Post-season Play-offs

[colorado_loves_football]

The BCS has nothing to do with who gets selected to any bowl game past the BCS bowls. None of the rest of the bowls have anything to do with the BCS. The Rose, Orange, Fiesta, and Sugar bowls are the only bowls affiliated with the BCS.

I understand how the BCS is organized, but they are inter-related. Who the BCS picks has a 'huge' bearing on who the other bowls select, one reason why I would like for there to be a 'cap' on the number of 'major' teams they can pick, at 6, is because they don't need to 'monopolize' all the New Year's Day bowl games. You say you support tradition, but if anything 'trashes' it it's the BCS. I don't necessarily object to the idea of having each bowl pick whichever two teams it wants, that's fair but do it in a way that honors tradition. That's what makes my proposal so much better than any other one, I have seen, mine honors bowl tradition so much better!
I don't simply pick the ten 'best' teams, which is what the BCS does, I say let the conferences have a representative, a team like FSU, or even Pittsburgh in 2004, provided they meet the criteria. Then extend that to any team, anywhere, again as long as they are sufficiently qualified.
I don't want the BCS to be a 'weak' grouping of teams, if anything I want to represent the best of the NCAA.
But that isn't going to happen, until there is greater access, for every team. I've already mentioned this and so there is'nt really reason to keep debating it, but it is too restrictive, it doesn't allow a team opportunity to compete for a national championship. That's a major shortcoming, whether or not you believe the way it selects teams is ok.
I don't know that I even care what process is applied, but allow the ten teams 'fair' opportunity to win a national championship. Thats' only fair.
As far as the BCS not having a say in what happens in other bowls, thats wrong, you must just not understand how those bowls are organized.
The BCS has such influence, the other bowls are affected so much, they have to make conference 'tie-ins' to secure their bowl of a good pairing of teams. If you don't believe me, ask anyone who understands.
They basically are at the mercy of the BCS, one exception, however was the Houston Bowl, they were 'free' to invite TCU, because TCU wasn't a BCS team. They likely took a chance on Iowa St, they were supposed to win the Big XII N. Division, but didn't. The Ft. Worth Bowl, had a 'conditional' invitation for New Mexico, had Kansas lost, as they were expected to. Their winning simply kept New Mexico out of a bowl. Iowa St, stood to gain nothing by beating Kansas, and that might be one reason why they lost. They were Houston Bowl bound, regardless.

[Spence]

I understand how the BCS is organized, but they are inter-related. Who the BCS picks has a 'huge' bearing on who the other bowls select, one reason why I would like for there to be a 'cap' on the number of 'major' teams they can pick, at 6, is because they don't need to 'monopolize' all the New Year's Day bowl games. You say you support tradition, but if anything 'trashes' it it's the BCS. I don't necessarily object to the idea of having each bowl pick whichever two teams it wants, that's fair but do it in a way that honors tradition. That's what makes my proposal so much better than any other one, I have seen, mine honors bowl tradition so much better!
I don't simply pick the ten 'best' teams, which is what the BCS does, I say let the conferences have a representative, a team like FSU, or even Pittsburgh in 2004, provided they meet the criteria. Then extend that to any team, anywhere, again as long as they are sufficiently qualified.
I don't want the BCS to be a 'weak' grouping of teams, if anything I want to represent the best of the NCAA.
But that isn't going to happen, until there is greater access, for every team. I've already mentioned this and so there is'nt really reason to keep debating it, but it is too restrictive, it doesn't allow a team opportunity to compete for a national championship. That's a major shortcoming, whether or not you believe the way it selects teams is ok.

I don't understand your thinking of what is fair. It is like the system some high schools go by that says everyone who goes out for a sport should make it. No they shouldn't. Sports is about competition. Striving to be the best. If you take that out of the equation it is like playing Tic Tac Toe, a fultile game that no one actually wins. The 10 (or pick the #) top teams should go. The teams who play and win the best schedules should be the teams considered the best. This promotes everyone playing better competition. That is what sports is about. The quest to be the best.

[Spence]

ooops, I did want to reply to Jason G. I agree that the big schools shouldn't only schedule each other in non-conf. That would not leave the smaller schools a chance to schedule any big schools and prove they belong w/ the big schools like everyone has been saying. If out of 4 ooc games bigger schools schedule 1-2 other bigger schools, and the other 2 mid-majors, that would be agreeable to me.

