Ideas to improve the BCS (without a playoff)

Say it all here
Forum rules
NOTICE: Please be sure to check the CFP Message Board Rules and Regulations and the Read Me page before posting.

Which is more important?

Having the consensus National Champion
4
40%
Having football benefit the advancement of academics.
6
60%
 
Total votes: 10

colorado_loves_football

Postby colorado_loves_football » Fri Dec 30, 2005 2:36 pm

yeofoot, to answer your question, no I am not drunk, literally speaking.
but yes, I am revelling in the afterglow of two much-deserved wins by teams directly related to TCU, and therefore I am revelling in the figurative afterglow, which you should be also.
Party at my house, Houston Bowl, kickoff 7:30.

User avatar
Yeofoot
Head Coach
Head Coach
Posts: 1971
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 9:57 am
Location: Bentonville, Arkansas
Contact:

Postby Yeofoot » Fri Dec 30, 2005 2:38 pm

Yeah, I'll be ridiculous after Texas wins.

colorado_loves_football

Postby colorado_loves_football » Fri Dec 30, 2005 2:42 pm

In the Houston Bowl?
Sure it isn't you with the peyote?

User avatar
Spence
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 20970
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:52 pm
Location: Chillicothe, Ohio (Ohio's First Capital)
Contact:

Postby Spence » Fri Dec 30, 2005 3:45 pm

In college football, non-conference schedules are often made 5-7 years in advance. Someone may think they are scheduling a tough team and end up scheduling one that is below average by the time the game takes place. The game is still played because the schools want to honor the contract they entered into. No one should be penalized for honoring this agreement. Teams that scheduled schools like Syracuse, Tennessee, and even Purdue this year come to mind as ones who may have had their strength of schedule turn out to be much lower than they originally envisioned and that is certainly not their fault.


It is possible to catch a good program in a down cycle, like TCU did with Oklahoma this year. But as last nights game bared out, Oklahoma is still pretty good when they are down. If you schedule a team like Wisconsin you are taking a chance whether or not they help your SOS. Schedule a team like Georgia and it is less likely that would happen. Notre Dame did get burned by Tennessee and their SOS this year so it is always possible.
"History doesn't always repeat itself but it often rhymes." - Mark Twain

User avatar
Derek
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 6002
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2005 2:04 am
Location: Brooks, GA
Contact:

Postby Derek » Sat Dec 31, 2005 2:17 am

Spence wrote:I think evert team should have to schedule at least one BCS conference team on their OOC schedule that is in the same "power tier". Example: Texas-Ohio State.

Mid -majors should have to schedule 2, since they play in weaker conferences. That should end the "we deserve" argument and it would give a fair comparison between the top conferences. The polls could be more accurate that way because voters would have something to compare.


I agree with your point....BUT I think it would all be made a lot easier IF YOU threw the Public opinion polls out and after Week 6.

THEN, bring the computer formula of 2002 that had SOS and QW (Quality Wins) back and then you would not have politics invovled with all this crap.

And when it is all said and done people, it's about politics between the AD's at any given school.

Give the BCS the teeth it was designed to have....
They’re either going to run the ball here or their going to pass it.

The fewer rules a coach has, the fewer rules there are for players to break.

See, well ya see, the thing is, he should have caught that ball. But the ball is bigger than his hands.

- John Madden

User avatar
Spence
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 20970
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:52 pm
Location: Chillicothe, Ohio (Ohio's First Capital)
Contact:

Postby Spence » Sat Dec 31, 2005 11:07 am

Derick, as much as most people would like it, the poll system will always be political. You can't remove subjectivity from a poll. They are subjective by nature. They computers are less subjective, but they are programed by people so at least the criteria for setting up how the computer poll will work is subjective. Even if there were a playoff you would have a subjective system in place to determine who the 16 or 8 teams, chosen to play,, would be. There is no one perfect answer for determining who should be ranked where. At least the BCS is trying to tweak the system to make it more fair, instead of the cut, run and criticize method of ESPN and the coaches. Although some of the changes may be worse then the original problems.

There will always be controversy in CFB and it's ranking system. I don't view that as a bad thing. It keeps people interested in April as well as November and makes the regular season more important. Who really cares about college basketball until March?
"History doesn't always repeat itself but it often rhymes." - Mark Twain

colorado_loves_football

Postby colorado_loves_football » Sat Dec 31, 2005 1:51 pm

Spence wrote:If TCU would have scheduled Miami and Oklahoma OOC and beaten them this year, they may very well have gotten into the Fiesta Bowl. The road for a mid major will always be tougher because they aren't tested in conference like most of the BCS member schools are tested.

