Until people stop financially supporting the BCS system, there is no motivation to actually address it.

Playoffs? PLAYOFFS?

INeedAName: Until people stop financially supporting the BCS system, there is no motivation to actually address it.

We don't control that process, though. When corporation A and corporation B are exchanging millions when all we want to do is watch football, there's very little economic democracy to exercise.

The only thing people can control is going to games, and that's not going to stop. I mean, let's say for example that a high-profile football school is mired in scandal. Would the fans boycott? Would the stands be empty? Wait, this isn't even remotely hypothetical, is it?

Is there any solution to this debacle that doesn't involve rampaging mobs with pitchforks setting fire to entitled senior citizens on the Bowl Committees?

If not, there needs to be rampaging mobs.

Fark the BCS. Playoffs or GTFO.

Or, playing off of Dan Wetzel's suggestion we use a transparent computer formula, we could use the Fremeau Efficiency Index or the S&P+ Ratings as shown on Football Outsiders.

dragonchild: INeedAName: Until people stop financially supporting the BCS system, there is no motivation to actually address it.

We don't control that process, though. When corporation A and corporation B are exchanging millions when all we want to do is watch football, there's very little economic democracy to exercise.

The only thing people can control is going to games, and that's not going to stop. I mean, let's say for example that a high-profile football school is mired in scandal. Would the fans boycott? Would the stands be empty? Wait, this isn't even remotely hypothetical, is it?

Companies financially support the bowls because they make money from advertisers and sponsorship. Companies chose to advertise and/or sponsor those games because they know the viewership will net them a profit in the long run. Stop watching games and the numbers go down, advertisers look for different places to connect to their demographic and bowl games dry up, making it an issue for the BCS to address.

Snowball's chance of ever getting a playoff. BCS is still making money hand over fist from TV/naming rights contracts, the networks are making money hand over fist from commercial sales, the bowl schools are content with their cut. The sports writers are, well, getting a bunch of hits on their websites from fans that rage about no playoffs.

It's the cycle of life or some such cliche.

TFA: "You're asked to rank teams that play each other, that don't play long seasons, and you can't include margin of victory?" Massey said. "It does require sacrificing a bit of accuracy. It's not the best way to do it."

I take issue with this. It's not about sportsmanship; some styles of play just aren't about margin of victory. A 13-3 game may only have a 10-point margin, but the game's outcome could be far more certain than a shootout team winning 42-20 but behind in the third quarter. Some teams win by grinding clock as soon as they get a two-score lead because that's the best use of their talent -- and if there's nothing the other team can do to stop it, that's called domination.

That article goes way too far. If you had a playoff, how would the teams be determined? By computer formula or by rankings, or by some combination of the two? In any case, Wetzel's problems wouldn't be addressed.

If you use a selection committee, wouldn't that be subject to the same problems as voting is now, to some extent? We still have controversy every March when teams are left out of the hoops tourney - wouldnt' that still occur?

A case can be made that a tournament means that the top teams will all get in, so you won't have Boise State on the outside looking in like in past years or an Okla. St this year, but you're not going to be able to have a field so large that a legitimate potential winner can't be excluded, like you have in basketball. Top size would be 8 teams I'd think in 1-A, and the 9th and 10th teams are still going to have a problem with however the 8 teams were selected.

And even if you delay the inital voting until the end of the year you're still going to have AP and USA today polls during the year that will affect perception of team quality.

I'd like to see a playoff as much as the next guy, but this breathless tirade goes overboard. It's a pretty good system if you are limited to 2 teams and want to select the 2 best teams possible (in 2011s case, LSU and Alabama).

dragonchild: INeedAName: Until people stop financially supporting the BCS system, there is no motivation to actually address it.

We don't control that process, though. When corporation A and corporation B are exchanging millions when all we want to do is watch football, there's very little economic democracy to exercise.

The only thing people can control is going to games....i>

We do control the process by watching football. TV ratings are what fuels the advertisers desire to pay for air time. If one really detests the BCS system, they shouldn't watch or care about it.

Apeboy: Snowball's chance of ever getting a playoff. BCS is still making money hand over fist from TV/naming rights contracts, the networks are making money hand over fist from commercial sales, the bowl schools are content with their cut. The sports writers are, well, getting a bunch of hits on their websites from fans that rage about no playoffs.

