+1 BCS Championship

• imex99

  

  http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/collegesports/2015896289_proposal13.html
  
  I'm in favor of anything that would change the current system...
  
  Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk
• SportsAndLady

  

  Stupid
• enigmaax

  Saw this the other day (maybe yesterday, I don't know). I'm pleasantly surprised that the Pac and B1G are at the center of it because they've been the two to hold up progress for years now.
  
  Obviously having more teams involved or given "a shot" is what most people would like to see and this has always been the most likely solution to kind of balance the playoff proponents and anti-playoff crowd. I don't see them giving up on the bowl system any time soon.
  
  If it happens, it'll be interesting to see whether it really solves the problem that a lot of people think it will - providing access to the "little guys". I've seen it assumed that if this had been applied in the past, a team like TCU last year would've been included. However, I think that voters would adjust their rankings such that it still isn't going to guarantee anything.
  
  For example, the year that undefeated Alabama beat then-undefeated Florida in the SEC championship game, there were several other undefeated teams as well. Florida dropped below those teams with the loss, but that drop was inconsequential because after the national championship game was set, numbers 3-7 really didn't matter. If there had been a +1 at that time, I think a strong enough majority would've ensured Florida didn't drop below #4 (as opposed to #5) and TCU still would've been left out (despite being #4 when it didn't matter).
  
  Last year might have shaped up a little differently, too. TCU was undefeated, but Stanford was ranked 4th with their only loss to undefeated Oregon and Wisconsin was a Big Ten champ. Wisconsin may have jumped Stanford at a minimum and at that point, TCU may have again not been viewed as favorably when it counted.
• THE4RINGZ

  

  Not a fan of the BCS system, not a fan of this proposition either.
• WebFire

  I thought I read somewhere that the B1G denied this. That they had no interest in this.
• ts1227

  

  WebFire;863888 wrote:I thought I read somewhere that the B1G denied this. That they had no interest in this.

  
  Would not be surprising, the Big Ten and Pac 12 (at last pre-Larry Scott) have consistently been against any changes since it's inception. I can see Scott changing the Pac 12 tone, but we all know Delany is a stubborn dumbass.
• darbypitcher22

  

  PLAYYYYYYOFFFFFFFF
• jordo212000

  

  This would be a positive step in the right direction, but full out playoff is the way to go
• Little Danny

  

  I have been a propent of an 8 team playoff. You take the winner of each the Big 6 conferences and two at large picks. First round games are at the home site of the highest ranked teams. Championship to be played at the Rose, Orange, Sugar or Fiesta Bowls on a rotational basis.
• sherm03

  

  Little Danny;864512 wrote:I have been a propent of an 8 team playoff. You take the winner of each the Big 6 conferences and two at large picks. First round games are at the home site of the highest ranked teams. Championship to be played at the Rose, Orange, Sugar or Fiesta Bowls on a rotational basis.

  
  And I've maintained that that still isn't the "fair" way to determine a champion. In most years, I would say that the team that comes in second in the B1G, Pac-12, and SEC are better than the champ in the Big East.
  
  So a playoff doesn't make things any more fair than the current format we have.
• WebFire

  sherm03;864611 wrote:And I've maintained that that still isn't the "fair" way to determine a champion. In most years, I would say that the team that comes in second in the B1G, Pac-12, and SEC are better than the champ in the Big East.
  
  So a playoff doesn't make things any more fair than the current format we have.

  
  But if that's the case, the Big East team will get bounced in the playoffs.
• sherm03

  

  WebFire;864613 wrote:But if that's the case, the Big East team will get bounced in the playoffs.

  
  But if that's the case...which I believe it is...that would mean a deserving team would be left out of the playoffs. This is based on the 6 conference champions + 2 at large idea.
  
  I don't want to turn this into a playoff vs. bowl system debate. I didn't read the article yet on the +1 proposal...so I don't really have anything to say about it. I just saw the post about the 8 team playoff and wanted to point out why I think that it is not a "fair" way to decide a national champion.
• SportsAndLady

  

  WebFire;864613 wrote:But if that's the case, the Big East team will get bounced in the playoffs.

  
  But isn't the point of a playoff to put in the best teams?
• WebFire

  SportsAndLady;864621 wrote:But isn't the point of a playoff to put in the best teams?

  
  Does the NFL, NBA and MLB always put the best in? I'd say definitely not. I see the point, but you will NEVER have a playoff where only the best teams get in. Hell, the 4th best B1G or SEC team could be better than the 1st Big East. But how do you get around that?
  
  This is why I don't think you base it on conference. You keep a BCS type poll, and the top 8 get in the playoffs. I don't are care if they are all from the same conference.
• SportsAndLady

  

  WebFire;864647 wrote:Does the NFL, NBA and MLB always put the best in?

  
  I mean not that there's any way of knowing whether or not that's the case or not..but I personally say yes.
• sherm03

  

  WebFire;864647 wrote:Does the NFL, NBA and MLB always put the best in? I'd say definitely not. I see the point, but you will NEVER have a playoff where only the best teams get in. Hell, the 4th best B1G or SEC team could be better than the 1st Big East. But how do you get around that?
  
  This is why I don't think you base it on conference. You keep a BCS type poll, and the top 8 get in the playoffs. I don't are care if they are all from the same conference.

  
  That's the point. People say that the current format isn't fair and that it doesn't crown a true National Champion. But a playoff isn't fair either, and doesn't always crown a National Champion.
  
