My dislike for college football's BCS system is shrinking

• sleeper

  

  SportsAndLady;734778 wrote:You guys act like I'm some anti-playoff person lol I'm not. I'm just saying there will be issues no matter what happens. Why not just keep the current system? It's been very good at determining the two best teams.

  
  How can you say TCU/Boise/Utah isn't the best team in the country? That's my only gripe. You can't.
• sleeper

  

  And yes, there are some challenges to the system, and March Madness isn't perfect, but I'd much rather have a playoff than arbitrarily determining who the best team is based on 6 computers and 2 polls.
• WebFire

  SportsAndLady;734778 wrote:It's been very good at determining the two best teams.

  
  I bet you'd be surprised how different the national champion list would look if there was a playoff all these years.
• SportsAndLady

  

  WebFire;734764 wrote:Hmm, so the national champion can be 10-22 in the regular season?
  
  But you first have to have a good regular season to get into the tournament.

  
  You can go 10-22 and win the championship, yes.
• SportsAndLady

  

  WebFire;734789 wrote:I bet you'd be surprised how different the national champion list would look if there was a playoff all these years.

  
  And that somehow makes the playoff system better?
  
  A single elimination tournament isn't the best way to determine the best team, it's the best way to determine who the hottest team is.
  
  The BCS system actually takes into account the entire season, not just 1/6 of it.
• SportsAndLady

  

  sleeper;734782 wrote:How can you say TCU/Boise/Utah isn't the best team in the country?

  
  Because their schedule wasn't strong enough to warrant being in the top 2.
• DeyDurkie5

  

  WebFire;734789 wrote:I bet you'd be surprised how different the national champion list would look if there was a playoff all these years.

  
  well no shit
• like_that

  

  SportsAndLady;734793 wrote:And that somehow makes the playoff system better?
  
  A single elimination tournament isn't the best way to determine the best team, it's the best way to determine who the hottest team is.
  
  The BCS system actually takes into account the entire season, not just 1/6 of it.

  
  Unless there are 2 undefeated teams, the BCS picks their 2 national title contenders based on when those teams lost their games. See OSU/LSU, NEB/UM, FSU/OKL, OKL/LSU, etc. The BCS only partially works when there are only 2 undefeated teams remaining.
• purple_rein

  The answer for college football lies in the middle.
  
  2 teams (1.7%) is not enough, but if you go with 20% of the teams like basketball, that would be 24 teams which is way too many.
  
  I think 8 is the magic number for football taken from a computer based (or at least 50% computer based) ranking. Take the top 8 regardless of conference. 6 would also work with the top 2 getting byes.
  
  If you want to give conference bids, then give the bids to all conferences and expand to 12 (10%) or 16 (13%).
• WebFire

  SportsAndLady;734793 wrote:
  The BCS system actually takes into account the entire season, not just 1/6 of it.

  So would a playoff. You suck during the season, you aren't in the playoffs. The "hottest team" thing doesn't make sense to me. If you are the best teams, you should beat the teams you play, period.
• WebFire

  DeyDurkie5;734962 wrote:well no shit

  
  This was in response to the comment that the BCS picks the best 2 schools each year. But I don't always think they are.
• lhslep134

  

  like_that;735014 wrote:Unless there are 2 undefeated teams, the BCS picks their 2 national title contenders based on when those teams lost their games. See OSU/LSU, NEB/UM, FSU/OKL, OKL/LSU, etc. The BCS only partially works when there are only 2 undefeated teams remaining.

  
  You're completely ignoring the fact that the current BCS formula wasn't in it's current form for all of those games you listed. Those wouldn't have necessarily been the same matchups under the current formula.
• enigmaax

  like_that;735014 wrote:Unless there are 2 undefeated teams, the BCS picks their 2 national title contenders based on when those teams lost their games. See OSU/LSU, NEB/UM, FSU/OKL, OKL/LSU, etc. The BCS only partially works when there are only 2 undefeated teams remaining.

  
  Well....no.
  
  OSU had only one loss and so did Kansas. Kansas was nowhere close to the conversation because their schedule was horrible and they lost their only big game. LSU dropped its 2nd game after both Virginia Tech and Oklahoma had lost their 2nd games and still played in the title game ahead of those teams.
  
  Nebraska lost its only game after Oregon had already lost its only game and the Huskers still played ahead of the Ducks.
  
  Florida State lost to Miami, who already had one loss and the Noles still made it ahead of the Hurricanes.
  
