Post-season Play-offs

[Spence]

Spence, as you probably expected, there are some 'plusses' and some 'minuses' to your proposal. I actually like it in principle, it would be a 'fair' way to schedule non-conference games, but it would also maybe be a little too 'restrictive' for teams such as Jason mentioned, that already have 'rivals', non-confernece.
That being said, I think having a 'standardized' way to schedule non-conference games might allow for more interesting pairings early in the year, when some teams are simply getting their feet wet.
You referred to how TCU made a 'deal' with LSU, for 2013 & 2014, but that sort of tells you how far in advance those deals are made, at least for schools like Texas Christian, and that also might partly explain why they haven't had as strong OOC schedules as you might have preferred.

I know most teams schedule 5 to 10 years ahead, but they wouldn't have to under this proposal. They could let a computer schedule the games much the same way as the conferences do it now. It could be done after the bowl games. The only down side to that is travel plans and printing and marketing tickets. It isn't that big a deal, though, because the way TV changes the times and sometimes dates of games they have to change things on the fly anyway.

Really the only down side to this that I know is the out of conference rivalries. The only way I know to fix that is to remove the conference championship games and let them add an elective game of their choice.

If you change the it to 2 games it won't give you enough direct comparisons to judge all conferences. This would hurt the smaller conferences overall SOS and allow for the more subjective polls to exclude the smaller conferences. Which is what we are trying to avoid doing. The smaller conferences need the 4 OOC games to raise there strength and get them a more direct comparison to the larger conferences.

If you limit it to 2 games you wounld have any better system then you have now.

[colorado_loves_football]

Spence, I disagree that a team necessarily has to play against 'ranked' opponents to be considered a viable team, competitively,and you can use TCU if you want for competitive purposes.

Last year, they played Oklahoma, a ranked opponent, and won. They scheduled SMU, a non-conference team, but a former SWC 'rival' and lost. This year they play Texas Tech, and will likely draw a huge crowd to the game, if recent history is any kind of a reflection of the future..

And those are the games that I think matter most, the games that draw the most fan support. TCU seems to have a pretty good fan-base in the MWC, as they drew 36,000 fans to a home game vs. Colorado State. That's not bad by MWC standards, believe it or not, but if TCU were in the Big XII conference they would likely be drawing a sell-out crowd, each game, in fact someone ought to use their game against Texas Tech as a basis for how well they might do in the Big XII S. division.

I believe TCU would likely challenge for the Big XII S. division title if they were in the 'mix'. Since they aren't they have to make whatever deals they can, pairing them competitively, against old SWC rivals.
If they were 'admitted' into the Big XII S. division, they would still likely want to schedule games with SMU, Rice, and Houston since those teams were old 'rivals' in the SWC, and became 'new' ones (Rice, SMU in the WAC, Houston in C-USA). And tradition is what I like, over competitive 'pairings' of teams.

So, as much as I like your proposal, I think teams should have some freedom to select and schedule whichever team suits them best.
TCU likely wouldn't want to play LSU every year, but once every 30 years or so is ok. There's a reason why, after all LSU plays in SEC, and TCU was in the SWC. It's all about regional pairings of teams, that makes for greater public interest, over the long 'haul'.

[Spence]

So, as much as I like your proposal, I think teams should have some freedom to select and schedule whichever team suits them best.
TCU likely wouldn't want to play LSU every year, but once every 30 years or so is ok. There's a reason why, after all LSU plays in SEC, and TCU was in the SWC. It's all about regional pairings of teams, that makes for greater public interest, over the long 'haul'.

The problem with scheduling non ranked opponents is that the smaller conferences will never get the respect they want from the polls. Their conference strength just isn't good enough. The only way to find out who the best teams really are is to be able to have direct comparisons to the other really good teams.

The example you gave with Oklahoma is a perfect example. TCU scheduled Oklahoma to raise their SOS, most years that would work. Since Oklahoma was down this year the TCU win didn't help them as much as it would have if they would have beaten Oklahoma two years ago. That is the problem with scheduling into the future. There is no way to tell.

