The BCS Debate

GURU ANT · 11-12-2007, 05:53 PM

Alright, since we all have our opinoins about hte BCS (mostly negative), I decided to create a topic to discuss it.

Basically, the premise is this:

Do you like the BCS System?
If yes, what about it
If no, how would you change it? What would you do for the NCAA to alter the BCS system?

**Crazyswordsman** · 11-12-2007, 07:15 PM

1. No, I hate, hate, HATE the BCS system

I would scrap the BCS entirely and create a 16 team playoff. It would feature 8 automatic bids going to:
1. The Big East champion
2. The ACC champion
3. The SEC champion
4. The Big Ten champion
5. The Little 12 champion
6. The Pac-10 champion
7. The WAC champion
8. This bid would go to either the highest ranked champion of one of the other four conferences, or the highest ranked independent, whichever is higher.

Then, there would be 8 at-large bids. -CSM

ShyGuy727 · 11-12-2007, 07:29 PM

1. It's good in certain situations and has done it's job a couple of times, but in general, no. However...

2. I'm for taking the Top 4 teams according to the BCS computers and having a 4 team playoff (1 vs 4, 2 vs 3). However, I would also get rid of that 12th game the NCAA recently added to allow a weekend where any undefeated team not in the top 4 could play the #4 team for their spot. You could easily preserve the four major bowls since there would be four playoff games, just rotate which one gets to be the NC game. And then the current bowl system could stay in place for everyone outside the top 4.

I win.

The problems I have with a playoff any larger than 4 teams is that, of course, it cheapens the regular season and you're either going to have to get rid of 2-3+ regular season games or have the season go into the 3rd and 4th weekends of January (and the season already go too late IMO, the NC should be no later than 1/3)

GURU ANT · 11-12-2007, 08:04 PM

I'm all for playoffs of course.

I would take the champion of EACH conference and maybe 4 wildcards out of the rest of the pool.

Let me pose this question to you SG, what about the FCS of the NCAA Division 1 football? That has seemed to work pretty well.

**Crazyswordsman** · 11-12-2007, 08:31 PM

^Yeah, I know. And the schools who are supposed to be de-emphasizing sports are playing more than the schools who emphasize them, isn't that weird?

If there was a team from every conference in the tourney, the Sun Belt champion would be in last place. I honestly think there are some I-AA conferences that are stronger than the Sun Belt. -CSM

Lurch1982 · 11-12-2007, 09:28 PM

32 teams, 11 automatic bids for conference champions. Everyone else is at large.

27 bowls plus 4 BCS bowls = 31 sites.

(R1)16 + (R2)8 + (R3)4 + (R4)2 + (R5)1 = 31 sites.

Problem with the 8 team stemming out of the majors is that you run into the issue of robbing a championship matchup when the top two (or three or four) teams are in one conference and the others are on downyears.

SG, it goes too long because they take like 2 months off from the end of the regular season till the Big Game at the End.

The NCAA Basketball Tourny cheapens the regular season? Since when? If anything, it makes it more compelling, especially since they tweaked the RPI system to benefit teams from actually scheduling quality opponents. If anything, more spots would make the season still worth watching. Take Michigan for example: Their season was over the second they dropped that turd in the Big House to Appy State. Under a 32 team tourny, they're not out and still have a legit shot to wind up at the end hoisting up that ugly trophey.

GURU ANT · 11-12-2007, 10:02 PM

11 Conference Champions, they get automatic bids based on records, SoS, PE, PA, etc, like NFL tiebreakers, top two get a bye. The only problem this would present would be where to put the Independents, do you place them in a Conference for tourney sake or what?

As for the others, 19 teams, total of 30

R1 (28) - R2 (16) R3 (8) R4 (4) R5 (2)
Round 1
#32 v. #3
#31 v. #4
#30 v. #5
etc.

Round 2
#1 v. Lowest Seed
#2 v. Second lowest seed
And commence pairing.

**Crazyswordsman** · 11-12-2007, 10:53 PM

I know. And under the basketball system, teams that perform well down the stretch get leeway over teams that choke. Here are two examples from last year (basketball):

Look at Michigan. They blew a few big games. If they won even one of those games, they would've been dancing and would have had a winning record in the Big Ten. But they blew it down the stretch and lost to a very beatable Ohio State team.