I would consider any D1 school fine for OOC for Alabama, but I would like to see at least 1 bigname team per year.

If everyone they played two majors and two mid majors, then it would be a lot easier to determine who belongs and who doesn't. If they played 2 each of their counterparts in the other conferences, like I have been saying, it would be simple to know who are the best teams. That gives everyone a truely equal shot. To be the best by beating the best. I can't image an athlete in the world that wouldn't want a system like that.

[colorado_loves_football]

I don't understand your thinking of what is fair. It is like the system some high schools go by that says everyone who goes out for a sport should make it. No they shouldn't. Sports is about competition. Striving to be the best. If you take that out of the equation it is like playing Tic Tac Toe, a fultile game that no one actually wins. The 10 (or pick the #) top teams should go. The teams who play and win the best schedules should be the teams considered the best. This promotes everyone playing better competition. That is what sports is about. The quest to be the best.

Ok, Spence, now apply your argument to the NCAA's presently and see how far you get. I imagine a Big Ten team would be represented UNFAIRLY, given how well Iowa (Big Ten Champion) fared.
And it doesn't stop and end there.
Illinois, last year's #2 overall lost, so did Michigan State, actually nearly every team lost, early, even Air Force made it tough on Illinois, but I said I give Illinois 'credit' for beating them, but if your argument was valid, Illinois probably shouldn't have even been playing Air Force.
According to your argument, only ONE team, Memphis would be represented in the NCAA 'final' grouping. Bradley certainly wouldn't be there. George Mason & Wichita St, wouldn't have a prayer.
In MY proposal, it's likely all four teams would be represented in some fashion, not to brag, but the facts support it. Iowa would also be represented (Big Ten Champions). So would Duke (ACC Champions),
Connecticut (Big East Champions) UCLA (Pac Ten Champions) , actually ANY conference champion would be assured a spot in my proposal. It WORKS! Nobody can convince me any differently.
Incidentally, Spence, of those 4 teams (George Mason, Wichita St, Memphis, Bradley) two of them are 'assured' a spot in the 'elite 8'.
That's the 'equivalent' of the traditonal BCS. 2/8 or 25% are assured a spot. That's interesting because it's also EXACTLY how many my proposal would select.
I'm not making this up. Maybe it's just a coincidence, but convince me somehow those teams aren't 'deserving' of a spot. You can't.

[Spence]

Ok, Spence, now apply your argument to the NCAA's presently and see how far you get. I imagine a Big Ten team would be represented UNFAIRLY, given how well Iowa (Big Ten Champion) fared.
And it doesn't stop and end there.
Illinois, last year's #2 overall lost, so did Michigan State, actually nearly every team lost, early, even Air Force made it tough on Illinois, but I said I give Illinois 'credit' for beating them, but if your argument was valid, Illinois probably shouldn't have even been playing Air Force.
According to your argument, only ONE team, Memphis would be represented in the NCAA 'final' grouping. Bradley certainly wouldn't be there. George Mason & Wichita St, wouldn't have a prayer.

That about says it. No B-10 team probably should have made it. I have no problem with not having any guaranteed spots aside from one and two in the BCS. The best teams shoud play period.

[Jason G]

Rolltide and Spence, I certainly agree with both of you. I just hope that with all the emphasis being placed on strength of schedule that it doesn't totally lead the schools from the BCS conferences away from scheduling the non-BCS schools. If non-BCS schools get more opportunities to play bigger name programs, especially at home, then they in turn will become bigger players on the national landscape thus making them a more attractive opponent in terms of schedule strength in the future. It could create an upward spiral in much the same way that it can be a vicious cycle the other way when they are constantly shut out.
It seems to me that if there are 119 teams in 1-A then 119 teams should have equal opportunity in scheduling and the like.

[Spence]

I think it helps mid majors. All teams looking to boost their SOS want to play teams that will get a lot of wins. Take Boise St. and TCU. They will have several major conference teams wanting to play them. If they schedule the better mid majors and win, then all the rest of that teams wins carries with them. It works both ways. The major conferences need the mid majors as bad as the mid majors need the majors. Take this year, Ohio State would have gotten more SOS respect scheduling TCU and winning then if they had scheduled Washington. When I say schedule your peers in OOC games I mean if you finish in the top 3 of your conference then schedule OOC games with other teams that usually finish in the top 3 of their conference.