I don't have a huge problem with how the BCS selects its teams now, but they are tilted to favor the major conferences. The only way to fix that is to force competition through scheduling. Not only does this help the smaller conferences have a legit chance at the title game, it also would rid the larger conferences of pretenders. It would also improve the over all quality of the games.

It would equalize the bias in the polls through play on the field. All most teams could ever ask for is to prove it on the field. This would do that, (for all the teams, not just 10) because you would have over 200 game of direct comparisons that include all 119 teams. I don't know how you could get more fair.

[Jason G]

In my opinion, any systematic type of scheduling that puts all 119 schools on equal footing would be a drastic improvement to the way it is currently done.

Spence, CLF, and I have made our opinions on this matter pretty clear. I'd be interested to hear from some of the rest of you about changing the scheduling procedure.

[colorado_loves_football]

The problem with scheduling non ranked opponents is that the smaller conferences will never get the respect they want from the polls. Their conference strength just isn't good enough. The only way to find out who the best teams really are is to be able to have direct comparisons to the other really good teams.

The example you gave with Oklahoma is a perfect example. TCU scheduled Oklahoma to raise their SOS, most years that would work. Since Oklahoma was down this year the TCU win didn't help them as much as it would have if they would have beaten Oklahoma two years ago. That is the problem with scheduling into the future. There is no way to tell.

I don't have a huge problem with how the BCS selects its teams now, but they are tilted to favor the major conferences. The only way to fix that is to force competition through scheduling. Not only does this help the smaller conferences have a legit chance at the title game, it also would rid the larger conferences of pretenders. It would also improve the over all quality of the games.

It would equalize the bias in the polls through play on the field. All most teams could ever ask for is to prove it on the field. This would do that, (for all the teams, not just 10) because you would have over 200 game of direct comparisons that include all 119 teams. I don't know how you could get more fair.

First of all, Spence, I have no idea how, or why TCU scheduled Oklahoma, but they did, and TCU won, fair & square.
In fact, unless I"m mistaken TCU has something of a 'streak' going against Oklahoma, at least in Norman. But since TCU doesn't play in the Big XII it really doesn't matter, that much, all things being equal.

And that's my point about non-conference scheduling. TCU was able to secure a home & away series with the LSU Tigers, but that likely resulted from a 'hole' in LSU's non-conference schedule, and TCU was available. I doubt it had all that much to do with keeping tradition going, but I could be wrong, I don't know the particulars when it comes to that sort of thing. Suffice to say, both teams were likely 'happy' with the result, otherwise it wouldn't have happened.

And in general, that's how I prefer things to be done. OOC games usually dont' carry the same amount of pressure as the conference games do, and for good reason. With confernece championship games in place, the games that matter, obviously are the conference games.
TCU needed to beat Oklahoma to stay in the BCS 'hunt' for Oklahoma it was just another game, a 'tune-up' for whoever they played the following week. That's how it is, and that's probably why Oklahoma lost.

So, you can't fault TCU in any respect, nor for that matter, can you legitimately claim TCU got 'lucky'. They didnt', they beat a better team, on their home field. Then they lost to a 'weaker' opponent the following week, probably because they were over-confident. That stuff happens.

Now, as far as scheduling is concerned, there are probably infinite possiblities, as far as that goes. TCU in my opinion has a pretty hard OOC schedule, without having to 'add' #1s. It sounds ok on paper, but since a team outside the BCS necessarily has to win every game, to be assured representation in the BCS, that amounts to 'suicide', for all intents and purposes. Sure, schedule one, or maybe even two ranked opponents, every year, but do it in a way that honors tradition, something I feel you've neglected to address in your proposal.

TCU has a more 'traditonal' schedule this year, playing two former SWC members in Texas Tech and Baylor, and it will also test them competitively in how they might do as a Big XII addition, should that ever become a possiblity. Those are things I care about, not whether TCU can beat someone like Penn St. most likely in Happy Valley.
However, I would like to see TCU play someone other than Northwestern, but that's who 'wants' them, and so that's why they do.