Next, look at Maryland. They had some nice, quality wins early on in their OoC schedule, which included wins over Illinois, Winthrop, and most importantly, Sparty. Then the conference schedule started. They dropped games to Virginia, VT, and even ACC bottomdweller/hick schools Clemson and FSU, and even the even more down in the dumps Miami. They were 3-6 in the ACC and they looked to be out. But then they startled a highly ranked archrival Duke team at home, and began a 7 game win streak which would feature a revenge victory over Clemson, another win over Duke AT K-Ville, and probably most importantly, a win over top ranked UNC at home. They went 10-6 in the ACC and went dancing solely because of that streak (and as I always said during that time, WHY THE HELL WAS MARYLAND NOT RANKED UNTIL THEY BEAT DUKE FOR THE SECOND TIME!?).

In football you need to reward these teams that improve as the season goes on. This is why you need a playoff and we need to do away with these polls. -CSM

ShyGuy727 · 11-13-2007, 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lurch1982

The NCAA Basketball Tourny cheapens the regular season? Since when?

I never said that. Basketball is different because there is almost triple the number of teams and the regular season is 30+ games long, not 12.

ShyGuy727 · 11-16-2007, 02:42 PM

Two more things I'd change:

Either every conference has a championship game, or none of them do. The only reason they exist is to make money, and the team with the better record has nothing to gain by winning but has everything to lose- see Kansas State-Oklahoma in 2003.

If we're keeping the BCS, get rid of the Coaches Poll in the formula. Coaches, if they're lucky, get a chance to maybe see one game besides their own on Saturdays. They don't have time to breakdown the nuances of the Arizona State offense and how it would fare against Oregon's secondary. Hell, if you're reading this, you're probably more qualified to vote in a poll than the coaches.

Lurch1982 · 11-16-2007, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShyGuy727

I never said that. Basketball is different because there is almost triple the number of teams and the regular season is 30+ games long, not 12.

The NFL is 16 games long and their playoffs don't cheapen the regular season.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShyGuy727

Two more things I'd change:

Either every conference has a championship game, or none of them do. The only reason they exist is to make money, and the team with the better record has nothing to gain by winning but has everything to lose- see Kansas State-Oklahoma in 2003.

If we're keeping the BCS, get rid of the Coaches Poll in the formula. Coaches, if they're lucky, get a chance to maybe see one game besides their own on Saturdays. They don't have time to breakdown the nuances of the Arizona State offense and how it would fare against Oregon's secondary. Hell, if you're reading this, you're probably more qualified to vote in a poll than the coaches.

Agree to both. The Pac-10 and Little 11 need a championship game. They have enough teams for it.

Never been a fan of the coach's poll.

**Crazyswordsman** · 11-16-2007, 07:38 PM

The reason the Pac-10 doesn't have a title game is they play a round robin all year. Everyone plays everyone.

The Little 11 doesn't have a title game because they have an odd number of teams. At times, they've been trying to get a 12th member. You need two divisions. And usually it's Michigan and Ohio State playing for the title anyway.

The main problem with the coach's poll is that they use a lot of political leverage based on their personal subjective opinions on how much teams suck. -CSM

GURU ANT · 11-18-2007, 06:52 PM

...They could come get us out the C-USA, then proceed to roll us every season.

ShyGuy727 · 11-18-2007, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lurch1982

Agree to both. The Pac-10 and Little 11 need a championship game. They have enough teams for it.

Isn't it a requirement to have 12 teams before you can host a conference championship game?

And the Big Ten already has one, we just choose to call it Ohio State-Michigan.

**Crazyswordsman** · 11-20-2007, 08:09 AM

^No, it's a requirement to have an even number of teams so you can make divisions. The Pac 10 decided to have a round robin instead. -CSM

11-12-2007, 05:53 PM	#1
GURU ANT What's this what's this a trick with a twist? Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Shhhh, it's a secret right now Gender: Posts: 13,619 Thanks: 1,146 Thanked 757 Times in 438 Posts Points: 25,845.80 Bank: 1,348,323.25 Total Points: 1,374,169.05 Donate	The BCS Debate Alright, since we all have our opinoins about hte BCS (mostly negative), I decided to create a topic to discuss it. Basically, the premise is this: Do you like the BCS System? If yes, what about it If no, how would you change it? What would you do for the NCAA to alter the BCS system?