What conference a team belongs to doesn't have anything to do with how good they are, it just gives you a better gauge of how good they are. That is why I have always liked how the MAC schedules and it is paying off, midwest recruits that feel they don't get enough attention from the big boys are signing with the MAC instead of trying to walk on at a major conference team. The MAC haas had some wonderfull players come down the pike in the last 6 or 8 years. Teams like BG and Miami have been right on the edge of greatness. It will happen one of these days because the MAC has a good plan.

[colorado_loves_football]

I think the 'scheduling' argument is tired, personally.
MAC teams should play MAC teams. C-USA teams, C-USA teams.
OOC games are almost so inconsequential as to be considered irrelevant.
If I was in the MAC I'd be a lot more concerned about beating a confernece rival than I would be beating Michigan St. And that's how it ought to be, unless Kent St has 'aspirations' of being admitted to the Big Ten.
But, if you all want to believe that somehow beating a team in the Big Ten makes you 'better' then there's not a lot I can do about it. I believe a team is 'better' when they win their conference. Ask N. Illinois how much those non-confernece games helped them. Not that much, unless you think close losses to Northwestern and Michigan made them better. They couldn't beat Akron, I think that's a lot more important than beating any Big Ten team.

[Spence]

I think the 'scheduling' argument is tired, personally.
MAC teams should play MAC teams. C-USA teams, C-USA teams.
OOC games are almost so inconsequential as to be considered irrelevant.
If I was in the MAC I'd be a lot more concerned about beating a confernece rival than I would be beating Michigan St. And that's how it ought to be, unless Kent St has 'aspirations' of being admitted to the Big Ten.
But, if you all want to believe that somehow beating a team in the Big Ten makes you 'better' then there's not a lot I can do about it. I believe a team is 'better' when they win their conference. Ask N. Illinois how much those non-confernece games helped them. Not that much, unless you think close losses to Northwestern and Michigan made them better. They couldn't beat Akron, I think that's a lot more important than beating any Big Ten team.

The scheduling argument is tired because it doesn't fit into your plan. The fact is it is fair. It is the only way to judge teams between conferences. If you used your logic then any team from any conference in all of college football could argue that they were good enough to play in the championship game. It isn't a logical argument and I don't know anyone who would except a proposal that doesn't address how good a team is before letting them into a play off or a BCS game. If you think the current system is full of controversy imagine what that system would bring.

[Jason G]

As Spence said it is the only way to compare teams in diffrent conferences. However, I do agree that if you don't do well in your own conference then how you do outside of the league will have much less importance.

But if you are at the top of a league out of conference opponents are the best way, and only direct way, to determine where you may fit in on the national scene.

[Spence]

As Spence said it is the only way to compare teams in diffrent conferences. However, I do agree that if you don't do well in your own conference then how you do outside of the league will have much less importance.

But if you are at the top of a league out of conference opponents are the best way, and only direct way, to determine where you may fit in on the national scene.

Exactly right. Conference play is important, as well as finishing strong in your conference, but there has to be a way to compare teams nationally and OOC games give you that.

[colorado_loves_football]

As Spence said it is the only way to compare teams in diffrent conferences. However, I do agree that if you don't do well in your own conference then how you do outside of the league will have much less importance.

But if you are at the top of a league out of conference opponents are the best way, and only direct way, to determine where you may fit in on the national scene.

