season. What your system does is say the Sun Belt, MAC, and Mountain West teams are just as good as the SEC, PAC-10, and Big 12 teams.

No, it does not say that they are all equal. What it does say is that they should all have an equal opportunity to prove that they are just as good. The current system says that unless you are a BCS conference, you do not have a chance to be in the BCS Title Game. The only way that can happen currently is if no team from the big conferences go undefeated, and you go undefeated, and happen to play some tough out of conference games, then you MAY get a chance to prove that you belong on the field. Your chance to win the whole thing is determined by computers, polls, etc. It is not determined on the field.

Regarding games at the end of the season, isn't that what we see now? How is that any different than having teams that lose their conference championship being eliminated now? How is it different than losing the second to last game of the regular season and dropping positions in the polls and not having a chance to work your way back up. Currently, if you are going to lose, it is far better to lose early than late.

Originally Posted by Atocep

And if they played a playoff and lost a game their loss is somehow much worse than the loss or losses that the team that beat them had. I'll say it again, the best team doesn't win every week. You have to look at their body of work over the course of the season and those two teams were clearly the best in the country.

So you admit it gets the national champion right?

But under the current system, you pretty much have to go undefeated to guarantee yourself a shot, but even that doesn't guarantee a shot at the title (look at the 2005 season, 5 undefeated teams!). Barring that, you can't have more than one loss.

Again, you are saying that we have to look at a body of work and pick two teams that were clearly the best in the country. We can typically pick one, but as I posted before, there has almost always been debate about #2, except where there was one other undefeated team from a major conference. So 5 out of 7 years since 2000 we have had debate. That is not a good success rate.

Your argument will probably be that the BCS has gotten it right most of the time. If we put the #1 team against Podunk U, we could also argue that it got it right most of the time, but it wouldn't make us feel right, would it? Again, how do we know that we got it right? I still think USC was better than Texas. They play that game again, USC wins. But guess what, Texas was still crowned national champions because they won the big game. No one was talking about body of work after that. They just said, see Texas won! They're the champs!

Originally Posted by Atocep

And here you contradict yourself. Michigan had their chance in what was essentially a playoff scenario. Win and they move on. They didn't win and therefore weren't even the best team in their conference, yet since you don't like the BCS you want to point to them as being a team that possibly should have played Ohio State again.

Under your system Michigan wouldn't have been part of a 12 team playoff, but you think they should have possibly had another shot at Ohio State last season?

No, that's not what I was saying. I was explaining that under the current system there was a big debate about who else should play in the title game. My point is that there were many who felt that they should play in the title game. Was I one of them, I happened to be one. But, under the BCS system it was up for debate.

Under my system, they would not have been part of the playoff. Additionally, under my system they should not get another shot at them, unless it was in a conference title game.

Originally Posted by Atocep

Oklahoma and Boise both lost and as you said earlier, if they were the better team then they would have simly went out and won. How do I know Boise or Oklahoma were any good? The media was just telling me that.

EXACTLY MY POINT! However, they did show throughout the season that they were better than the other teams in their conference. Therefore, they should be their conference's representatives in a post-season playoff.

Originally Posted by Atocep

A playoff wouldn't necessarily eliminate this in college fooball unless polls were obligated to vote for the winner (which creates an artificial champion). Lets take last year for instance (I'm going to play a game of what if also), lets say Ohio State loses in the semifinal game to a 2 loss team than in turn went on to lose to Michigan in the national championship game. What is to stop people from voting Ohio State over Michigan under that scnenario?

Again, that is my point. There is nothing to keep the voters from saying that Ole Miss was just having hard luck in all their games, and that they really were the best team in the country. We'd all know it was a sham, but that can happen, never will, but it is possible. We've seen some people vote for other teams that were deemed inferior to another team ahead of that team for position in the polls which is part of the BCS formula.

Originally Posted by Atocep

Your playoff wouldn't guarantee any of these three teams playing against each other. College Basketball would have controversies as well if the voters weren't forced to vote for the winner of the NCAA Tourney.

I'm not saying that they would either. What I am saying is that the winner of my playoff would be forced to play at least 3 other conference champions to win it all. There would be no debate that they had to play a tough schedule and they had to face the best that the other conferences had to offer. What more do you want?