I agree with you Spence, that any traditionally 'non-BCS' school will have a more difficult time getting BCS 'accreditation', which is why I modified my 'proposal' to reflect that, (it's the one after this post).
Basically, what needs to happen, is conferences that are already part of the BCS should do whatever is necessary to submit a 'champion' to the BCS, which i believe requires a conference championship.
This would allow more teams direct access to the BCS while also maintaining the 'hierarchy' which already exists, through conference affiliation. That way, any team, BCS or otherwise, would have a legitimate chance to become BCS 'eligible'.
It's not a playoff in the purest sense, more like a competitive way to select BCS teams through established criteria.
A playoff would, however be necessary to select one 'champion' from the BCS 'participants'.
Last edited by colorado_loves_football on Sat Jan 07, 2006 5:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

colorado_loves_football

Postby colorado_loves_football » Sat Dec 31, 2005 3:12 pm

With respect to a 'concensus' national champion, I believe polls are inherently political, and a fairly poor way to select a national champoin.
In order to leave subjectivity out of it, it's necessary to adjust the BCS so that only teams that are already part of the BCS are allowed to participate.
This is possible through the changes that have already happened, this year with respect to conference restructuring. The Big East has re-defined itself by adding traditionally strong teams not traditionally part of the BCS. They include Louisville a team that was left 'outside' the BCS last year, along with other contenders from C-USA. To maintain their position as a BCS 'contender' they probably ought to include other teams like Notre Dame and/or Penn State (traditionally strong programs). That ought to allow the Big East to stay within the BCS.
Other conferences, out of necessity will follow C-USA's lead and reorganize so as to allow for a conference title game.
WAC-MWC occupy the same geographical area, and would be wise to reunite to secure a place in the BCS. That's possible only if Pac Ten also has a conference championship, similarly the Big Ten would need one in order to remain competitive.
All those things together would make the BCS more inclusive, as more teams would be given opportunity to 'play' for a BCS 'bid'. Presently 65/119 teams are allowed opportunity to play in the BCS. If the above were to happen, that would change to 72. Even without a provision that allows a 'non-BCS' team to participate, 7 additional programs are added.
(Notre Dame, Marshall, E. Carolina, Navy, TCU, San Diego St, San Jose St). That assumes that the Pac Ten adds San Diego St, and San Jose St.
Similarly, the Big East 'adds' Marshall, E.Carolina, Navy, and Notre Dame. Penn State rejoins the Big East, leaving the Big Ten 'shy' two teams. They add Iowa State, and Missouri, from the Big XII.
The Big XII, now adds two programs, TCU and Arkansas, from the SEC.
The SEC, short one team, adds S. Florida from Big East. (it works out).
C-USA (short two teams) adds Army, and Temple, two independents.
Now what we have 12-team conferences, by-and-large, MWC-WAC have 14 (Louisiana Tech joins Sun-Belt)
These are better able to stage conference championships, and also give the BCS a way to select a team other than through a poll.
If six teams are given 'automatic' BCS admission (ACC, SEC, Big East, Big XII, Pac Ten, Big Ten) that means the remaining 4 conferences are awarded an opportunity to play for one of the two remaining 'at large' bids.
This is possible through existing bowl agreements, the Liberty and Holiday Bowls, specifically. A Liberty Bowl pairing of C-USA and MWC/WAC would be an ideal way to award an 'at large' bid to the BCS.
Similarly a Holiday Bowl pairing of teams would award a team a BCS bid through 'merit', or what happens on the field.
Extrapolating data from this years games yields the following result:
Liberty Bowl: MWC/WAC vs. C-USA (TCU vs. Tulsa)
Holiday Bowl: 'at large vs. at large' (Oregon vs. Notre Dame)
Rose Bowl: Pac Ten vs. Big Ten (USC vs. Penn State)
Fiesta Bowl: Big XII vs. Liberty Bowl winner (Texas vs. TCU/Tulsa)
Sugar Bowl: SEC vs. 'at large' Georgia vs. (TCU/Tulsa)
Orange Bowl: Big East vs. ACC (W.Virginia vs. FSU)
Obviously this isn't perfect as it would exclude Ohio State, but it would at least allow more teams fair opportunity to play in the BCS.
Last edited by colorado_loves_football on Sat Jan 07, 2006 5:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Spence
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 20970
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:52 pm
Location: Chillicothe, Ohio (Ohio's First Capital)
Contact:

Postby Spence » Sun Jan 01, 2006 10:21 am

Pac-10 and Big Ten, I believe are delaying the inevitable, it would be a good move on their part to also orchestrate a confernece championship.
And geographically, that is also possible, because teams not presently part of the Pac Ten could be invited, giving them sufficient numbers.
Three teams that jump out are San Diego St, San Jose St, or Fresno St.
Since Fresno is something of a WAC mainstay, that leaves the other two.
Similarly, in the Big Ten, if Penn St, should somehow leave for the Big East (it's geographically more appropriate), then the Big Ten would require additional teams which conceivably could be Missouri and Iowa St.


