College Football Week 15 (Championship) thread........

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Wouldn't seeing the top 8 teams in the country battle it out for the national championship be entertaining?

I've been watching them (and a number of other contenders) do that for the past several months.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Wouldn't seeing the top 8 teams in the country battle it out for the national championship be entertaining?

Not when you have to include Cincinnati, Utah and East Carolina (three winners of the top 8 conferences).

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Wouldn't seeing the top 8 teams in the country battle it out for the national championship be entertaining?

Much more entertaining than 16, IMO.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I've been watching them (and a number of other contenders) do that for the past several months.

Yeah, but this time they would be playing for something.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

One way determines the best team on the field, the other determines the best team in an office.

It really doesn't. As I said, I still think the best team from last NFL's season was the Patriots. Doesn't matter that the Giants beat them in one game.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Yeah, but this time they would be playing for something.

What, you think they are just playing for fun during the season?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Not when you have to include Cincinnati, Utah and East Carolina (three winners of the top 8 conferences).

Who says they need to make it? How about the top 8 teams in the BCS get in?

1. Oklahoma 12-1
2. Florida 12-1
3. Texas 11-1
4. Alabama 12-1
5. USC 11-1
6. Utah 12-0
7. Texas Tech 11-1
8. Penn State 11-1

Sounds like a pretty fun tournament.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Yeah, but this time they would be playing for something.

Ask them whether they've been "playing for something". Try asking Tebow yesterday in the fourth quarter. Or for that matter, ask Stoops at any point in the past several weeks. Or any of hundreds of others for the past several months.

I'm sorry you don't seem to get it but eventually it reaches the point where I just have to figure that's your problem, not college football's.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

What, you think they are just playing for fun during the season?

More or less. I mean what happens on the field doesn't decide things, people in offices and behind a computer do.

[illinifan999]

Originally Posted by cartman

I know we've been over this a thousand times, but what other college sport, besides Div. 1A/FBS does it this way. None. Zero. Nada. So the collegiate sports argument doesn't fly when every other level of NCAA football, as well as every other NCAA team sport has a playoff.

You do realize that the playoff system is far from being that much better. Take for example this season.

Southern Illinois and Northern Iowa each lost 2 games. Each lost to a FBS team, Northwestern and BYU respectivly. SIU lost to North Dakota State while Northern Iowa lost to SIU. That gave SIU the conference championship. Now logic would say that the team that won the conference, and beat the runner-up head to head would get a seed before the runner-up would. Well logic lost out and NIU got a seed while SIU didn't. Had SIU not blown it in the first round, the playoff committee would have rewarded them with a second round road game to...NIU.

This would be the equivalent of a FBS playoff that gave Alabama a seed, and then made Florida travel to Bama for a second round game.

So while the BCS isn't perfect, neither is a playoff system. Each system will have its share of pros and cons. You just won't hear much complaining about the lower levels because well, it's a lower level and it doesn't get much press.

[illinifan999]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

That's why I say throw out the stupid BCS.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Who says they need to make it? How about the top 8 teams in the BCS get in?

1. Oklahoma 12-1
2. Florida 12-1
3. Texas 11-1
4. Alabama 12-1
5. USC 11-1
6. Utah 12-0
7. Texas Tech 11-1
8. Penn State 11-1

Sounds like a pretty fun tournament.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by illinifan999

You do realize that the playoff system is far from being that much better. Take for example this season.

Southern Illinois and Northern Iowa each lost 2 games. Each lost to a FBS team, Northwestern and BYU respectivly. SIU lost to North Dakota State while Northern Iowa lost to SIU. That gave SIU the conference championship. Now logic would say that the team that won the conference, and beat the runner-up head to head would get a seed before the runner-up would. Well logic lost out and NIU got a seed while SIU didn't. Had SIU not blown it in the first round, the playoff committee would have rewarded them with a second round road game to...NIU.

This would be the equivalent of a FBS playoff that gave Alabama a seed, and then made Florida travel to Bama for a second round game.

So while the BCS isn't perfect, neither is a playoff system. Each system will have its share of pros and cons. You just won't hear much complaining about the lower levels because well, it's a lower level and it doesn't get much press.

So instead we have a system that could have NIU go undefeated while SIU loses two games, and then NIU not make the playoffs because SIU gets better crowds for their games.