11-12-2007, 07:15 PM	#2
Crazyswordsman RPG Mod Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Booyaville (yeah!) Gender: Posts: 8,584 Thanks: 633 Thanked 471 Times in 311 Posts Points: 167,275.15 Bank: 77,775.54 Total Points: 245,050.69 Donate	1. No, I hate, hate, HATE the BCS system I would scrap the BCS entirely and create a 16 team playoff. It would feature 8 automatic bids going to: 1. The Big East champion 2. The ACC champion 3. The SEC champion 4. The Big Ten champion 5. The Little 12 champion 6. The Pac-10 champion 7. The WAC champion 8. This bid would go to either the highest ranked champion of one of the other four conferences, or the highest ranked independent, whichever is higher. Then, there would be 8 at-large bids. -CSM

11-12-2007, 07:29 PM	#3
ShyGuy727 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: O-H! I-O! Gender: Posts: 10,061 Thanks: 37 Thanked 62 Times in 46 Posts Points: 32,216.98 Bank: 25,651.08 Total Points: 57,868.06 Donate	1. It's good in certain situations and has done it's job a couple of times, but in general, no. However... 2. I'm for taking the Top 4 teams according to the BCS computers and having a 4 team playoff (1 vs 4, 2 vs 3). However, I would also get rid of that 12th game the NCAA recently added to allow a weekend where any undefeated team not in the top 4 could play the #4 team for their spot. You could easily preserve the four major bowls since there would be four playoff games, just rotate which one gets to be the NC game. And then the current bowl system could stay in place for everyone outside the top 4. I win. The problems I have with a playoff any larger than 4 teams is that, of course, it cheapens the regular season and you're either going to have to get rid of 2-3+ regular season games or have the season go into the 3rd and 4th weekends of January (and the season already go too late IMO, the NC should be no later than 1/3)

11-12-2007, 08:04 PM	#4
GURU ANT What's this what's this a trick with a twist? Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Shhhh, it's a secret right now Gender: Posts: 13,619 Thanks: 1,146 Thanked 757 Times in 438 Posts Points: 25,845.80 Bank: 1,348,323.25 Total Points: 1,374,169.05 Donate	I'm all for playoffs of course. I would take the champion of EACH conference and maybe 4 wildcards out of the rest of the pool. Let me pose this question to you SG, what about the FCS of the NCAA Division 1 football? That has seemed to work pretty well.

11-12-2007, 08:31 PM	#5
Crazyswordsman RPG Mod Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Booyaville (yeah!) Gender: Posts: 8,584 Thanks: 633 Thanked 471 Times in 311 Posts Points: 167,275.15 Bank: 77,775.54 Total Points: 245,050.69 Donate	^Yeah, I know. And the schools who are supposed to be de-emphasizing sports are playing more than the schools who emphasize them, isn't that weird? If there was a team from every conference in the tourney, the Sun Belt champion would be in last place. I honestly think there are some I-AA conferences that are stronger than the Sun Belt. -CSM

11-12-2007, 09:28 PM	#6
Lurch1982 Senior Member Join Date: May 2000 Location: Katrinaland, USA Gender: Posts: 9,278 Thanks: 122 Thanked 253 Times in 140 Posts Points: 36,419.03 Bank: 338,725.11 Total Points: 375,144.14 Donate	32 teams, 11 automatic bids for conference champions. Everyone else is at large. 27 bowls plus 4 BCS bowls = 31 sites. (R1)16 + (R2)8 + (R3)4 + (R4)2 + (R5)1 = 31 sites. Problem with the 8 team stemming out of the majors is that you run into the issue of robbing a championship matchup when the top two (or three or four) teams are in one conference and the others are on downyears. SG, it goes too long because they take like 2 months off from the end of the regular season till the Big Game at the End. The NCAA Basketball Tourny cheapens the regular season? Since when? If anything, it makes it more compelling, especially since they tweaked the RPI system to benefit teams from actually scheduling quality opponents. If anything, more spots would make the season still worth watching. Take Michigan for example: Their season was over the second they dropped that turd in the Big House to Appy State. Under a 32 team tourny, they're not out and still have a legit shot to wind up at the end hoisting up that ugly trophey.