[Spence]

First of all, Spence, I have no idea how, or why TCU scheduled Oklahoma, but they did, and TCU won, fair & square.
In fact, unless I"m mistaken TCU has something of a 'streak' going against Oklahoma, at least in Norman. But since TCU doesn't play in the Big XII it really doesn't matter, that much, all things being equal.

And that's my point about non-conference scheduling. TCU was able to secure a home & away series with the LSU Tigers, but that likely resulted from a 'hole' in LSU's non-conference schedule, and TCU was available. I doubt it had all that much to do with keeping tradition going, but I could be wrong, I don't know the particulars when it comes to that sort of thing. Suffice to say, both teams were likely 'happy' with the result, otherwise it wouldn't have happened.

And in general, that's how I prefer things to be done. OOC games usually dont' carry the same amount of pressure as the conference games do, and for good reason. With confernece championship games in place, the games that matter, obviously are the conference games.
TCU needed to beat Oklahoma to stay in the BCS 'hunt' for Oklahoma it was just another game, a 'tune-up' for whoever they played the following week. That's how it is, and that's probably why Oklahoma lost.

TCU beat Oklahoma because they were a better team when they played. It didn't have any thing to do with anything else. TCU was prepared to win and Oklahoma was not.

OOC games would carry the same amount of pressure as conference game or maybe more pressure, if they would adopt the system I'm talking about. Smaller conference teams would be on the same footing as large conference teams. Even if they played in a weaker top to bottom conference, they would have evidence of how they played against other top teams. It wouldn't matter how good their conference is, all that would matter would be how good they are as a team.

This system does not honor OOC rivalries and traditions and unless they added another game I don't see how it can. That is a down side to this type of system. Still everytime college football changes anything they lose a tradition. If the goal is to put all teams in CFB on equal footing with regards to the national championship this would do it.

[Yeofoot]

Wow, you guys have been hammering at this for a while. My proposal...


Keep it the way it is...can you really imagine college football being more fascinating than it already is? Every year the BCS gives in to the gripes a little bit. So it is an ever-evolving process. There is a suggestion box in heaven, do you know why? For people like ESPN columnists, who aren't happy unless they are complaining, and it gives them some type of satisfaction because they change it a little each season. The main thing is, everyone knows what they have to do to win the national championship at the beginning of each season. Sometimes they might need to do something that is unrealistic, like beat every team by 50 points, but this process, and every one of you two's thousands of ideas of how to decide the national champion. As long as those rules are clear from the first game on, every team knows what they have to do. For some teams it's easier, like all Texas has to do is go undefeated, while TCU would have to win by a lot every single game. It's not fair, but it is fair, because the higher you are in the voter's thoughts, the harder people play you. You can gripe all you want, but each team's fate is in their own hands.

[colorado_loves_football]

TCU beat Oklahoma because they were a better team when they played. It didn't have any thing to do with anything else. TCU was prepared to win and Oklahoma was not.

OOC games would carry the same amount of pressure as conference game or maybe more pressure, if they would adopt the system I'm talking about. Smaller conference teams would be on the same footing as large conference teams. Even if they played in a weaker top to bottom conference, they would have evidence of how they played against other top teams. It wouldn't matter how good their conference is, all that would matter would be how good they are as a team.

This system does not honor OOC rivalries and traditions and unless they added another game I don't see how it can. That is a down side to this type of system. Still everytime college football changes anything they lose a tradition. If the goal is to put all teams in CFB on equal footing with regards to the national championship this would do it.

