Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As you know we used to have a bowl/poll game system for determining who the top team was. It was imperfect but a lot of fun as it usually led to great debates over who was the #1 team. Then we went to a lame SEC heavy title game format that was a total joke. Now we use a 4 team playoff system that is equally flawed as several one loss teams with more impressive resumes that others get left out. Realizing that we cannot have a true playoff system as things stand now as it would be too many games for the top teams. Football does take a toll on players. I work with a 3-time all-american linebacker and his shot for the pros ended as he just logged to many minutes in college and his body was beat down. Worse, top teams were encouraged to play each other and it was promised they wouldn't be punished. But we have now found out this was totally untrue- the Obamacare of college football.
My system is based on points. You are awarded points for wins and loses based on whether or not it is a conference game, home or away, or a ranked team if a non conference game. The 4 teams with the most points (or maybe 6 or 8) make the playoffs and this keep teams from playing 3 tomato cans at home year after year and just running up the score to look good.
So the question of debate is this... what system should be used and why?
Please tell me I'm not the only college football fan around here.
As you know we used to have a bowl/poll game system for determining who the top team was. It was imperfect but a lot of fun as it usually led to great debates over who was the #1 team. Then we went to a lame SEC heavy title game format that was a total joke.
The primary purpose of the BCS was to get #1 vs #2, and it was fairly successful at that (and as a consequence, only 1 split national championship from the start of the BCS, compared to 3 in the 8 years immediately preceding it). Yeah, the SEC was in the game a lot, but to me that was better than having the #1 or #2 team playing an inferior opponent due to conference tie-ins (Rose Bowl).
Quote:
Now we use a 4 team playoff system that is equally flawed as several one loss teams with more impressive resumes that others get left out.
I feel that 4 is better than 2, as there have been several seasons where more than two teams could easilly have been considered among the very best in the nation after the regular season (2011, 2009, 2007, 2006, and 2004 among others). A "playoff" of this sort should be as inclusive as possible within reason IMO.
Quote:
Realizing that we cannot have a true playoff system as things stand now as it would be too many games for the top teams. Football does take a toll on players.
The game does take a toll, but pretty much every other level of football runs a real playoff tournament, some of which are fairly large. FCS has 24 teams, D-II has 28, and D-III has 32. Even my state's high schools run 32-team brackets (but they play shorter games, at 12 minutes per quarter). I don't see the FBS ever going more than 8, but that's because the bowl committees have control over the process, and I believe that that's the maximum that they'd allow. (Note that FBS "championships" are not (and never have been) sanctioned by the NCAA; to this day, it's still all about the bowls and the polls, though they've done a good job at obscuring this.)
Quote:
I work with a 3-time all-american linebacker and his shot for the pros ended as he just logged to many minutes in college and his body was beat down. Worse, top teams were encouraged to play each other and it was promised they wouldn't be punished. But we have now found out this was totally untrue- the Obamacare of college football.
Big-time non-conference matchups (such as Michigan St. vs. Oregon this year) draw more attention, higher TV ratings, and thus more money for the schools and conferences than a typical "guarantee" game where a big school pays some small school (usually from their area) to visit and get beat down. They also help with strength-of-schedule, which becomes important for teams near the top of the rankings at the end of the season. The players themselves are a secondary concern, and will remain so as far as I can tell (though the NCAA is now allowing some things like guaranteed four-year scholarships, possibly as a response to threats like the Northwestern players attempt to unionize).
Quote:
My system is based on points. You are awarded points for wins and loses based on whether or not it is a conference game, home or away, or a ranked team if a non conference game. The 4 teams with the most points (or maybe 6 or 8) make the playoffs and this keep teams from playing 3 tomato cans at home year after year and just running up the score to look good.
You are proposing, in effect, a "computer" ranking (though not as complex as those that were used in the BCS). I'd like to see how your ranking would have worked for previous years; 2003, 2004, and 2009 would be particularly interesting.
Quote:
So the question of debate is this... what system should be used and why?