Originally Posted by Atocep

And Colorado went on to lose to Oregon by 22. They sure were playing their best ball at the end of the season....

And Oregon just happened to be the other team that got shafted that year. Again, teams that feel they should be in a different bowl game typically get blown out in their bowl games. Sometimes they lose to a better team, sometimes they have a good team, but they don't show up. Michigan - USC was a good example of that last year.

Originally Posted by Atocep

How does a playoff change this? The only way to truely choose a champion is if every team plays every other team. A playoff doesn't make that happen. All you do is put more hurdles in front of the better teams.

Yep, and those hurdles are each other. If OSU is better than Florida, prove it. If you think you have the best team in the nation, you should be able to beat the other teams.

Originally Posted by Atocep

Once again, you can do what if scenarios under any playoff. Team X didn't play Team Y so we don't know who was better between those teams. Nothing you do is going to remove that.

OK, the NFL Champions last year were the Seattle Seahawks because they would have beaten the Colts. I think so, so therefore it is true.

Again, if a team has a gripe, beat the team in front of you. What we have seen is that the BCS can setup some matchups that guarantee a lot of viewers. That is all. Aside from 2 years, each #2 team that faced #1 was debated. How does that clear things up?

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Its actually even worse for 1AA (than most playoff systems) because what type of crowd and TV ratings you'll get is considered just as strongly as how good you are.

I remember Steve McNair's senior year at Alcorn St they were a top 5ish team in 1AA and Marshall was ranked #1. The commitee had considered putting those two teams against each other in the 1st round simply because it would have attracted a large crowd and good TV ratings.

Yeah, that was an interesting choice, as Alcorn was 8-3 (if I recall correctly) and not even the SWAC champion (I believe that the SWAC champ is committed elsewhere, though the selection committee can select other SWAC teams provided that it meets their criteria for selection). Maybe that year, the criteria for selection was TV ratings--ESPN carried the 1st round game against Youngstown State. Televising an opening round 1-AA playoff game involving the 1 vs 16 seed was unheard of at the time. #1 YSU promptly crushed Alcorn, though I remember McNair chucking it something like 80 times that game...

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

Yeah, that was an interesting choice, as Alcorn was 8-3 (if I recall correctly) and not even the SWAC champion (I believe that the SWAC champ is committed elsewhere, though the selection committee can select other SWAC teams provided that it meets their criteria for selection). Maybe that year, the criteria for selection was TV ratings--ESPN carried the 1st round game against Youngstown State. Televising an opening round 1-AA playoff game involving the 1 vs 16 seed was unheard of at the time. #1 YSU promptly crushed Alcorn, though I remember McNair chucking it something like 80 times that game...

Great times for Marshall then. Them and Youngstown were easily the top 2 teams in 1AA for about a 5 year stretch and anytime they didn't meet in the title game was a huge disappointment.

EDIT: My original post should have said top 25ish, not top 5ish for Alcorn. I got up early and I'm tired dammit.

[lordscarlet]

I still don't understand the logic that somehow a playoff does not name the "true champion." If it works in every other sport (I'm sure there's some obscure sport that I don't know about, but you get the point) professional and collegiate, I find it hard to accept the argument that IA College football is so vastly different that a playoff system would dilute the value of the title "champion." Are you claiming that the winners of the playoff systems in all of those other college sports are not the "true champion?" Are you saying that Boston and Indianapolis are not the true champions? Oh, right, professional sports are different because there's more parity. IA football is not so different that voting should choose the championship game.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

I still don't understand the logic that somehow a playoff does not name the "true champion." If it works in every other sport (I'm sure there's some obscure sport that I don't know about, but you get the point) professional and collegiate, I find it hard to accept the argument that IA College football is so vastly different that a playoff system would dilute the value of the title "champion." Are you claiming that the winners of the playoff systems in all of those other college sports are not the "true champion?" Are you saying that Boston and Indianapolis are not the true champions? Oh, right, professional sports are different because there's more parity. IA football is not so different that voting should choose the championship game.

The only way to crown a true champion is if EVERY team plays the other one at least once. The NCAA tourney is about matchups and how well you're playing at that particular time of the year.

I stated above:

A playoff actually brings in more randomness. Where you play, who you're matched up against in your bracket, who you get to avoid, which team has the easiest path to the title game.