While FCS has some flaws, at least their champion is determined on the field. Both SIU and NIU can win a championship by simply not losing.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by illinifan999

I was saying if there is no playoff, just dump the BCS. The BCS doesn't mean anything outside of the two top teams anyway. The bowls are just going to choose the team that travels best and gets great ratings instead of the best teams.

[illinifan999]

And the FCS has teams that can win a championship as well. By simply not losing. The majority of the years there aren't that many undefeated teams. I'm not for the BCS, I love teams like Boise State, Utah, and Ball State. But a lot of people seem to think that a playoff system will make everything all better when in all actuality you're still going to hear a lot of the same complaints.

[illinifan999]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I was saying if there is no playoff, just dump the BCS. The BCS doesn't mean anything outside of the two top teams anyway. The bowls are just going to choose the team that travels best and gets great ratings instead of the best teams.

Then how do you choose the playoff teams? You're almost forced to invite all the conference champions to the playoff otherwise what's the point of the MAC, Sun Belt, WAC, etc existing in 1-A? But then how do you justify a team like North Texas getting in over a 9-3 power conference team? If you don't invite the teams like Boise State, Utah, Sun Belt champs then how can you say you're deciding the champion on the field?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by illinifan999

And the FCS has teams that can win a championship as well. By simply not losing. The majority of the years there aren't that many undefeated teams. I'm not for the BCS, I love teams like Boise State, Utah, and Ball State. But a lot of people seem to think that a playoff system will make everything all better when in all actuality you're still going to hear a lot of the same complaints.

No they don't. Boise State and Utah have no chance at ever playing for a national championship. Doesn't matter if they never lose a game ever again. If there are 3 undefeated BCS schools, one obviously will not be playing for a title. Heck, if the writers and coaches don't particularly like a school who went undefeated, they don't have to vote them in.

Fact is that winning every game you play doesn't give you a shot to win it all. It's the only sport that this is possible.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by illinifan999

otherwise what's the point of the MAC, Sun Belt, WAC, etc existing in 1-A?

There really isn't much point to it at all.

[molson]

Originally Posted by illinifan999

You're almost forced to invite all the conference champions to the playoff otherwise what's the point of the MAC, Sun Belt, WAC, etc existing in 1-A?

If it helps, just pretend the BCS conferences are their own "super division".

But there's also a huge difference between the WAC, and say The Ivy League. How many divisions should there be?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by illinifan999

Then how do you choose the playoff teams? You're almost forced to invite all the conference champions to the playoff otherwise what's the point of the MAC, Sun Belt, WAC, etc existing in 1-A? But then how do you justify a team like North Texas getting in over a 9-3 power conference team? If you don't invite the teams like Boise State, Utah, Sun Belt champs then how can you say you're deciding the champion on the field?

You can choose playoff teams by automatic qualifiers by conference championships. Perhaps the lowest ranked conferences would have to participate in play-in games. It would lower the amount of automatic qualifiers while giving small conferences a chance to play their way in. The rest can be filled in with at-large teams.

Lets not forget that some of these conferences aren't that bad. The MWC beat up on the Pac-10 this year. Utah, BYU, and TCU would finish in the top half of the Pac-10. Heck, they'd probably finish in the top half of the Big 10, Big East, and ACC.

And allowing smaller conference schools to participate, it would benefit their conference. Recruiting would get better as well as funding. Some of these conferences would start building strong contending teams. Just as we see from the likes of Gonzaga and Davidson in hoops.

Sure it's not perfect, but the champion is decided on a field, not by Jay Mariotti.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

There really isn't much point to it at all.

Like right now.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

You can choose playoff teams by automatic qualifiers by conference championships. Perhaps the lowest ranked conferences would have to participate in play-in games. It would lower the amount of automatic qualifiers while giving small conferences a chance to play their way in. The rest can be filled in with at-large teams.

Lets not forget that some of these conferences aren't that bad. The MWC beat up on the Pac-10 this year. Utah, BYU, and TCU would finish in the top half of the Pac-10. Heck, they'd probably finish in the top half of the Big 10, Big East, and ACC.

And allowing smaller conference schools to participate, it would benefit their conference. Recruiting would get better as well as funding. Some of these conferences would start building strong contending teams. Just as we see from the likes of Gonzaga and Davidson in hoops.

Sure it's not perfect, but the champion is decided on a field, not by Jay Mariotti.

Why would the BCS schools agree to that?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

Why would the BCS schools agree to that?

They wouldn't. That's the problem with college football.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Like right now.