The B-10 will never agree to a conference championship game. It would ruin the Ohio State - Michigan rivalry the same way that Oklahoma - Nebraska rivalry got trashed.

If the B-10 did decide to take a 12th team it wouldn't be Iowa St. or Missouri because all of the B-10 schools are research facilities. That is what the B-10 uses for criteria to join the B-10. It has little to do with athletics.
"History doesn't always repeat itself but it often rhymes." - Mark Twain

colorado_loves_football

Postby colorado_loves_football » Tue Jan 03, 2006 12:16 pm

I believe a conference championship would benefit the Big Ten Conference similar to how it's benefitted the Big XII, and ACC.
Those conferences are now viewed as 'essential' to the BCS, whereas prior were simply viewed as competitive conferences. One need look no further than how the Big East 'slid' last year in terms of it's overall competitiveness to see the consequences.
Big Ten football competitive, and will be regardless, but a conference championship, would in my opinion serve to make the Big Ten a better conference in terms of competitiveness. In effect more possiblities.
Similarly Pac Ten would be better from a competitive standpoint if a conference title game were implemented.
Last edited by colorado_loves_football on Sat Jan 07, 2006 5:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

colorado_loves_football

Postby colorado_loves_football » Tue Jan 03, 2006 1:41 pm

Spence, I think if you read my proposal through you might change your opinion somewhat.
If my proposal were implemented 'across the board', it would restore the OU-Nebraska rivalry within the conference, those team would be paired in a N. Division. The south would be SWC w/o C-USA members SMU, Rice, Houston, in effect two conferences, separated.
With respect to the Big Ten they could benefit through a conference championship game.
Similarly, title games would allow every conference a representative in the BCS.
A Big Ten Conference Championship would have allowed one team to be represented in the BCS, instead of two. In effect it opens up a 'bid' for teams that might not otherwise be selected.
Given we already know how the bowls have played we can make a few 'assumptions' to how such an arrangement might play itself out.
With TCU and Texas in the same division, in all liklihood, Texas wins the Big XII S. Division. Oklahoma is now part of the Big XII N. Division, so in all probability wins that division, and plays against Texas in the Big XII Conference Championship.
Under this scenario, it's Oklahoma who in all probability plays in the Cotton Bowl (against Alabama), while Texas Tech most likely plays in the Holiday Bowl (against Oregon).
Big East Conference Championship: Notre Dame vs. W.Virginia.
SEC Conference Champion: Georgia
ACC Conference Champion: FSU
Pac-Ten Conference Championship: USC vs. Oregon
Big Ten Conference Championship: Ohio St. vs. Penn State

Rose Bowl: Pac Ten Vs. Big Ten
USC vs. Ohio State
Fiesta Bowl: Big XII vs. "at large"
Notre Dame vs. Texas
Sugar Bowl: SEC vs. Big East Champion
Georgia vs. W.Virginia
Orange Bowl: ACC vs. "at large"
FSU vs. Penn St.

Assuming the 'favorite' wins this results in the following games:
Semi-Final: USC vs. Texas
Semi-Final: W. Virginia vs. Penn State

The national championship would then be between this year's Rose Bowl Champion (Texas) and the winner of a semi-final between this years' Sugar & Orange Bowl winners.
That's the only fair way to select a national champion, every year.
Last edited by colorado_loves_football on Sat Jan 07, 2006 4:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Spence
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 20970
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:52 pm
Location: Chillicothe, Ohio (Ohio's First Capital)
Contact:

Postby Spence » Tue Jan 03, 2006 6:25 pm

Notre Dame would never join the B-10. It would hurt their image.

The B-10 will never have a conference championship. The coaches, AD's, and the college presidents don't want it.

If CFB goes to a playoff you can forget the rest of the bowls. They won't be played.

Ohio State doesn't deserve another chance at Texas or the NC because they lost 2 games.
"History doesn't always repeat itself but it often rhymes." - Mark Twain


Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 59 guests