11-12-2007, 10:02 PM	#7
GURU ANT What's this what's this a trick with a twist? Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Shhhh, it's a secret right now Gender: Posts: 13,619 Thanks: 1,146 Thanked 757 Times in 438 Posts Points: 25,845.80 Bank: 1,348,323.25 Total Points: 1,374,169.05 Donate	11 Conference Champions, they get automatic bids based on records, SoS, PE, PA, etc, like NFL tiebreakers, top two get a bye. The only problem this would present would be where to put the Independents, do you place them in a Conference for tourney sake or what? As for the others, 19 teams, total of 30 R1 (28) - R2 (16) R3 (8) R4 (4) R5 (2) Round 1 #32 v. #3 #31 v. #4 #30 v. #5 etc. Round 2 #1 v. Lowest Seed #2 v. Second lowest seed And commence pairing.

11-12-2007, 10:53 PM	#8
Crazyswordsman RPG Mod Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Booyaville (yeah!) Gender: Posts: 8,584 Thanks: 633 Thanked 471 Times in 311 Posts Points: 167,275.15 Bank: 77,775.54 Total Points: 245,050.69 Donate	I know. And under the basketball system, teams that perform well down the stretch get leeway over teams that choke. Here are two examples from last year (basketball): Look at Michigan. They blew a few big games. If they won even one of those games, they would've been dancing and would have had a winning record in the Big Ten. But they blew it down the stretch and lost to a very beatable Ohio State team. Next, look at Maryland. They had some nice, quality wins early on in their OoC schedule, which included wins over Illinois, Winthrop, and most importantly, Sparty. Then the conference schedule started. They dropped games to Virginia, VT, and even ACC bottomdweller/hick schools Clemson and FSU, and even the even more down in the dumps Miami. They were 3-6 in the ACC and they looked to be out. But then they startled a highly ranked archrival Duke team at home, and began a 7 game win streak which would feature a revenge victory over Clemson, another win over Duke AT K-Ville, and probably most importantly, a win over top ranked UNC at home. They went 10-6 in the ACC and went dancing solely because of that streak (and as I always said during that time, WHY THE HELL WAS MARYLAND NOT RANKED UNTIL THEY BEAT DUKE FOR THE SECOND TIME!?). In football you need to reward these teams that improve as the season goes on. This is why you need a playoff and we need to do away with these polls. -CSM

11-16-2007, 02:42 PM	#10
ShyGuy727 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: O-H! I-O! Gender: Posts: 10,061 Thanks: 37 Thanked 62 Times in 46 Posts Points: 32,216.98 Bank: 25,651.08 Total Points: 57,868.06 Donate	Two more things I'd change: Either every conference has a championship game, or none of them do. The only reason they exist is to make money, and the team with the better record has nothing to gain by winning but has everything to lose- see Kansas State-Oklahoma in 2003. If we're keeping the BCS, get rid of the Coaches Poll in the formula. Coaches, if they're lucky, get a chance to maybe see one game besides their own on Saturdays. They don't have time to breakdown the nuances of the Arizona State offense and how it would fare against Oregon's secondary. Hell, if you're reading this, you're probably more qualified to vote in a poll than the coaches.

11-16-2007, 07:38 PM	#12
Crazyswordsman RPG Mod Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Booyaville (yeah!) Gender: Posts: 8,584 Thanks: 633 Thanked 471 Times in 311 Posts Points: 167,275.15 Bank: 77,775.54 Total Points: 245,050.69 Donate	The reason the Pac-10 doesn't have a title game is they play a round robin all year. Everyone plays everyone. The Little 11 doesn't have a title game because they have an odd number of teams. At times, they've been trying to get a 12th member. You need two divisions. And usually it's Michigan and Ohio State playing for the title anyway. The main problem with the coach's poll is that they use a lot of political leverage based on their personal subjective opinions on how much teams suck. -CSM

11-18-2007, 06:52 PM	#13
GURU ANT What's this what's this a trick with a twist? Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Shhhh, it's a secret right now Gender: Posts: 13,619 Thanks: 1,146 Thanked 757 Times in 438 Posts Points: 25,845.80 Bank: 1,348,323.25 Total Points: 1,374,169.05 Donate	...They could come get us out the C-USA, then proceed to roll us every season.

11-20-2007, 08:09 AM	#15
Crazyswordsman RPG Mod Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Booyaville (yeah!) Gender: Posts: 8,584 Thanks: 633 Thanked 471 Times in 311 Posts Points: 167,275.15 Bank: 77,775.54 Total Points: 245,050.69 Donate	^No, it's a requirement to have an even number of teams so you can make divisions. The Pac 10 decided to have a round robin instead. -CSM