I've long been an advocate of reducing the number of D1 schools/conferences considerably.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I've long been an advocate of reducing the number of D1 schools/conferences considerably.

It's pretty evenly distributed at the moment.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

They wouldn't. That's the problem with college football.

College Football is probably the most popular thing in America. I think they can live with that problem.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by cartman

I know we've been over this a thousand times, but what other college sport, besides Div. 1A/FBS does it this way. None. Zero. Nada. So the collegiate sports argument doesn't fly when every other level of NCAA football, as well as every other NCAA team sport has a playoff.

The argument does fly when you consider Joe Castiglione at Oklahoma, Deloss Dodds at Texas, Mike Garrett at USC, etc. are at schools that are recipients of the lions share of money that come from the current BCS and non-BCS bowl system. If the FBS ever went to an NCAA administered playoff like the other divisions, the money would be evenly distributed among all 119 teams. That's why it's never going to happen, folks.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by molson

If it helps, just pretend the BCS conferences are their own "super division".

But there's also a huge difference between the WAC, and say The Ivy League. How many divisions should there be?

Hmmmmm! Maybe college football should follow the example of European football and introduce promotion and relegation.

Headline: Today, UCLA was relegated to the WAC and LSU was relegated to Conference USA.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

Even an 8 team playoff last year would've left Mizzou out because the big 6 are going to get their automatic tie in, and this year, Boise would still be on the outside looking in.

I have always considered this to be one of the poorest, least thought out arguments in support of the BCS. That's not to say DeTox is off his rocker for throwing it out there. It has been trotted out plenty of times before.

Fact is, there is a TON of difference between arguing about who should be in the title game as opposed to who should be #8 or #9.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Because maybe it's not that big of a deal? Is it so important that we must extend the season by three weeks, increase the risk of injuries and endure more fanatic hype just so some people can be content of a mythical champion through a playoffs? It's nice to reward some teams with a bowl game but even that loses its prestige when there are way too many bowl games and way too many mediocre teams playing in them. In the NFL, it means something to win your division or be the best runner-ups. In college, it's about not finishing last. Right now, we know all of the conference champions and that means something. No good reason to go beyond that.

A. Only two teams play three weeks, and I'll bet you those two schools will be the last ones complaining about playing three more weeks.

B. If injuries are such a concern, why play football at all? Is there really so much of an increased risk of injury from going from a 12 game schedule to a 15 game schedule. Someone better tell the NFL then. BTW.

C. You actually include "hype" as a reason to stick with the status quo? Really?

D. Not mythical anymore. That's a creation of the system you're supporting. And just because it doesn't matter to you, doesn't mean it doesn't matter to everyone else, or that you have the right to arbitrarily enforce your belief in your own correctness on the rest of us.

E. There are way too many bowl games. Not sure that is relevant to havinf a playoffs. The underlying bowl system would still exist in addition to the playoffs in most systems I have seen proposed, minus only that part which would be worked into the playoff system itself.

F. There are 11 conferences, six major conferences and only two spots in bowl season that mean a damn thing. I hardly think the postseason currently place is making the regular season mean anything. After all, you can go undefeated (Boise State), beat one of the teams in the title game on a neutral field (Texas), and dominate your conference (USC), but their seasons are all essentially meaningless...because of this system.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

A. Only two teams play three weeks, and I'll bet you those two schools will be the last ones complaining about playing three more weeks.

B. If injuries are such a concern, why play football at all? Is there really so much of an increased risk of injury from going from a 12 game schedule to a 15 game schedule. Someone better tell the NFL then. BTW.

C. You actually include "hype" as a reason to stick with the status quo? Really?

D. Not mythical anymore. That's a creation of the system you're supporting. And just because it doesn't matter to you, doesn't mean it doesn't matter to everyone else, or that you have the right to arbitrarily enforce your belief in your own correctness on the rest of us.

E. There are way too many bowl games. Not sure that is relevant to havinf a playoffs. The underlying bowl system would still exist in addition to the playoffs in most systems I have seen proposed, minus only that part which would be worked into the playoff system itself.

F. There are 11 conferences, six major conferences and only two spots in bowl season that mean a damn thing. I hardly think the postseason currently place is making the regular season mean anything. After all, you can go undefeated (Boise State), beat one of the teams in the title game on a neutral field (Texas), and dominate your conference (USC), but their seasons are all essentially meaningless...because of this system.