Spence, I don't agree with you because conference games obviously have more significance than any OOC game. Use the TCU vs. Oklahoma as a example if you want, sure TCU won, but not easily, unless 17-10 is what you call a blowout.
But that's not my point, TCU shouldn't necessarily have to go undefeated to 'earn' a BCS bid, neither for that matter should any other team, play in their own conference, win and go.
OOC games are 'fun' I guess, but they are a little like slumber parties.
Everyone has a good time, some get 'plastered' and some stay over too long for their own good, and by the time they're over, everyone's happy.
Sure, on paper, they sound great, having a #1 vs. #1 every week would make for great press coverage, but in practice they often lack the 'pizazz' everyone was hoping for.
The Ohio St. vs. Texas game was one for the books, and it shouldn't happen every year, that's what makes it special. Same with any two teams you want to bring into the debate.
I like the TCU and LSU argument, both teams were good last year, LSU probably should have won the SEC, but didn't. TCU likely would have done well in the Big XII, if their win against Oklahoma means anything.
And TCU is in fact scheduling Big XII opponents.
So, that's progress of a sort. But playing LSU every year wouldn't be good for anybody, not even LSU. Why do you think more teams are scheduling I-AA teams? Why is Colorado scheduling one for the first time in over 60 years?
Ask yourself that question, then maybe you'll understand that playing the 'best' every week, doesn't necessarily make you a better team, long-term. All it does, is fill the stadium up, and likely wear your players down.
Oklahoma lost to TCU probably because they thought they didnt' have to play their best game to win, they were wrong. TCU probably wasn't 'better' than Oklahoma, they were probably better prepared, there is a difference.

[colorado_loves_football]

I think that if a team wants to be in the BCS they can't just win their own conference and then what happens OOC doesn't matter. They won't be playing teams from their conference in the BCS. They have to show they can win the OOC games too. I wouldn't want any teams from the Sun Belt in the BCS unless they were undefeated and the teams they beat OOC were all solid teams. The reason is because the Sun Belt, compared to the other conferences, is terrible. So if they are undefeated in conference, so what? That doesn't mean they are any good. The teams they play in-conference are not good. That is why they must schedule good teams OOC and win.

This is something we've already 'batted-around'. Basically it comes down to whether or not you feel it's time for a 'playoff' to select a national champion, I believe it is, but there are those who feel differently.
Sun Belt might not be as good as the rest of the I-A football programs, competitively speaking, but they are improving, if I'm not mistaken.
For one thing, they are having to 'restructure' into being a more S.E. conference, through losses incurred by WAC's 'expansion' to 9 teams.
That means, that the Sun Belt likely will remain a force to be reckoned with, and might even contend for one of the 'at large' bids to the BCS.
I simply want every conference to have a representative to the BCS, and I think that's fair, but some might disagree with me.
At present 6/11 conferences are represented directly in the BCS.
Doing a little restructuring, and setting up ten conferences, divided primarily along geographical lines, would make the BCS 'better' from a competitive standpoint.
Having each conference represented would serve to make the BCS more entertaining, while also giving it the element it hasn't had thus far.
Or, better stated, a 'championship' field of teams.
You can have whatever opinion you want about the Sun Belt. They are still a I-A conference, and will likely remain so, barring some kind of redesignation of teams. That means they have as much right to being 'eligible' for BCS consideration as any other 'non-BCS' team.
And, it would appear to me, anyway, that the 'non-BCS' conferences, by-and-large are becoming more comparable, rather than less so, due in no small part to competition.
I will agree on one point, however, there is 'distinction' between traditionally BCS schools, and 'non-BCS', and there likely will be forever.
But, that's no excuse to deny a 'non-BCS' conference a representative, especially when they meet all the criteria in place for selection. The BCS has the opportunity to become more selective, which is how I consider it after teams are selected along conference lines. It's progress, anohter advantage to implementing it.

[Spence]

The reason teams are scheduling 1-AA teams is because they don't have to pay them as much to come. It is the same reason Ohio State doesn't play many home and away non conference games. Money. As things stand now Ohio State makes more money by scheduling a home only game with Youngstown State then they do Texas. Texas probably brings more money in, but they take more to come in. Ohio State didn't sign to play Texas for the cash, they did it to improve their schedule to be able to play better post season games and to put them in position to win a national championship. Large conference schools aren't immune to the weak schedule argument. If Ohio State has a weak non conference schedule and the conference is down they would have a hard time getting in the championship game also.

You said you wanted a fair system and this one is fair to every team in every conference. All the have to do is win and they will get respect under this system. Everyone would be playing schedules made in respect to their strength in their conference. No team would get snubbed because their conference is perceived weak.