It's the cycle of life or some such cliche.

I don't understand why they wouldn't make more money from a playoff. 4 quarterfinals around Christmas, 2 semifinals on New Years day, and the championship a week later. Rotate the bowls and keep the naming rights.

I might miss the Orange Bowl or Fiesta Bowl or Sugar Bowl each year, as well as a bunch of the lesser bowls, but you can bet your ass I'd try like hell to watch all 7 playoff games. And you could still play all the non-BCS bowls around them.

I just don't understand it from a financial perspective.

Debeo Summa Credo: That article goes way too far. If you had a playoff, how would the teams be determined? By computer formula or by rankings, or by some combination of the two? In any case, Wetzel's problems wouldn't be addressed.
i>

By having a playoff of 4 or 8 teams, you allow for a greater margin of error. Especially with an 8 team playoff, you will reach close to concensus that the best team made the final tournament.

/doesn't watch college football
// would if there was a playoff

Debeo Summa Credo: Apeboy: Snowball's chance of ever getting a playoff. BCS is still making money hand over fist from TV/naming rights contracts, the networks are making money hand over fist from commercial sales, the bowl schools are content with their cut. The sports writers are, well, getting a bunch of hits on their websites from fans that rage about no playoffs.

It's the cycle of life or some such cliche.

I don't understand why they wouldn't make more money from a playoff. 4 quarterfinals around Christmas, 2 semifinals on New Years day, and the championship a week later. Rotate the bowls and keep the naming rights.

I might miss the Orange Bowl or Fiesta Bowl or Sugar Bowl each year, as well as a bunch of the lesser bowls, but you can bet your ass I'd try like hell to watch all 7 playoff games. And you could still play all the non-BCS bowls around them.

I just don't understand it from a financial perspective.

I think it has to do with the uncertainity of change. There are people making boatloads of money now, why change?

My solution (tell me if it sucks):

1. Top 8 teams are in a playoff. The playoffs start the week after the conference championship games.
2. The higher seeds get home games vs. the lower seeds, all the way up to the championship game which is on a neutral field.
3. In the two weeks prior to the championship game, each night features a bowl or two that match up non-playoff contenders and the "big" bowls are remain on New Year's Day. These non-playoff bowls will hopefully buttress popularity of college football and hype the championship game.

Granted, it won't solve any ranking controversy but I think we all agree that arguing who's 8 vs. 9 (and making the playoffs) isn't near as huge as arguing 2 vs. 3 and who can/can't play for the title. And it's all settled on the field.

Treygreen13: I find it interesting that people are so willing to gloss over the flaws of a playoff system. There is no perfect system. A playoff system (like the NFL for example) produces several outcomes that are incongruous with the idea of who is the "best" team.



Oh hai guyz!

Playoffs. 11 Conference winners, 5 At larges, seed via BCS rankings
Gives following teams as seeds. (I've used "team in conference with best overall record" in lieu of conference champion, because we're not done playing out conference champ games/schedules yet.)

Play-off Seeds Team Why?
1 LSU SEC
2 Oklahoma State Big 12
3 Stanford Pac-12
4 Virginia Tech ACC
5 Houston C-USA
6 Boise State MWC
7 Michigan State B1G
8 Arkansas State Sun Belt
9 Northern Illinois MAC
10 Louisiana Tech WAC
11 Louisville Big East
12 Alabama At-large #1
13 Arkansas At-large #2
14 Oregon At-large #3
15 Oklahoma At-large #4
16 Kansas State At-large #5

Single Elimination Tournament
First Round would look like (Bowl Game Equivalent also listed, assume higher ranked BCS team wins each time)
Game 1
LSU vs. Kansas State Gator Bowl
EverBank Field, Jacksonville
Game 2
Arkansas State vs. Northern Illinois GoDaddy.com Bowl
Land Peeble Stadium, Mobile
Game 3
Virginia Tech vs Arkansas Chick-Fil-A Bowl
Georgia Dome, Atlanta
Game 4
Houston vs Alabama TicketCity Bowl
Cotton Bowl, Dallas
Game 5
Oklahoma State vs Oklahoma Meineke Car Car Bowl
Reliant Stadium, Houston
Game 6
Michigan State vs Louisiana Tech Capital One Bowl
Citrus Bowl, Orlando
Game 7
Stanford vs Oregon Insight Bowl
Sun Devil Stadium, Tempe
Game 8
Boise State vs Louisville Liberty Bowl
Liberty Bowl Stadium, Memphis