And I would ask, considering the enormous popularity of college football and the ridiculous amount of money handed out by the BCS and bowls in general, why the hell should they change the system? What would the motivation be?

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I've been watching them (and a number of other contenders) do that for the past several months.

I vote for watching them do that for the past several months...and then watching another round of the same for the month of December. Why have one when we can have both?

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Atocep

And I would ask, considering the enormous popularity of college football and the ridiculous amount of money handed out by the BCS and bowls in general, why the hell should they change the system? What would the motivation be?

Different discussion. We know why we have the current system, and that money is the issue.

This current discussion in this thread is not about why the BCS is in place or why it doesn't change. It's about what way is better at determining a true champion.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

It really doesn't. As I said, I still think the best team from last NFL's season was the Patriots. Doesn't matter that the Giants beat them in one game.

Best team != champion

One is subjective. The other is usually determined on the field to play and is a true measure where for the most part all teams have a shot at said championship.

Except in FCS Division I football, of course.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Different discussion. We know why we have the current system, and that money is the issue.

This current discussion in this thread is not about why the BCS is in place or why it doesn't change. It's about what way is better at determining a true champion.

True Champion is a bullshit term thrown out to prop a playoff system up. When you have 119 teams playing 12-13 games mostly against teams in their conference there is no way to determine a true champion. If you want the best chance of putting the best teams against each other then its probably the current BCS model with the plus 1 format.

The only thing a playoff would do is make people feel better because there's the false sense that "everything is settled on the field". For some reason people believe that when teams are in a win or go home situation the best team always comes out on top and if they don't then they don't deserve anything anyway.

College Football does a much better job getting the best teams in its championship game than NCAA basketball does, but most people won't accept it.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Best team != champion

One is subjective. The other is usually determined on the field to play and is a true measure where for the most part all teams have a shot at said championship.

Except in FCS Division I football, of course.

The problem is college football has TOO MANY teams competing at the 1-A or even 1-AA levels to come close to crowning a "true champion" given the amount of games played and conference structures.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Atocep

True Champion is a bullshit term thrown out to prop a playoff system up. When you have 119 teams playing 12-13 games mostly against teams in their conference there is no way to determine a true champion. If you want the best chance of putting the best teams against each other then its probably the current BCS model with the plus 1 format.

The only thing a playoff would do is make people feel better because there's the false sense that "everything is settled on the field". For some reason people believe that when teams are in a win or go home situation the best team always comes out on top and if they don't then they don't deserve anything anyway.

College Football does a much better job getting the best teams in its championship game than NCAA basketball does, but most people won't accept it.

Then every sport in the world has a bullshit true champion.

Except, again, for FCS Division I, the only one which gets it right with the "mythical" national champion.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Atocep

The problem is college football has TOO MANY teams competing at the 1-A or even 1-AA levels to come close to crowning a "true champion" given the amount of games played and conference structures.

Once again, different discussion. This is a discussion of what is the best way to pick a champion with the current division in place.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Then every sport in the world has a bullshit true champion.

Except, again, for FCS Division I, the only one which gets it right with the "mythical" national champion.

The NFL has 32 teams and a 16 game schedule.

The NBA has 30 teams and an 82 game schedule.

MLB has 30 teams and a 162 game schedule.

NCAA football has 119 teams and a 12-13 game schedule.

See the difference?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I vote for watching them do that for the past several months...and then watching another round of the same for the month of December. Why have one when we can have both?

Because (among other reasons) the latter will greatly devalue the regular season, just as it has in college basketball.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Atocep

The NFL has 32 teams and a 16 game schedule.

The NBA has 30 teams and an 82 game schedule.

MLB has 30 teams and a 162 game schedule.

NCAA football has 119 teams and a 12-13 game schedule.

See the difference?

Nope. They're all the same--they don't play even schedules, and the NFL and MLB, just like NCAA football, does not have every team play the other team (at least the NBA has token home-and-home interconference matchups).

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Because (among other reasons) the latter will greatly devalue the regular season, just as it has in college basketball.

Give me the other reasons, because the one you present here means nada to me. Just eight spots are open in an eight-team playoff system. You really think the regular season loses a lot of value then? If you do, there's no point in me responding to you further on this issue.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Nope. They're all the same

I have trouble taking this statement seriously. I'm just going accept the fact that you just want a playoff for the sake of having a playoff.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Atocep

I have trouble taking this statement seriously. I'm just going accept the fact that you just want a playoff for the sake of having a playoff.