A team playing under this system wouldn't neccessarily have to win all of their games because they would be playing enough good teams that, if they did have a drop off one week, they would have played enough teams to know that it was not the norm. You wouldn't have an undefeated team almost every year. It would be very hard to go undefeated under this system, but the strength of all the teams would be more obvious. Schedules would be very demanding, but teams who make their way through it would be rewarded and there wouldn't be any excuses for the teams who didn't make it. Conference play would still be important because it would determine the schedule for next year, but it wouldn't be any more important then OOC games.

This would give the smaller conferences an opportunity that they have never had before. A chance to prove themselves on the field. If they did well in their OOC games and then did well in their conference no one could say they didn't belong or they got lucky. It may not hold up tradition, but it is fair.

[colorado_loves_football]

The reason teams are scheduling 1-AA teams is because they don't have to pay them as much to come. It is the same reason Ohio State doesn't play many home and away non conference games. Money. As things stand now Ohio State makes more money by scheduling a home only game with Youngstown State then they do Texas. Texas probably brings more money in, but they take more to come in. Ohio State didn't sign to play Texas for the cash, they did it to improve their schedule to be able to play better post season games and to put them in position to win a national championship. Large conference schools aren't immune to the weak schedule argument. If Ohio State has a weak non conference schedule and the conference is down they would have a hard time getting in the championship game also.

You said you wanted a fair system and this one is fair to every team in every conference. All the have to do is win and they will get respect under this system. Everyone would be playing schedules made in respect to their strength in their conference. No team would get snubbed because their conference is perceived weak.

A team playing under this system wouldn't neccessarily have to win all of their games because they would be playing enough good teams that, if they did have a drop off one week, they would have played enough teams to know that it was not the norm. You wouldn't have an undefeated team almost every year. It would be very hard to go undefeated under this system, but the strength of all the teams would be more obvious. Schedules would be very demanding, but teams who make their way through it would be rewarded and there wouldn't be any excuses for the teams who didn't make it. Conference play would still be important because it would determine the schedule for next year, but it wouldn't be any more important then OOC games.

This would give the smaller conferences an opportunity that they have never had before. A chance to prove themselves on the field. If they did well in their OOC games and then did well in their conference no one could say they didn't belong or they got lucky. It may not hold up tradition, but it is fair.

Spence, I'm not sure I buy into the argument, that a those teams are scheduled on basis for money, only, but if nothing else, I believe there are probably reasons, that give them an 'advantage' with respect to scheduling.
I don't necessarily mind that Ohio State schedules Youngstown State, but that probably won't make voters take notice, either way. Interestingly enough, TCU scheduled a team in Texas-Arlington back in the 1970's and early '80s beating them 6/8 times, both losses were in Ft. Worth.
So, there are advantages and disadvantages to scheduling a team from a 'lower' division, you really don't win, unless you win every game. I'm guessing TCU 'dropped' them partly for that reason, but I wouldn't know.
Now, as far as 'competitive' scheduling is concerned, TCU is playing LSU and that's not a bad team, in any respect.
That's likely due to the fact that TCU was a lot better last year, thereby allowing them to schedule a 'heavyweight'. The fact it will happen 7 years from now, really isn't important what matters is that they will play a home & away series, helping both programs to improve. And I prefer that to putting teams in 'arbitrary' pairings, which is exactly what your proposal does. Those teams want to play against each other, so it will likely be a 'fun' arrangement, otherwise they wouldn't have agreed to it.
And I still maintain, that conference games are a lot more important than non-conference games, in general.
Competition is a good thing, and that's why I still believe that making the BCS more competitive would be a better solution than making teams play 'harder' non-conference games. But that's one person's opinion.

[Spence]

I don't like when teams schedule 1-AA opponents. Other then that i really don't have a problem with how the system works as a whole. The reason I put this up for discussion was that this topic was about finding a fair system to decide a national championship. One that would allow all teams a legit chance at being able to make it, even if they belonged to a (perceived ) weaker conference. My system does that and it does it in a way that gives all teams equal opportunity. Everyone gets a chance to prove how they stack up against the rest of CFB.