Elite Eight would be
Game A
Game 1 Winner vs. Game 2 Winner Cotton Bowl
(LSU) (Northern Illinois) Cowboys Stadium, Arlington

Game B
Game 3 Winner vs. Game 4 Winner Orange Bowl
(Virginia Tech) vs. (Alabama) Sun Life Stadium, Miami

Game C
Game 5 Winner vs. Game 6 Winner
(Oklahoma State) (Michigan State) Fiesta Bowl
U of Phoenix Stadium, Glendale
Game D
Game 7 Winner vs. Game 8 Winner Fight Hunger Bowl
(Stanford) (Boise State) AT&T Park, San Francisco


Final Four Would be
Game A Winner vs. Game B Winner Sugar Bowl
(LSU) (Alabama) Superdome, New Orleans

Semi-Final 2
Game C Winner vs. Game D Winner Rose Bowl
(Oklahoma State) (Stanford) Rose Bowl, Pasadena

National Championship game would be
Semi-Final 1 Winner Semi-Final 2 Winner BCS National Championship Game
(LSU) vs (Oklahoma State) Superdome, New Orleans


The top 8 or so teams every year should make it, so it's hard to say that #9 or below deserved in. Every team in FBS gets a shot at the title provided they win their conference.

Still 20 other bowl games left for the other 40 or so bowl eligible teams to fight over.

Some data copied over from Excel, so formatting might be messed up.

Debeo Summa Credo: That article goes way too far. If you had a playoff, how would the teams be determined? By computer formula or by rankings, or by some combination of the two? In any case, Wetzel's problems wouldn't be addressed.

If you use a selection committee, wouldn't that be subject to the same problems as voting is now, to some extent? We still have controversy every March when teams are left out of the hoops tourney - wouldnt' that still occur?

I'm okay with a little bit of inexactitude when there are more teams involved, because the teams being shafted just wouldn't be as good. Currently, picking the #2 team in the BCS standings almost inevitably leads to very legitimate gripes by the #3 team. If we expand it to (say) 8 teams, then yes, the #9 team might have a gripe -- but I don't think they can really say they were unjustly robbed of a shot at the championship. If that #9 team wanted to get in, it shouldn't have lost those two games during the season. (It wouldn't be like the basketball tournament where just making the field is an honor; we're talking serious contenders only.)

Also, to my mind, the sponsors should be able to find good ways to make money in a playoff system. Lesser bowls could remain as they are now. There would be just as much football -- indeed, more football played by the very top teams, which I'd think is what the real viewing audiences want to see. And if there's just as much football, there's just as much advertising/sponsorship opportunity. They really need to make this happen.

Debeo Summa Credo: That article goes way too far. If you had a playoff, how would the teams be determined? By computer formula or by rankings, or by some combination of the two? In any case, Wetzel's problems wouldn't be addressed. If you use a selection committee, wouldn't that be subject to the same problems as voting is now, to some extent?

This is a big and probably the best reason against a playoff, but it's also based on the ridiculous playoff models used by NCAA basketball and pro leagues. Namely, that everyone assumes the number of playoff teams are fixed. It's trying to determine if this 1-loss team is better than that 1-loss team that's stupidly hard. Remember when three Big 12 teams all finished with one loss in the same division, and their only losses were to each other? If the BCS was ever going to implode, that was the time.

Making a flexible single-elimination bracket with a minimum number of teams wouldn't be all that hard. The minimum could be whatever the networks demand. Four? Six? Eight? Fine. There'd be some subjectivity, but ironically there'd be less controversy. For example, here's a suggested bracket for this year (as the teams stand now):

LSU
Alabama vs. Houston
Oklahoma State vs. Boise State
Stanford vs. Virginia Tech

It's just the undefeateds and one-loss teams -- no relation to conference, margin of victory or schedule -- so there's minimal controversy. It'll change next week because the teams determine the bracket, not the other way around. No "is this one-loss team better than that one-loss team" or "does Houston deserve a shot". If Houston doesn't deserve a bid, well, that problem's easily solved by Alabama fusing their jerseys into the turf. No screwing any one-loss team to put Houston in; they're both in. If this isn't enough teams, fine -- we'll add all the ranked two-loss teams and sort 'em out again. The reason why basketball has "teh bubble" is because they have a strict cutoff and so many damn teams that it's impossible to tell if a team ranked #66 is any worse than #34. Not a problem here because at some point you're gonna run out of qualifying teams before the bracket gets too big. The rankings being a little off doesn't screw any deserving team, and the lesser conferences can't avoid the tough games to avoid two losses because then there's no way they get ranked.