  Both LSU and Oklahoma lost after USC, including the fact that Oklahoma lost its last game of the season in its conference title game. Yet both were obviously ahead of USC in the BCS.
  
  You are 0-for-4 there.
• enigmaax

  WebFire;735076 wrote:So would a playoff. You suck during the season, you aren't in the playoffs. The "hottest team" thing doesn't make sense to me. If you are the best teams, you should beat the teams you play, period.

  
  So, here's an example...a ninth-place team in their own conference with 9 losses reels off 11 wins in a row and is called the champion (really only six of those games mattered) in a glorious playoff. A team who finished with 3 losses overall had won 24 in a row at one point. Another team that only lost 3 games overall had an earlier winning streak of 18 and then another of 11 games right up to being eliminated from the tourney. A team with 5 losses overall won 15 in a row at one point.
  
  The "best" team hasn't beaten all the teams it played in over 30 years. Teams lose games, even when they are better. I'm sure you are willing to accept that, otherwise I'd like to hear how the "best" team manage to lose 9 games?
• sleeper

  

  SportsAndLady;734794 wrote:Because their schedule wasn't strong enough to warrant being in the top 2.

  They play all D1 schools. The schedule of a team should have nothing to do with it, especially given how schedules are made(years in advance, mutual agreements, often times $$$ is the biggest issue not competition).
• WebFire

  enigmaax;735189 wrote:So, here's an example...a ninth-place team in their own conference with 9 losses reels off 11 wins in a row and is called the champion (really only six of those games mattered) in a glorious playoff. A team who finished with 3 losses overall had won 24 in a row at one point. Another team that only lost 3 games overall had an earlier winning streak of 18 and then another of 11 games right up to being eliminated from the tourney. A team with 5 losses overall won 15 in a row at one point.
  
  The "best" team hasn't beaten all the teams it played in over 30 years. Teams lose games, even when they are better. I'm sure you are willing to accept that, otherwise I'd like to hear how the "best" team manage to lose 9 games?

  
  Let me clarify...I do understand what is meant. And it does apply more to basketball than football. But in my eyes, if you are the best team in the nation, you don't lose in the playoff. There cannot possibly be a better way to determine better teams than to have them play each other.
• WebFire

  Duplicate.
• SportsAndLady

  

  sleeper;735201 wrote:They play all D1 schools. The schedule of a team should have nothing to do with it

  
  That is ridiculous. Scheduling is and should be a huge factor in determining who the most qualified championship teams are.
• sleeper

  

  SportsAndLady;735476 wrote:That is ridiculous. Scheduling is and should be a huge factor in determining who the most qualified championship teams are.

  
  Why? They are all D1 teams, if you're good enough to be in D1, you are good enough to be a quality victory. The only reason this so called "SOS' works now is because the BCS conferences need a way to keep out mid majors, and that needs to change.
• enigmaax

  sleeper;735491 wrote:Why? They are all D1 teams, if you're good enough to be in D1, you are good enough to be a quality victory. The only reason this so called "SOS' works now is because the BCS conferences need a way to keep out mid majors, and that needs to change.

  
  Classification as DI has absolutely nothing to do with a school/team's ability to be competitive or being "good enough".
• WebFire

  enigmaax;735497 wrote:Classification as DI has absolutely nothing to do with a school/team's ability to be competitive or being "good enough".

  
  What does it have to do with? Seriously I don't know. It's obviously not by enrollment.
• sleeper

  

  enigmaax;735497 wrote:Classification as DI has absolutely nothing to do with a school/team's ability to be competitive or being "good enough".

  
  LOL
• enigmaax

  WebFire;735582 wrote:What does it have to do with? Seriously I don't know. It's obviously not by enrollment.

  
  I don't know the specifics off the top of my head (and don't have time to look it up at the moment), but parts of it include offering a minimum number of varsity sports (I think it is like 15 or 16), averaging a certain attendance (don't remember what it is, but I don't think it is a large number...10K, 15K...something like that), and offering a minimum number of scholarships or amount of financial aid.
• Sykotyk

  

  'Champion' does not equal 'Best'.
  
  The best team can still lose. To be the champion, you must win.
  
  Sykotyk
• sleeper

  

  Sykotyk;735810 wrote:'Champion' does not equal 'Best'.
  
  The best team can still lose. To be the champion, you must win.
  
  Sykotyk

  Tell that to TCU.