8-team playoff, either with auto-bids from the "big five" conferences plus three at-larges, or entirely decided by committee. It balances getting "deserving" teams in for most years, with avoiding the dilution of the bowl games as a vacation destination and a television product. (I don't like having to deal with that, but it's a reality. I am assuming that bowl sites would be used for the first round rather than campus sites, though the latter would be okay with me too.)
Quote:
Please tell me I'm not the only college football fan around here.
You're not, but I think that this post would go over better on the College Football forum.
Expanding to 8 or even 6 teams would settle the question each year. In a 6 team playoff, the 1 and 2 seeds could draw a bye in the first round. Then face the lowest seeded teams from the first two contests.
Expanding to 8 or even 6 teams would settle the question each year. In a 6 team playoff, the 1 and 2 seeds could draw a bye in the first round. Then face the lowest seeded teams from the first two contests.
If you expand to 6 you may as well go to 8.
It adds no extra week and just eliminates the bye idea.
One thing CFB learned from last year was that the CFB games raked in the CASH.
So in addition to gaining no real tangible benefit from expanding to 6 rather than 8 you get one more mega $$ game.
If you go 8 there is no way one of the best teams could be left out.
With 6 the scenario is unlikely but less so than with 8.
Expanding to 8 or even 6 teams would settle the question each year. In a 6 team playoff, the 1 and 2 seeds could draw a bye in the first round. Then face the lowest seeded teams from the first two contests.
If we went this way, my thinking is to award an automatic spot to the BCS conference champions, regardless of record. This might encourage them to play a better non conference schedule. Then have 2 other teams added per a point system.
I have pretty much lost my interest in football, not like my almost total disinterest in the MLB or the NBA or NHL, but yes pretty bad. I can't watch a whole football game anymore. Commercials upon commercials has made it unwatchable. Add to that the bad refereeing and lack of player discipline. Its more than I can stand. I have better things to do with 4 hours of a Sat. or Sun. That being said, no playoff system is perfect. Look at the NCAA tournament, which I also don't watch, and there's always crying by some team that didn't make the 64 team field. So I really don't care what the system is. Who then is the best team? Who really cares? The fun is gone out of most sports. All the money and publicity ruins it. I'd rather watch a good HS game, or even small college teams play. What happened to just fun. The media has to turn everything into a contest so they can sell tickets.
As you know we used to have a bowl/poll game system for determining who the top team was. It was imperfect but a lot of fun as it usually led to great debates over who was the #1 team. Then we went to a lame SEC heavy title game format that was a total joke. Now we use a 4 team playoff system that is equally flawed as several one loss teams with more impressive resumes that others get left out. Realizing that we cannot have a true playoff system as things stand now as it would be too many games for the top teams. Football does take a toll on players. I work with a 3-time all-american linebacker and his shot for the pros ended as he just logged to many minutes in college and his body was beat down. Worse, top teams were encouraged to play each other and it was promised they wouldn't be punished. But we have now found out this was totally untrue- the Obamacare of college football.
My system is based on points. You are awarded points for wins and loses based on whether or not it is a conference game, home or away, or a ranked team if a non conference game. The 4 teams with the most points (or maybe 6 or 8) make the playoffs and this keep teams from playing 3 tomato cans at home year after year and just running up the score to look good.
So the question of debate is this... what system should be used and why?
Please tell me I'm not the only college football fan around here.
Hmm..your idea sounds basically like a Computer Poll, which we already have.
I think the current system is about as good a one as we're gonna get. The thing is, the fact that this is COLLEGE football is in itself prohibitive of implementing the one method which would truly and definitely determine a true National Champion.
And that method would of course be a more comprehensive playoff system at the end of the season, like the NFL has. With more teams getting into it, rather than only the Top Four. It could be a scaled-down version of March Madness, but beginning with only the Great Eight.
But the problem is, it would take too long. We must remember that these are college kids. They have classes. Plus we don't need to force them to play more games and exact more of a toll n them physically.
So I think a bit of debate about who the BEST team is is always a good thing. Keeps things lively. The current BCS format is better than it used to be, and way better than back in the day when there was nothing except the geographically-determined Bowl Games.
IOW, it's about as good as it's gonna get. Let's leave it like this, and enjoy it.
And also enjoy the friendly banter about the unfairness of it! LOL.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