Of course, it would never happen because businessmen don't like uncertainty.

LucklessWonder: Playoffs. 11 Conference winners, 5 At larges, seed via BCS rankings
Gives following teams as seeds. (I've used "team in conference with best overall record" in lieu of conference champion, because we're not done playing out conference champ games/schedules yet.)

Leaving aside whether we really need to see Arkansas State and Northern Illinois have a shot at the national championship... why give conference winners the higher seeds automatically?

Superconferences are the answer. Accept that the Big East and Big 12 are dead. As it stands the football powers who are currently impacted by that are:

Texas and OU. OSU gets added in because it is OU's kid brother, doing well recently, and the State Legislator will want it to live on. Texas can pick TT, TCU, Baylor, or some other friend. So we're at 4.

Tack on Notre Dame because they have a massive fanbase and their economic value gets them a home even if their on the field performance is mediocre. So now we're at 5.

Make the PAC16 happen and now all you need is a a home for ND. Stick them and someone else in the ACC (I'm picking the ACC on rumors that ND and the B1G are currently having a spat, of course when aren't they, and thus ND is looking east). Find ND a friend to balance them in the ACC and we're done.

Two 16 team conferences, a 14 team one and a 12 team one. Have them break away to form the new Division I. Cut down on the out of conference scheduling and it isn't quite so painful to have a 16 or 14 team conference. At that point you have 4 conference champions and a perfect setup for a +1 system. Conference championships first week of December, first round of bowls the weekend before or after Xmas and then championship game on New Years Day.

Other bowls could remain if desired. I'll still travel somewhere warm to see a 10-2 Michigan play the third place SEC team. The lesser bowls can hand out with the left behind folks and odds are their fanbases still travel to see the extra game and go somewhere warm.

In a perfect world though ND and Missouri end up in the B10 and WVU replaces Mizz in the SEC (no way the B1G or ACC want WVU's academics anywhere near theirs). Then you have one 16 team conference and three 14 team ones. But the boat on that has sailed. So as it stands WVU likely ends up getting left behind.

The hundreds of posts in each college football thread suggest boycotting the product just won't happen. Everyone hates the system but loves their school too damn much.

Super Chronic: LucklessWonder: Playoffs. 11 Conference winners, 5 At larges, seed via BCS rankings
Gives following teams as seeds. (I've used "team in conference with best overall record" in lieu of conference champion, because we're not done playing out conference champ games/schedules yet.)

Leaving aside whether we really need to see Arkansas State and Northern Illinois have a shot at the national championship... why give conference winners the higher seeds automatically?

His system is also flawed in that if you ever end up with an seeding setup where Arkansas State and Northern Illinois play each other, they lose money. It's like punishing them. Neither of them have the fanbase that will travel well and they'll get shiat TV ratings. His Game 8 is also in danger of costing the schools money. Also in years like this half those games would be slaughters people would turn off before halftime. Once against shiat TV ratings.

Plus you add way too many games for a contact sport that involves people who are still physically developing. No way a multiple round tournament of that size ever gets approved. You have to condense the field and accept that only X schools can get in the mix for this. These are students at some level and kids who are not physical mature. If you want to see some kind of 4 or 5 round playoff system, I'd suggest following the kind of football they play on Sundays.

INeedAName: Until people stop financially supporting the BCS system, there is no motivation to actually address it.

Because the other system was so much better, most top teams taking games against lesser ranked teams to virtually guarantee they wont lose?

Im sorry the BCS is at least a step in the right direction, we lived for a lot longer with the shiattier system.

LucklessWonder: Playoffs. 11 Conference winners, 5 At larges, seed via BCS rankings
Gives following teams as seeds. (I've used "team in conference with best overall record" in lieu of conference champion, because we're not done playing out conference champ games/schedules yet.)