I don't know why you wouldn't want a team to schedule the best possible opponents. I would like for Ohio State to play Texas, USC, West Virginia, and Florida State to start the season next year if it were possible. You get to find out how good you are and even if you lose one of those games, it doesn't hurt you in the polls like losing to Indiana would. Most team pad their non conference schedule with a couple almost sure win opponents. Most of the time these are no more then a glorified scrimage for the stronger team. Playing a schedule with your peers is a much more appealing option to me. Plus TV would pay more to get match ups like these.

[colorado_loves_football]

I don't know why you wouldn't want a team to schedule the best possible opponents. I would like for Ohio State to play Texas, USC, West Virginia, and Florida State to start the season next year if it were possible. You get to find out how good you are and even if you lose one of those games, it doesn't hurt you in the polls like losing to Indiana would. Most team pad their non conference schedule with a couple almost sure win opponents. Most of the time these are no more then a glorified scrimage for the stronger team. Playing a schedule with your peers is a much more appealing option to me. Plus TV would pay more to get match ups like these.

My main concern is that a competitive non-conference schedule would likely eliminate most, if not all 'non-BCS' teams, the reason is because they likely wouldn't be reserved a spot in the BCS if they didn't finish the year undefeated, barring some kind of 'modification' to the BCS formula.
That's why I prefer that there be a 'provision' whereby a team can 'earn' its way into the BCS, preferably through competiion. But your ideas are good, just that they interfere with how teams traditionally schedule opponents, non-conference. I'm a traditionalist, so I guess I 'prefer' the present way, which does leave a lot to be desired, competition-wise.

[Spence]

My main concern is that a competitive non-conference schedule would likely eliminate most, if not all 'non-BCS' teams, the reason is because they likely wouldn't be reserved a spot in the BCS if they didn't finish the year undefeated, barring some kind of 'modification' to the BCS formula.

It wouldn't eliminate non BCS teams. If say next year TCU played and beat Texas, Akron, and Boise St. and lost to Florida St. . Then they went on to win their conference again. Florida St. and Boise St. win their conference, Texas finishes second in theirs with 2 losses and Akron fall to fourth in their conference. TCU wouldn't lose much in the rankings for losing to a Florida St. and the fact that the other non conference teams they played did well would make TCU a highly ranked team. Maybe even #2 depending on how well the other #1's matched up in their games.

This system would absolutely put in the best teams no matter what conference they belong.

There also would be know reason to give any conference priority into the BCS because there wouldn't be much question who the best teams are because they would have the game to prove it.

[colorado_loves_football]

It wouldn't eliminate non BCS teams. If say next year TCU played and beat Texas, Akron, and Boise St. and lost to Florida St. . Then they went on to win their conference again. Florida St. and Boise St. win their conference, Texas finishes second in theirs with 2 losses and Akron fall to fourth in their conference. TCU wouldn't lose much in the rankings for losing to a Florida St. and the fact that the other non conference teams they played did well would make TCU a highly ranked team. Maybe even #2 depending on how well the other #1's matched up in their games.

This system would absolutely put in the best teams no matter what conference they belong.

There also would be know reason to give any conference priority into the BCS because there wouldn't be much question who the best teams are because they would have the game to prove it.

Spence, we agree on this thing, on principle, but I still have the opinion that a 'post-season' BCS which allows for competition, would be a better alternative, than making teams play more competitive schedules.
And, if you think about it, many of the 'non-BCS' teams are already doing that, as much, if not more-so than many of the 'major' schools.
I still think that a 'better' solution would be to grant every major I-A conference a 'bid' to the BCS. That way, there would be 'fairness' in representation, and competition would select a deserving champion.
Limiting it to the ten best teams would also be a compromise that would give every team an opportunity, something that hasn't been in place so far.
I know you disagree that teams outside the BCS aren't sufficiently qualified, but I think they are, and in general some might even 'challenge' those who have traditionally been represented in the BCS, every year.
Whether or not they would 'win' a BCS 'championship' would remain to be seen, but it would, if nothing else, settle the debate about whether or not they 'earned' the right to be represented. That's why I support it.
It works, and it's fair, and in the end, someone walks away National Champions. Can't beat that.