I'm going out on a limb here. Let's use a team for comparison purposes, the one I have in mind, is Fresno St.
They beat Boise St, for like the first time ever, thereby 'securing' themselves a Liberty Bowl bid, over the Broncos. They then played USC hard, lost, but not by a large margin 50-42, I believe was the final score. They could have secured themselves a WAC title by beating Nevada, in Nevada but didn't, lost by a small margin. Following that game, they would still have been a WAC 'co-champion' but lost, again to Louisiana Tech, a team that Boise St beat to 'earn' a WAC co-championship, the previous week.
So, why is this relevant? Well, if I buy into the argument that OCC is what's important then I ought to be impressed with how they did againt USC, albeit a losing effort (away from home). I was impressed, generally with how the Bulldogs played, a game that had no bearing, whatsoever on their conference title hopes, they played admirably.
Losing to Nevada was disappointing, but they were in Nevada, and Nevada likely knew what was at stake. Nevada 'earned' a WAC 'co-championship' by beating Fresno St. Fresno St was still a WAC 'co-champion' believe it or not when they played Louisiana Tech. In fact, had Louisiana Tech beaten Boise St, that game would have been yet another 'championship' game for both teams. In effect, Fresno St lost the WAC, twice, once to Nevada, once to Louisiana Tech.
Those games, incidentally, had no bearing, whatsover on where Fresno St played, they received the Liberty Bowl invitation immediately following their loss to USC, and graciously accepted.
Why is this relevat? Well, in 'my' proposal, only the WAC champion would be represented. Fresno St would have needed to 'win' the WAC for a Liberty Bowl invitation. As it was, they had nothing to play for and it came through in their approach to the game.
The Liberty Bowl, for all intents-and-purposes is a BCS game, similar to how it was in 2004. Tulsa won the C-USA outright. Without a championship game in place, it's next to impossible to select one representative. Perhaps a case can be made for TCU going, but that's not really what I'm getting at, if the WAC utilized a conference championship, Fresno St wouldn't have gone to the Liberty Bowl.
So, tell me again how 'important' those OOC games are. Sure, they gave Fresno St. the 'edge' but undeservedly. They then lost to Tulsa.
All those things, in my opinion, show that there should be a more 'competitive' way to select teams to BCS games. (I know, Liberty Bowl is'nt a BCS game, but it's a 'non-BCS' game).
I think the BCS needs to consider such things, or else it will be faced with similar problems as it's had in previous years. A conference 'championship' does work. Tulsa 'earned' the right to go to the Liberty Bowl. A 'championship' or perhaps simply allowing Boise St. to go would have been better, for everyone. Mistakes happen, but I think awarding the conference champion a 'bid' is the best way to go.

[Spence]

There is a world of difference between losing a close one and winning a close one.

[Jason G]

I'm not trying to downplay the importance of conference games at all. If I had to pick which was more important conference games or OOC games I would say the conference games are more important.
The only point I was trying to make was that the OOC games are the only way we can compare a team with teams outside of their league. A league with a lot of OOC wins amongst their teams gives the league champion more national credibility and a better argument for a better bowl, BCS birth, spot in the NC game, or whatever the scenario may be.

[Spence]

A league with a lot of OOC wins amongst their teams gives the league champion more national credibility and a better argument for a better bowl, BCS birth, spot in the NC game, or whatever the scenario may be.

Again this is at the heart of why CFL's proposal is flawed. It does have to be the whole conference playing and doing well against very good OOC teams. The BCS conference teams can get away with playing weaker non conference games because they will usually play some highly ranked teams in their conference and even it out some. This is not always the case even with BCS conference teams. Auburn got shut out of the title game a year ago based solely on the fact that they played a 1-AA school. Non BCS schools are not held to a different standard in that regard. There are very few instances where the right group of teams aren't selected. They may not always be in the right order, but they are usually the right teams.

As much as we all like to complain about the polls (computer or human) they usually get it close to right. Look at any top 25 after the regular season (before the bowl games) and you would be hard pressed to find somebody that you think should be more or less then 5 spots from where they should be ranked according to you. The people who do the polls do a pretty good job of getting it right.

There are 11 conferences in CFB. If your proposal where in place and they picked 10 teams for a play off. The CUSA and the Sun belt had undefeated seasons and won their conferences.(the sunbelt champ beat the national champion 1-AA team) Both played four 1-AA teams out of conference. The other 3 had all lost one game. The MAC champion beat an 3-9 Indiana team, a 10-2 Michigan team and lost to 11-1 Penn St. The WAC beat a 6-6 Wasington St. team, a 8-4 Kansas St. team, and Lost to an 10-2 UCLA team. The Mountain West champ beat 11-1 Oklahoma, 9-3 Nebraska, and lost to 12-0 Florida St. Who gets left out of the play off and why?