Play-off Seeds Team Why?
1 LSU SEC
2 Oklahoma State Big 12
3 Stanford Pac-12
4 Virginia Tech ACC
5 Houston C-USA
6 Boise State MWC
7 Michigan State B1G
8 Arkansas State Sun Belt
9 Northern Illinois MAC
10 Louisiana Tech WAC
11 Louisville Big East
12 Alabama At-large #1
13 Arkansas At-large #2
14 Oregon At-large #3
15 Oklahoma At-large #4
16 Kansas State At-large #5

Single Elimination Tournament
First Round would look like (Bowl Game Equivalent also listed, assume higher ranked BCS team wins each time)
Game 1
LSU vs. Kansas State Gator Bowl
EverBank Field, Jacksonville
Game 2
Arkansas State vs. Northern Illinois GoDaddy.com Bowl
Land Peeble Stadium, Mobile
Game 3
Virginia Tech vs Arkansas Chick-Fil-A Bowl
Georgia Dome, Atlanta
Game 4
Houston vs Alabama TicketCity Bowl
Cotton Bowl, Dallas
Game 5
Oklahoma State vs Oklahoma Meineke Car Car Bowl
Reliant Stadium, Houston
Game 6
Michigan State vs Louisiana Tech Capital One Bowl
Citrus Bowl, Orlando
Game 7
Stanford vs Oregon Insight Bowl
Sun Devil Stadium, Tempe
Game 8
Boise State vs Louisville Liberty Bowl
Liberty Bowl Stadium, Memphis

Elite Eight would be
Game A
Game 1 Winner vs. Game 2 Winner Cotton Bowl
(LSU) (Northern Illinois) Cowboys Stadium, Arlington

Game B
Game 3 Winner vs. Game 4 Winner Orange Bowl
(Virginia Tech) vs. (Alabama) Sun Life Stadium, Miami

Game C
Game 5 Winner vs. Game 6 Winner
(Oklahoma State) (Michigan State) Fiesta Bowl
U of Phoenix Stadium, Glendale
Game D
Game 7 Winner vs. Game 8 Winner Fight Hunger Bowl
(Stanford) (Boise State) AT&T Park, San Francisco


Final Four Would be
Game A Winner vs. Game B Winner Sugar Bowl
(LSU) (Alabama) Superdome, New Orleans

Semi-Final 2
Game C Winner vs. Game D Winner Rose Bowl
(Oklahoma State) (Stanford) Rose Bowl, Pasadena

National Championship game would be
Semi-Final 1 Winner Semi-Final 2 Winner BCS National Championship Game
(LSU) vs (Oklahoma State) Superdome, New Orleans


The top 8 or so teams every year should make it, so it's hard to say that #9 or below deserved in. Every team in FBS gets a shot at the title provided they win their conference.

Still 20 other bowl games left for the other 40 or so bowl eligible teams to fight over.

Some data copied over from Excel, so formatting might be messed up.

See, that makes too much sense because it doesn't work in Division 2 or Division 3...oh wait, those groups have been playing it off for years.

You still have the bowl games, and you're still done in early January so all the "student-athletes" are back on campus for class after winter break. Love this plan.

I have no problem with the way they do the rankings now, but I would love to see a playoff system based on the rankings.

I wouldn't go 8 teams, though, I'd go 10. The top 6 teams get a bye in the first round while 7 plays 10 and 8 plays 9.

So this year, Arkansas would play Oregon and Boise State would play Oklahoma. Lowest seed remaining plays LSU, the next-lowest plays Bama. OK State vs Houston and Virginia Tech vs Stanford would also be some potentially great games, with no defense in one and fairly balanced teams in the other.

If you end the season ranked 11, suck it. I'd rather argue about 10 vs 11 than 2 vs 3 or even 8 vs 9. I don't think Kansas State can really argue that they deserve to be in the top-10 and South Carolina on down are clearly second-tier teams.

ha-ha-guy: Plus you add way too many games for a contact sport that involves people who are still physically developing. No way a multiple round tournament of that size ever gets approved.

FCS is up to 20 teams which can result in up to 5 games.