[rkmsuf]

we should strive for a society without rankings and just play for fun

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

we should strive for a society without rankings and just play for fun

I give this post a 6 out of a possible 10.

[KWhit]

One more thing. Any system that allows a team to go undefeated and not have a chance to be crowned the National Champion is absurd.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Atocep

The only way to crown a true champion is if EVERY team plays the other one at least once.

So MLB and the NFL do not crown a true champion?

[Abe Sargent]

I know I'm late to the picnic, but this is for Warhammer:

Your proposed system has a significant bias with the independants. You are virtually giving Notre Dame a pass to every tournament ever.

Why not give a pass to all conference winners, then take the 5 remainign schools with the best whatever use BCS, record, don;t care) and throw them in to,

Under Warhammer's proposal, 12 teams in four with byes:

Week 1 - Cut to 8
2 - Cut to 4
3 - Cut to 2
4 - Final Game

16 team playoff

Week 1 - Cut to 8
2 - Cut to 4
3 - Cut to 2
4 - Final

Same amount of time in the game, so I don;t understand Warhammer's playoff system.

Note that a four week playoff system brings up a lot o fissues with administration, location, classes, academics, and such. But f you are going to propose a 4 week playoff system, might as well make it the best proposal possible.

No school should get a virtual auto-include every year.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

So MLB and the NFL do not crown a true champion?

Do you think St. Louis was the best team in baseball last year?

[heybrad]

I shiver at the thought of an entire sports world where champions are crowned based on who a few people think are the best.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Do you think St. Louis was the best team in baseball last year?

I think they were the champions.

You think they should have just played a game between the Yankees and the Red Sox?

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Anxiety

I know I'm late to the picnic, but this is for Warhammer:

Your proposed system has a significant bias with the independants. You are virtually giving Notre Dame a pass to every tournament ever.

Why not give a pass to all conference winners, then take the 5 remainign schools with the best whatever use BCS, record, don;t care) and throw them in to,

Under Warhammer's proposal, 12 teams in four with byes:

Week 1 - Cut to 8
2 - Cut to 4
3 - Cut to 2
4 - Final Game

16 team playoff

Week 1 - Cut to 8
2 - Cut to 4
3 - Cut to 2
4 - Final

Same amount of time in the game, so I don;t understand Warhammer's playoff system.

Note that a four week playoff system brings up a lot o fissues with administration, location, classes, academics, and such. But f you are going to propose a 4 week playoff system, might as well make it the best proposal possible.

No school should get a virtual auto-include every year.

Would Notre Dame be getting in this year?

The point of my system is to remove the bias. There are 11 conferences and then the major independents, of which there are 4 or 5. Is there a bias towards those schools? Probably. But, I would rather let in one of those schools than have to debate who is the #12 school that gets in, however you would do that.

If we go with a BCS conferences get auto-bids and the rest get at large bids, we're basically limiting the pool to BCS conferences again, which is what I am trying to avoid. All money from the major independents would be split among those schools. So yes, Notre Dame does get in a fair bit, but they would not advance unless they were deserving (i.e. a 6-5 Notre Dame is probably not going to win it). Essentially, I am treating the major independants as another conference.

Now, if this was a major sticking point, I also wouldn't be adverse to having the Las Vegas bookies putting a poll up and taking the top team in their poll not currently in the tourney. They are normally pretty good about these things for setting lines on betting.

The current BCS is all weighted towards the big schools. BYU could be the best team in the nation, but we would never find out. They could go undefeated, and still not have a chance to play for the title because the SOS component is so heavily weighted against them.

Rather than debate, or throw it to the computers, or heaven forbid the pollsters, I opted to go with a system based upon conference titles. The primary reasons for this is that most conference schedules, you play all but one or maybe two teams in the conference. Additionally, most teams have a conference title game, the top teams in a conference are virtually assured of playing each other at least once during the season.

This has the side benefit of allowing teams to determine how they want to schedule their season. Do they schedule tough games that prepare them for the conference season, or do they play cream puffs to warm up against? Both methods have merit, but I think this would promote better games during the season. No longer do Texas and OSU get punished by playing each other early in the season. They get a tough game against a good opponent that toughens the team for the important part of the season, the conference slate.

