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.
I see improvement, not anytime soon, but in a few years I imagine the playoffs will be bigger, than a few years longer even bigger.
I was just saying that the current 4 team playoff format is locked in until 2025. Nothing is changing until then. These things always expand. CFB takes it's sweet time though. The bcs 2 team playoff was cool. The 4 team playoff will be better IMO.
I was just saying that the current 4 team playoff format is locked in until 2025. Nothing is changing until then. These things always expand. CFB takes it's sweet time though. The bcs 2 team playoff was cool. The 4 team playoff will be better IMO.
I know. That is what I meant by a few years. When they can, assuming the new system works and I think it will, they should expand it. Then perhaps expand it again.
The BCS was terrible, but better than the system before it. It wasnt a playoff either, it was a championship. The new system is a very small playoff.
The BCS was fine.
People think of the BCS as a single mechanism, but I really see two distinct components to it. One is a goal/result of producing a 2 team bracket/playoff/championship (semantics) . The other was the method or formula for deciding who those 2 teams were out of 120+ teams who only play a dozen games each.
There is/was an additional minor side component related to deciding what other teams got to go to certain bowls.
The formula was tweaked numerous times over it's decade-plus life, which may or may not have produced 'better' results, but at the end of the day, you're asking for a method to tell who the best 2 teams are, to match them against each other. And with so few common opponents it's often going to come down to opinion and subjectivity. Could a committee have picked 'better' match-ups? maybe. maybe not. That's still going to come down to subjectivity.
The big improvement for next year is simply that they're picking the top 4 instead of top 2. I think that is a much more important change than having a committee instead of a formula. They could have kept the formula and process and expanded the teams from 2 to 4 and I think we'd all be just as happy.
I don't understand hatred for the bcs. Was it the formula method of selection you hated? or the fact that it only produced a 2-team bracket? We were never going to get to a 4/8/16 team playoff without first getting to 2. If the bcs had never come along, we would not be looking at a 4-team playoff next year.
The "bcs" was a good and necessary stepping stone, to "break the ice", as it were, on bowls with decades of traditional conference tie-ins to start letting go just a bit, so that we could get the best teams playing each other at the end.
I'm just saying, there were times where Big12 teams weren't even given a chance to compete in the national championship, just based on the SEC's reputation. I thought that wasn't fair. I thought Oklahoma State vs Bama, would've been a better game than LSU vs Bama re-match. And while dominated wasn't the right choice of words, Mizzou and Texas A&M HELD THEIR OWN in the SEC. Texas A&M beat Bama their 1st year, and then played em' close the 2nd year. For as much as people say the top teams in other conferences wouldn't hang in the SEC, alot of non-SEC teams have given the top SEC teams some close games, or have flat-out beaten them. The SEC had a great run, but I don't think they are leaps and bounds better than other conferences. Why should Ole Miss, Miss State, Vandy, or Tennessee feel any superior to anyone else, just because Nick Saban is a great coach.
Vandy has finished the last 2 years ranked in the top 25. So they can legitimately feel superior to all the teams who are not in the top 25.
The BCS was fine.
People think of the BCS as a single mechanism, but I really see two distinct components to it. One is a goal/result of producing a 2 team bracket/playoff/championship (semantics) . The other was the method or formula for deciding who those 2 teams were out of 120+ teams who only play a dozen games each.
There is/was an additional minor side component related to deciding what other teams got to go to certain bowls.
The formula was tweaked numerous times over it's decade-plus life, which may or may not have produced 'better' results, but at the end of the day, you're asking for a method to tell who the best 2 teams are, to match them against each other. And with so few common opponents it's often going to come down to opinion and subjectivity. Could a committee have picked 'better' match-ups? maybe. maybe not. That's still going to come down to subjectivity.
The big improvement for next year is simply that they're picking the top 4 instead of top 2. I think that is a much more important change than having a committee instead of a formula. They could have kept the formula and process and expanded the teams from 2 to 4 and I think we'd all be just as happy.
I don't understand hatred for the bcs. Was it the formula method of selection you hated? or the fact that it only produced a 2-team bracket? We were never going to get to a 4/8/16 team playoff without first getting to 2. If the bcs had never come along, we would not be looking at a 4-team playoff next year.
The "bcs" was a good and necessary stepping stone, to "break the ice", as it were, on bowls with decades of traditional conference tie-ins to start letting go just a bit, so that we could get the best teams playing each other at the end.
The bcs was no better than pre-bcs. It many ways it was far worse. It was still subjective and didnt solve arguments for other teams being deserving. And it was worse than pre-bcs because it legitimized only one bowl game. Damning all others to be exhibition games. At least pre-bcs you had the benefit of the bowl games to help determine the best team. Im sure Michigan State and Oklahoma would love to play FSU now for the title....
The bcs was no better than pre-bcs. It many ways it was far worse. It was still subjective and didnt solve arguments for other teams being deserving. And it was worse than pre-bcs because it legitimized only one bowl game. Damning all others to be exhibition games. At least pre-bcs you had the benefit of the bowl games to help determine the best team. Im sure Michigan State and Oklahoma would love to play FSU now for the title....
Your last two sentences aren't accurate at all. Pre BCS neither MSU nor OK would have played each other, or FSU, or Auburn. All four of those teams would have been tied into separate bowls, so the bowls would most certainly not have helped determine the best team.
Although possibly in the mid-90's timeframe, immediately preceding the BCS, they may have been allowed to match up via the short-lived 'bowl alliance' or 'bowl coalition'. But there was no structure in place that attempted to match the top 2 teams in the nation.
So if you're in favor of traditional bowl matchups, with no playoff system at all, and #1 vs #2 only occasionally playing each other, when they happen to be from certain conferences, then that's fine. Personally I like a little more certainty in deciding the champion of a sport- play it on the field instead of deciding it by voters. Pre-bcs the champion was voted on. ugh.
Pre-bcs, *all* bowl games could be considered exhibition games. During the bcs at least one of the bowl games got to be something more substantial. And now starting next year several bowl games get to be more meaningful each year.
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.