I don't have a problem limiting the number of teams to 12 or even 8, but what I would like to make sure is that no team is disqualified from every making the NC game before the first snap of the season even begins. Sadly, right now about 2/5ths of the teams in FBS do not control their own destiny.

Treygreen13: Jim from Saint Paul: Treygreen13: I find it interesting that people are so willing to gloss over the flaws of a playoff system. There is no perfect system. A playoff system (like the NFL for example) produces several outcomes that are incongruous with the idea of who is the "best" team.

[images.trollhawks.com image 300x300]

Oh hai guyz!

Definitely. Namely, that, or my favorite example, the 2007 NY Giants. Going in to the playoffs, the teams they would face... they had a head to head record of 0-4. 2 losses to the Cowboys, a loss to the Packers, and a loss to the Patriots. They string together 4 wins against teams that had already beaten them multiple times and they're the champions. There's no chance a college style system puts a team like that in a championship game, and rightly so. At best they're (head to head) tied with 2 other teams and 1 game behind the other. Yet Calendar Football is the most popular method so it's what they do.

And even though it's not perfect, but it's definitely better than secret formulas and opinion polls.

to summarize you have the giants who finish the season 14-6 being declared champions over the 18-1 patriots though the season series was tied at 1-1 with an aggregate score of 52-52 in games played at nyc and at a neutral site. so how does that make them the champs? clearly playoffs are not a panacea, but they are better than the current clusterfark that enriches lazy old corrupt tax cheats at the expense of the schools and students.

/i don't even like the pats

dragonchild: TFA: "You're asked to rank teams that play each other, that don't play long seasons, and you can't include margin of victory?" Massey said. "It does require sacrificing a bit of accuracy. It's not the best way to do it."

I take issue with this. It's not about sportsmanship; some styles of play just aren't about margin of victory. A 13-3 game may only have a 10-point margin, but the game's outcome could be far more certain than a shootout team winning 42-20 but behind in the third quarter. Some teams win by grinding clock as soon as they get a two-score lead because that's the best use of their talent -- and if there's nothing the other team can do to stop it, that's called domination.

Sorry, but you're wrong. The existing system treats all win equally. The only objective measure is to use either margin of victory or percentage of points scored as well as comparing those to the results of other teams that have played the same opponent. What you are asking for is someone to arbitrarily decide whether a win was dominant based on their opinion, and that is no better than what we have now. In fact, it IS what we have now when it comes to the polls.

How about this?
Since we all agree that the BCS sucks, and some people are stupid enough to believe that playoffs mysteriously won't work for division 1 football, let's just go back to the way it was. No more Championship Game. The big winners of the confrences earn the right to go play in a big name bowl game. The coaches get more time for practice, the team gets a chance for a little glory, and the fans get an excsuse for an end of year vacation. Then a bunch of coaches and sports writers vote on their favorite teams, and name an overall "Best of the Year" team. The title is little more than a beauty contest and you get a plaque instead of big shiny trophy.

steamingpile: most top teams taking games against lesser ranked teams to virtually guarantee they wont lose?

Not much different from the way it is now: (new window)

SharkTrager: The existing system treats all win equally.

The polls don't because humans do whatever they want, and most of the computer formulas are black boxes with no controls whatsoever.

I mean, I know that's what you're told, but there's zero evidence going either way. So I'm just arguing about how things should be.

AdmirableSnackbar: I have no problem with the way they do the rankings now, but I would love to see a playoff system based on the rankings.

you should. as TFA points out it's well know the computer rankings are designed to be suboptimal and lack accuracy double checks. it's bad math. it's wrong.

the coaches poll is a farking joke. the harris poll they just made shiat up. and for whatever reason the bcs seems to always increase the influence of the shiatty human polls. probably because they are farking tards.

A Fark Handle: AdmirableSnackbar: I have no problem with the way they do the rankings now, but I would love to see a playoff system based on the rankings.

you should. as TFA points out it's well know the computer rankings are designed to be suboptimal and lack accuracy double checks. it's bad math. it's wrong.

the coaches poll is a farking joke. the harris poll they just made shiat up. and for whatever reason the bcs seems to always increase the influence of the shiatty human polls. probably because they are farking tards.

They seem to work out OK, though. Look at the top 10 this year. Who deserves to be in who is not, and who is in there who does not deserve to be there? The only out of place team is Houston, but since they're undefeated against nobodies then they would deserve their shot in a playoffs format.