Additionally, there is no need to run up the score. Stats, margin of victory, and SOS are all taken out of the equation. Now, if a team is up by 14 late in the game, there is a lot of incentive to throw that sophomore QB in there to get some reps and prepare him for the next season. Teams can actively build for the future and not get killed if they wind up losing a game.

Teams can also develop during a season. You don't have to worry about any one single game killing your season, unless it is a crucial conference game. Want more importance on those games against your rivals? Imagine, Michigan against Ohio State late in the year, loser stays home, winner goes to the playoffs. The games have a ton of meaning, more so than even now. Sure, some may not have any meaning, but who watches Northwestern vs. Minnesota late in the season anyway?

Is there a perfect system? No. The way college football is set up, there will not be a perfect system. However, we can set up a playoff and eliminate most of the major conference bias.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Do you think St. Louis was the best team in baseball last year?

Yes, they were. They knew what the rules were, and by the rules they were the best team in MLB.

Sure, they were 83-79, but they suffered a ton of injuries. They got into the playoffs and beat the best teams the National League had to offer. In baseball, very rarely are there flukes. This isn't NCAA Basketball where a superior team loses to an inferior team (note: The cream still does rise to the top in that tournament as most teams that win upsets get beat in the second round or the Sweet 16. Name an NCAA Tournament team that was not deserving of the title.). In baseball you play 7 games, the team that wins 4 games first advances. As a result, you might have a fluke result in 1 or 2 games, but after 4 games, any flukes become trends.

When you have rules in advance, and you know what they are and they are all based upon standings and games played on the field, I am fine with the result. I have problems when we have to introduce margin of victory, strength of schedule, home/away splits, etc., and feed all this information into a computer. Wait for it to spit out its output. Then take the cube root of that result, add it to the square of the sum of the position of a team in the polls, add the number of losses, divided by the total number of games played on Friday nights in November in Alaska and take the two lowest scoring teams from that and say "You two will play for the National Championship!" Oh, and if people don't agree with the system, you just won't be a part of it.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

I think they were the champions.

You think they should have just played a game between the Yankees and the Red Sox?

They were the champions as defined by MLB's playoff. That doesn't mean they were the best team in baseball or anywhere close to it actually.

Over 162 games they were 83-78 and outscored their opponents by 19 runs over that span. Versus the NL East they were 15-16, versus the west they were 23-11, and against their own division they were 39-42.

So for 162 games they were by every definition an average team or slightly above average team. Then they go 11-5 for a stretch of games in October and are remembered as the best team in baseball that year.

Is that your definition of a true champion?

I'm interested in hearing what everyone's description of a true champion is since thats the catch phrase that the anti-BCS crowd likes to toss around.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

In baseball, very rarely are there flukes.

This is complete BS. The very best teams in baseball win less than 60% of their games. Baseball's postseason is about as random as it gets because of the small sample size compared to the regular season.

[Pumpy Tudors]

THERE AIN'T NO TRUE CHAMPION UNTIL THEY DO THIS SHIT LIKE THE PREMIERSHIP. PLAYOFFS MY ASS

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by Atocep

They were the champions as defined by MLB's playoff. That doesn't mean they were the best team in baseball or anywhere close to it actually.

Over 162 games they were 83-78 and outscored their opponents by 19 runs over that span. Versus the NL East they were 15-16, versus the west they were 23-11, and against their own division they were 39-42.

So for 162 games they were by every definition an average team or slightly above average team. Then they go 11-5 for a stretch of games in October and are remembered as the best team in baseball that year.

Is that your definition of a true champion?

I'm interested in hearing what everyone's description of a true champion is since thats the catch phrase that the anti-BCS crowd likes to toss around.

I'm using "true champion" because I saw you use it. I think that a playoff system develops a more clear-cut champion to the season than does a voting system picking two teams. I think some years the Indianapolis Colts lose to a Patriots team that did not perform as well in the regular season. I think some years the Cardinals turn it on in the playoffs and make up for a less-than-stellar regular season. Do I think that the "best" team always wins the championship? At the time, yes. An undefeated team can be at the top of the polls and play one crappy game and still lose. There are ups and downs in all sports, and I think you get a more representative result with a playoff system.

[KWhit]

I for one am all for a playoff, but I hate Warhammer's proposal. Conferences aren't equal, so they shouldn't be treated equally.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Atocep

This is complete BS. The very best teams in baseball win less than 60% of their games. Baseball's postseason is about as random as it gets because of the small sample size compared to the regular season.