And I am going to accept that you will willingly ignore the value of a champion on the field--a value tested and proven through time in pretty much all other sports--for the sake of preserving your precious BCS.

[DeToxRox]

If there is ever a playoff, it'll only be 8 teams.

6 of those 8 teams will be from the ACC, Big East, Big 10, Big 12, Pac 10, SEC.

The other two are toss ups.

A playoff would make other conferences cease to exist.

Not sure how that is a positive.

And before you say "no it wouldn't, that is bullshit"

Those conferences control the power and the money. Never will they vote on a playoff system that takes away that from them.

[DeToxRox]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

And I am going to accept that you will willingly ignore the value of a champion on the field--a value tested and proven through time in pretty much all other sports--for the sake of preserving your precious BCS.

It's not feasible in college football.

Don't compare 1-AA to the BCS. There aren't millions of dollars involved in 1-AA like there are in the BCS.

In college hoops, you can play two rounds in a weekend, ditto for hockey and baseball.

It isn't possible in football and the NCAA cannot compete with the NFL playoffs. Neither will allow it, so what do you do? Push it back until after the SB?

The business aspect is why it cannot be done. It's that simple.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

And I am going to accept that you will willingly ignore the value of a champion on the field--a value tested and proven through time in pretty much all other sports--for the sake of preserving your precious BCS.

When you show me a way to determine a true champion given the limitations NCAA football has with scheduling and the number of teams at each level I'll listen.

[DeToxRox]

Originally Posted by Atocep

When you show me a way to determine a true champion given the limitations NCAA football has with scheduling and the number of teams at each level I'll listen.

Bingo.

The only option is to totally eliminator mid majors, and they're a main reason people want a playoff, because the little guy is always screwed

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

It's not feasible in college football.

Don't compare 1-AA to the BCS. There aren't millions of dollars involved in 1-AA like there are in the BCS.

In college hoops, you can play two rounds in a weekend, ditto for hockey and baseball.

It isn't possible in football and the NCAA cannot compete with the NFL playoffs. Neither will allow it, so what do you do? Push it back until after the SB?

The business aspect is why it cannot be done. It's that simple.

I am not just comparing it to 1-AA. I am comparing it to every sport currently played in a sports league. Division I is the only one to choose such a crap system for determining its champion.

What is the relevance on your point regarding college hoops, hockey, baseball, etc.? Until you explain further, I'm going to ignore that.

It is possible in football, and the NCAA doesn't need to compete with the NFL playoffs to get it done. Why would the NFL work against the NCAA doing its thing? Why would the NCAA bother to schedule important games directly against the NFL playoffs? You are making a ton of assumptions here to support your point that frankly have no basis in reality.

And once again, the business aspect is not what this discussion is about. I know there are logistical issues and money issues and big conference issues, etc. We have discussed that ad nauseum for years. This discussion, the one I am undertaking, involves which is the best way to determine a true champion.

It disheartening to see continuous straw man arguments being tossed out that have no relevance to the current discussion, becuase it's a waste of my time to respond to them.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

If there is ever a playoff, it'll only be 8 teams.

6 of those 8 teams will be from the ACC, Big East, Big 10, Big 12, Pac 10, SEC.

The other two are toss ups.

A playoff would make other conferences cease to exist.

Not sure how that is a positive.

And before you say "no it wouldn't, that is bullshit"

Those conferences control the power and the money. Never will they vote on a playoff system that takes away that from them.

It can be 16. Not sure it has to be 8.

And maybe if it is just 8, the conferences can be re-organized better so we don't have small fry-big fry conferences.

And once again, you bring up money and the big conference power. Yes, we know this, which is depressing. Once again, not relevant to a discussion on which way better determines a true champion.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Atocep

When you show me a way to determine a true champion given the limitations NCAA football has with scheduling and the number of teams at each level I'll listen.

Drop to 11 games regular season. Drop the conference championship games.

Take 16 teams. 11 champs, 5 at large. Or maybe something along the lines of 8 champs, with the Big Six getting automatics, and the best two of the non-BCS conferences getting the last two.

Start the playoffs the week of Christmas. Home games to the higher seeds.

Second week, normal BCS bowl time, do the quarters. Play the semis on the Saturday of NFL conference championships. Play the title game on the Saturday or Sunday in the two week break between the NFL conference championships and the Super Bowl.