  I think you're on the right track with your last few statements. But if you really want to find out who the best is, you do away with conferences all together. Teams are no longer bound to play in a shitty conference, and are free to schedule who they want. You rank the top 16 teams from there, and let them play it off.
  
  You may not care if all the teams are from the same conference, but the conferences do. They will NEVER sign off on a proposal that doesn't guarantee at least the conference champion a spot in the playoffs. No matter who crappy the Big East is on a year, they will have to have a team represent them in the playoffs. I don't think it's right. But that's how it is. That's why if you want to avoid that, you have to do away with conferences all together. But the logistics behind that would be an absolute nightmare, and it's not a feasible solution either.
  
  I've been blasted on here before because I'm not all gung-ho about a playoff. But I just haven't seen a proposal that solves any issues that the current system has. So why overhaul something if the same problems are going to be there? I've never been a fan of change just for the sake of change.
• WebFire

  SportsAndLady;864659 wrote:I mean not that there's any way of knowing whether or not that's the case or not..but I personally say yes.

  
  No way they put the best in with bids going to division winners.
• Little Danny

  

  sherm03;864611 wrote:And I've maintained that that still isn't the "fair" way to determine a champion. In most years, I would say that the team that comes in second in the B1G, Pac-12, and SEC are better than the champ in the Big East.
  
  So a playoff doesn't make things any more fair than the current format we have.

  
  Well hell, what don't we just make the NCG the winner of the B1G vs. SEC every year and call it a day?
  
  I know the talking points state you have to say the Big East can't win a BCS bowl game, but the fact is history has shown it not to be true. Using 2005 as a starting point of reference (VT, Miami and BC gone to ACC and those damn C-USA schools joined the league) the Big East has won the following games:
  
  2005 Sugar Bowl WVU beats SEC champ Georgia
  2006 Orange Bowl UL beats ACC champ Wake Forest
  2007 Sugar Bowl WVU crushes B12 champ Oklahoma
  2008 UC loses to ACC Champ VA Tech
  2009 UC loses to SEC runner up Florida
  2010 UCONN loses to Oklahoma
  
  Based on the above, there is no credible evidence to support in most years the second place team in the other conferences are better than the Big East champ. At best it is a 50/50 proposition at this time.
• sherm03

  

  SportsAndLady;864659 wrote:

  WebFire;864647 wrote:Does the NFL, NBA and MLB always put the best in?

  
  I mean not that there's any way of knowing whether or not that's the case or not..but I personally say yes.

  
  Definitely not. If divisions are involved, there is no way to evenly distribute the talent among each division. In the MLB, you have the American League East who has one team left out in the cold every year when they could absolutely run away with the Central or the West. In the NFL...the NFC West champion last year had a losing record! Even in the NBA the argument could be made that some Western teams are better than some Eastern teams but can't make it in because the Western conference has more talent (or vice versa...I don't care much about the NBA).
  
  Playoffs just aren't the "fair" option that everyone makes them out to be. Not if you have conference champions that might be champs of a shitty conference taking spots away from teams that are better but are unlucky enough to be in a better conference.
• sherm03

  

  Little Danny;864674 wrote:Well hell, what don't we just make the NCG the winner of the B1G vs. SEC every year and call it a day?
  
  I know the talking points state you have to say the Big East can't win a BCS bowl game, but the fact is history has shown it not to be true. Using 2005 as a starting point of reference (VT, Miami and BC gone to ACC and those damn C-USA schools joined the league) the Big East has won the following games:
  
  2005 Sugar Bowl WVU beats SEC champ Georgia
  2006 Orange Bowl UL beats ACC champ Wake Forest
  2007 Sugar Bowl WVU crushes B12 champ Oklahoma
  2008 UC loses to ACC Champ VA Tech
  2009 UC loses to SEC runner up Florida
  2010 UCONN loses to Oklahoma
  
  Based on the above, there is no credible evidence to support in most years the second place team in the other conferences are better than the Big East champ. At best it is a 50/50 proposition at this time.

  
  I don't mean to just pick on the Big East. It could be a year by year type deal. One year, the Pac-12 could be absolutely horrible. But their champion would get into the playoffs while a team from a different conference who is more deserving has to sit at home because they are in a better conference? That doesn't seem like it's a fair solution that names a true national champion.
• WebFire

  sherm03;864677 wrote:Definitely not. If divisions are involved, there is no way to evenly distribute the talent among each division. In the MLB, you have the American League East who has one team left out in the cold every year when they could absolutely run away with the Central or the West. In the NFL...the NFC West champion last year had a losing record! Even in the NBA the argument could be made that some Western teams are better than some Eastern teams but can't make it in because the Western conference has more talent (or vice versa...I don't care much about the NBA).
  
  Playoffs just aren't the "fair" option that everyone makes them out to be. Not if you have conference champions that might be champs of a shitty conference taking spots away from teams that are better but are unlucky enough to be in a better conference.

  
  Regardless, I still think it's more fair than just crowning a champion from letting #1 and #2 from a poll play each other. If a team is good enough to win a championship, they should win the playoff. If they lose, then they didn't deserve it.
• WebFire

  sherm03;864682 wrote:I don't mean to just pick on the Big East. It could be a year by year type deal. One year, the Pac-12 could be absolutely horrible. But their champion would get into the playoffs while a team from a different conference who is more deserving has to sit at home because they are in a better conference? That doesn't seem like it's a fair solution that names a true national champion.

  
  Bottom line is, until money and the conferences stop ruling CFB, we won't get a true playoff, where the 8 "best" get in. Unfortunately, it will never happen.
• beverboy1

  playoffs !!!