HeadLever: ha-ha-guy: Plus you add way too many games for a contact sport that involves people who are still physically developing. No way a multiple round tournament of that size ever gets approved.

FCS is up to 20 teams which can result in up to 5 games.

I don't have a problem limiting the number of teams to 12 or even 8, but what I would like to make sure is that no team is disqualified from every making the NC game before the first snap of the season even begins. Sadly, right now about 2/5ths of the teams in FBS do not control their own destiny.

I'm not actually a fan of the FCS system. IMHO those teams play way too late for the good of the kids. However you could go either way on that.

I think the issue isn't that 2/5 of FBS is screwed so much as half of FBS doesn't belong in FBS. You have the schools that make money, then you have the schools that lose money/have to desperately suck alumni dick for funds, and then you have the schools that just said "fark it" and embraced mediocrity. I'd rather regulate those last two types of schools down a level and then figure out a playoff system with what is left.

We're at like 120 or so FBS schools and that number is growing. So over time we're going to have to expand the playoff system as new conferences form from the addition of teams to FBS (if we let everyone have a shot). It just doesn't work over time. Downsize and then make the playoffs.

ha-ha-guy: Super Chronic: LucklessWonder: Playoffs. 11 Conference winners, 5 At larges, seed via BCS rankings
Gives following teams as seeds. (I've used "team in conference with best overall record" in lieu of conference champion, because we're not done playing out conference champ games/schedules yet.)

Leaving aside whether we really need to see Arkansas State and Northern Illinois have a shot at the national championship... why give conference winners the higher seeds automatically?

His system is also flawed in that if you ever end up with an seeding setup where Arkansas State and Northern Illinois play each other, they lose money. It's like punishing them. Neither of them have the fanbase that will travel well and they'll get shiat TV ratings. His Game 8 is also in danger of costing the schools money. Also in years like this half those games would be slaughters people would turn off before halftime. Once against shiat TV ratings.

Plus you add way too many games for a contact sport that involves people who are still physically developing. No way a multiple round tournament of that size ever gets approved. You have to condense the field and accept that only X schools can get in the mix for this. These are students at some level and kids who are not physical mature. If you want to see some kind of 4 or 5 round playoff system, I'd suggest following the kind of football they play on Sundays.

Conjecture and opinions do not a supporting argument make.

A Fark Handle: Treygreen13: Jim from Saint Paul: Treygreen13: I find it interesting that people are so willing to gloss over the flaws of a playoff system. There is no perfect system. A playoff system (like the NFL for example) produces several outcomes that are incongruous with the idea of who is the "best" team.

[images.trollhawks.com image 300x300]

Oh hai guyz!

Definitely. Namely, that, or my favorite example, the 2007 NY Giants. Going in to the playoffs, the teams they would face... they had a head to head record of 0-4. 2 losses to the Cowboys, a loss to the Packers, and a loss to the Patriots. They string together 4 wins against teams that had already beaten them multiple times and they're the champions. There's no chance a college style system puts a team like that in a championship game, and rightly so. At best they're (head to head) tied with 2 other teams and 1 game behind the other. Yet Calendar Football is the most popular method so it's what they do.

And even though it's not perfect, but it's definitely better than secret formulas and opinion polls.

to summarize you have the giants who finish the season 14-6 being declared champions over the 18-1 patriots though the season series was tied at 1-1 with an aggregate score of 52-52 in games played at nyc and at a neutral site. so how does that make them the champs? clearly playoffs are not a panacea, but they are better than the current clusterfark that enriches lazy old corrupt tax cheats at the expense of the schools and students.


Yes, clearly they are the champs. Each team knew the rules going into the season. The Pats and Giants played an agreed upon Championship game. The game they played previously became moot, as only the next 60 minutes would be needed to establish a champion. If the Pats wanted to prove their worth, they should have found a way to win. As it was, they allowed a crazy circus catch to destroy their perfect season. The Giants became the champions because they found a way to beat their opponents, which is what champions do.

Your argument implies that the winner in chess should be the player who captures the most pieces. The agreed upon rules simply do not support this.

dragonchild: Of course, it would never happen because businessmen don't like uncertainty.