OK, let's make each series a single game.

Seriously, baseball's playoffs are probably the best out there because you have best of 7 series. You're telling me that the baseball playoffs are more random than football playoffs?

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

I'm using "true champion" because I saw you use it. I think that a playoff system develops a more clear-cut champion to the season than does a voting system picking two teams. I think some years the Indianapolis Colts lose to a Patriots team that did not perform as well in the regular season. I think some years the Cardinals turn it on in the playoffs and make up for a less-than-stellar regular season. Do I think that the "best" team always wins the championship? At the time, yes. An undefeated team can be at the top of the polls and play one crappy game and still lose. There are ups and downs in all sports, and I think you get a more representative result with a playoff system.

I used True Champion, because like I stated, its a common catchphrase used by the Anti-BCS crowd.

Playoffs in each sport work differently. College basketball is complete randomness. Humans pick the matchups, where the teams will play, and it all varies from year to year.

Pro Basketball's biggest problem is the rules change during the playoffs (despite what David Stern says). Pro Baseball's biggest problem (and to a lesser extent football) is teams are picked from conference or league as the representative and the two best teams don't always decide the championship.

Does a playoff lead to more drama and excitment? In most cases yes. Does it crown the best team champion? Not always, and probably less often than the BCS does. It comes down to what you want from your sports.

I think the BCS does a solid job of getting the right champion and the controversy surrounding who plays is actually a good thing for the sport. People can complain about it, but if you look at it from the NCAA's POV people still show up to the games, still watch the games, and college football has the most loyal and rabid fans you'll see in any sport in the US. There's zero incentive for them to change the system.

There's an infatuation in the US with underdogs, upsets, and cinderella story teams. We all love them and what a playoff does is give us the opportunity to see them while the BCS doesn't. The more teams involved in a playoff, the more upsets you're going to see, its the nature of a playoff (especially one where 1 game decides a team's fate). People have to decide whether they want to see the best teams playing or a mix of the best teams and throw in some underdogs to make things interesting. Most people are going to choose option 2 there, however, that reduces the chances of the best teams advancing.

I'm a fan of seeing the very best rewarded for their play over the course of a full season. I don't want to see the Troys, the Western Michigan's, the George Masons, or whoever else in the discussion in college football and I want to minimize the emphasis on late season play. I'm in the minority, I know it, I accept it. What it comes down to is a matter of taste. Just remember that what college football lacks in cinderella stories it makes up for in controversy (which gives us things to talk about on message boards).

[lordscarlet]

I'm clearly not going to change your mind, and you're not going to change mind. Having two teams play for the championship based on human selection is incredibly flawed, and that's all there is to it. No other sport worldwide, to my knowledge, has such a championship system that is based so indirectly on on the field performance.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

Having two teams play for the championship based on human selection is incredibly flawed.

I don't think anybody denies that. The objection is that what we currently have in place is a great product, and any playoff system is a radical departure. The law of unintended consequences and all that.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Atocep

This is complete BS. The very best teams in baseball win less than 60% of their games. Baseball's postseason is about as random as it gets because of the small sample size compared to the regular season.

What?

When you play 162 games in a regular season, winning .500 of your games is a real accomplishment.

The baseball playoffs might not always be the most elegent...but I believe if a team makes it to the postseason, they earned it. It's a grind...

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

What?

When you play 162 games in a regular season, winning .500 of your games is a real accomplishment.

The baseball playoffs might not always be the most elegent...but I believe if a team makes it to the postseason, they earned it. It's a grind...

I think you misunderstood my post.

Getting to the postseason is a grind. It is an amazing accomplishment considering the length of the season. What happens from there is fairly random.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I don't think anybody denies that. The objection is that what we currently have in place is a great product, and any playoff system is a radical departure. The law of unintended consequences and all that.

That is not Atocep's argument.

[thetrilogy]

Let's see:

We'll have a mediocre big ten team face some other team in the final game this year. Same sorry ass result as last year; A mediocre big ten team gets thumped.

BCS SUCKS. Everyone is afraid of a playoff system and I can't figure out why?

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by thetrilogy

BCS SUCKS. Everyone is afraid of a playoff system and I can't figure out why?

$$$$$$