While I appreciate your effort in this, you are thinking too narrowly. It has nothing to do with businessmen, and the uncertainty is to how you schedule facilities and personnel. You cannot have a random factor when months of planning is needed to come up with the support and marketing around an event.

Treygreen13: That being said, having 2/3 of the championship game selection being public opinion, 1/6 computer formulas, and 1/6 secret computer formulas is really, really dumb

actually, it's 2/3 uninformed opinion, 1/18 open suboptimal computer formula, 5/18 secret suboptimal computer formula

ha-ha-guy: I think the issue isn't that 2/5 of FBS is screwed so much as half of FBS doesn't belong in FBS.

That is a very ligit point. However, they are in or they aren't. Enough with the Plessy v. Ferguson mentality.

We're at like 120 or so FBS schools and that number is growing. So over time we're going to have to expand the playoff system as new conferences form from the addition of teams to FBS (if we let everyone have a shot). It just doesn't work over time. Downsize and then make the playoffs.

You can somewhat work around that by moving to 16 team confrences, mandating that no FCS teams are allowed on the schedule, and maybe even dictating a number of the out-of-confence games.

With that being said, I understand where you are coming from and to a point, I will agree with you.

BCS executive director Bill Hancock likes to refer to the formula as "one part science, two parts art"

What a lying farking bastard. He doesn't even know how they calculate it! Nor does he care.
The sorry son of a b*tch even looks like a phony, complete with a smile that looks like a wave on a slop bucket.

A whole lot of people enthusiastically flock to get their intelligence insulted.

chuggernaught: Conjecture and opinions do not a supporting argument make.

Conjecture?

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/story/2011-09-28/bcs- b owl-games-cost-some-schools/50582512/1

The 2011 VT-Stanford Orange Bowl managed to cost the teams money. You seriously want to argue that Alabama Directional vs Illinois Directional would earn money?

During those three years, universities - public and private - on average lost $331,137 playing in BCS bowl games. For non-BCS bowls during those same three years, the average loss was $119,631.

So no, it isn't conjecture. VT-Stanford ended up ~10k short of selling out and had a shiat TV rating. Unless you have a game of national interest / with massive TV ratings to get you a 4+ share there are decent odds you take a bath on the bowl costs.

As for the injury issues, I'll just assume you haven't paid any attention to the concussion issues. The last 5 years or so have been a never ending string of "concussion" issues, including reports on how the fact kids start playing football at a younger age is a significant factor. More hits on an immature body is bad.

chuggernaught: Yes, clearly they are the champs. Each team knew the rules going into the season. The Pats and Giants played an agreed upon Championship game. The game they played previously became moot, as only the next 60 minutes would be needed to establish a champion. If the Pats wanted to prove their worth, they should have found a way to win. As it was, they allowed a crazy circus catch to destroy their perfect season. The Giants became the champions because they found a way to beat their opponents, which is what champions do.

you're right that the gaints won the game that the nfl said would determine a championship. my point (poorly worded or perhaps poorly formed in my thoughts) is that a playoff is far from a perfect system to determine which team is the best. and for me best means if only one team could play a space jam game against aliens to save the world, which team would have the highest probability of saving humanity. playoffs inherently allow the possibility of lesser teams winning the bracket. then again upsets are a lot of the fun of march madness.

varmitydog: [a.espncdn.com image 200x300]
BCS executive director Bill Hancock likes to refer to the formula as "one part science, two parts art"

What a lying farking bastard. He doesn't even know how they calculate it! Nor does he care.
The sorry son of a b*tch even looks like a phony, complete with a smile that looks like a wave on a slop bucket.

he looks a lot like a vampire in that photo, which would make total sense. farking lazy blood-sucking asshole.

Super Chronic: LucklessWonder: Playoffs. 11 Conference winners, 5 At larges, seed via BCS rankings
Gives following teams as seeds. (I've used "team in conference with best overall record" in lieu of conference champion, becaus
e we're not done playing out conference champ games/schedules yet.)

Leaving aside whether we really need to see Arkansas State and Northern Illinois have a shot at the national championship... why give conference winners the higher seeds automatically?

Because you should get some kind of benefit from winning your conference, to my mind. The other teams don't like it? Tough. Next time win your conference. I am open to only allowing Auto-qualifying conferences top seeds and doing the other conference winners and at larges by BCS order.