Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ESPN)   BCS logic: Let's have a playoff with 3 semifinal games and select 2 of the winners to play for the title. What could go wrong?   (espn.go.com ) divider line 122
    More: Dumbass, BCS, Let's, playoffs, Bill Hancock, semifinals, logic  
•       •       •

2016 clicks; posted to Sports » on 05 Apr 2012 at 2:48 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



122 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-05 12:36:31 PM  
$ound$ Legit to Me
 
2012-04-05 12:38:40 PM  
Oh come on that can't be what it actually says.

*click*

*stunned*
 
2012-04-05 12:42:01 PM  

GAT_00: Oh come on that can't be what it actually says.


It's not remotely close to what it says.

The most radical departure proposed in the memo is a four-team playoff, with semifinals and a championship game, according to the report. The memo does not use the word "playoff" to describe the proposal, instead calling it a "four-team event."

A wide range of options for a playoff are presented in the memo, including:

• Playing all three games at bowls
; • Playing the semifinal games at bowls and selecting a bowl game site for the title game
; • Playing all three games at neutral sites and not branding the games as bowls
; • Playing semifinal games at campus sites and selecting a bowl game site for the title game


All four items contemplate two semi-final games and a final. Not once is "three semifinal games" referenced. Not once does it reference selecting the teams for the final. For so few words, I don't understand how it is so hard to read and understand.
 
2012-04-05 12:43:56 PM  

kronicfeld: It's not remotely close to what it says.

In that scenario, if the top four teams in the BCS standings included teams from the Big Ten and/or the Pac-12, that team (or teams) would play in the Rose Bowl, while the other four highest-ranked teams would play in two other games. Finalists for a championship game would be chosen from among the three winners, according to the report.

 
2012-04-05 12:49:22 PM  
Yes, it's one of at least four other proposals, and apparently some others listed after, meaning that it still is not what is reflected in the headline.
 
2012-04-05 12:49:27 PM  
i386.photobucket.com
 
2012-04-05 12:57:14 PM  
USE THE GODDAMNED PLAYOFF SYSTEM THAT ALREADY EXISTS IN THE OTHER DIVISIONS OF YOUR SAME F*CKING SPORT YOU F*CKING RETARDS. YOU DON'T HAVE TO RE-INVENT THE F*CKING WHEEL HERE.

F*CK.
 
jbc [TotalFark]
2012-04-05 01:03:32 PM  
OK... I'm curious, for comments sake we had 3 Semifinals. Does that mean we have 3 Senators per State? Or just still 2?

/dolt
 
2012-04-05 01:05:37 PM  
This reminds me of the time ESPN came up with their own quarterback rating system in order to make Tebow look good.

Farking NCAA morons.
 
2012-04-05 01:11:33 PM  

kronicfeld: Yes, it's one of at least four other proposals, and apparently some others listed after, meaning that it still is not what is reflected in the headline.


Misleading headlines? On Fark?
 
2012-04-05 01:17:08 PM  
I think that the BCS may need a math lesson on the basics of base 2

Currently they are at a 2^0
A 2^1 would be fine small, but better than what they currently have
a 2^2 Still a little small
a 2^3 would be the best, IMO
a 2^4 is getting a little large

No, 3 or 6 or 9 does not fit very well with this concept. Please quit trying to 'fix' the system by offering up more of the same bullshiat.
 
2012-04-05 01:27:58 PM  
www.iwatchstuff.com
 
2012-04-05 02:00:56 PM  
If only the NCAA had a postseason system where multiple games can be played for a championship....

www.nationofblue.com
 
2012-04-05 02:23:56 PM  

King Something: kronicfeld: Yes, it's one of at least four other proposals, and apparently some others listed after, meaning that it still is not what is reflected in the headline.

Misleading headlines? On Fark?


Meh... they're going to choose either the most convoluted system or do nothing. Again.
 
2012-04-05 02:29:38 PM  

HeadLever: I think that the BCS may need a math lesson on the basics of base 2

Currently they are at a 2^0
A 2^1 would be fine small, but better than what they currently have
a 2^2 Still a little small
a 2^3 would be the best, IMO
a 2^4 is getting a little large

No, 3 or 6 or 9 does not fit very well with this concept. Please quit trying to 'fix' the system by offering up more of the same bullshiat.


You're off by a power of two. They currently start with 2^1.

I've got an idea.

GAT_00: In that scenario, if the top four teams in the BCS standings included teams from the Big Ten and/or the Pac-12, that team (or teams) would play in the Rose Bowl, while the other four highest-ranked teams would play in two other games. Finalists for a championship game would be chosen from among the

two semifinal winners and the Rose Bowl can get jack shiat and go fark itself.
 
2012-04-05 02:33:50 PM  

RminusQ: two semifinal winners and the Rose Bowl can get jack shiat and go fark itself.


U mad bro?
 
2012-04-05 02:50:57 PM  
Would they take the top four SEC teams and then someone else?
 
2012-04-05 02:54:13 PM  
i heart the bcs!!

fortunately as a tennessee fan these decisions will not matter to me for the foreseeable future. wait, that's UNFORTUNATELY...fark yeah, 2012 will totally be the vols year return to the national title hunt!

/you heard it here first.
//you should see the odds vegas is giving me. suckers...
///i'm going to be rich.
 
2012-04-05 02:56:55 PM  

downstairs: King Something: kronicfeld: Yes, it's one of at least four other proposals, and apparently some others listed after, meaning that it still is not what is reflected in the headline.

Misleading headlines? On Fark?

Meh... they're going to choose either the most convoluted system or do nothing. Again.


No, no, no, no, no!

You're supposed to say "It's more likely than you think!" for the joke to work.

/although they are going to do exactly as you said
 
2012-04-05 02:59:19 PM  
Reached for comment, NCAA President Mark Emmert has this prepared statement:

i0.kym-cdn.com

They're going to drag this out for another 10 years.
 
2012-04-05 02:59:48 PM  
mitchcumstein1 Smartest
Funniest
2012-04-05 12:49:27 PM



Adjective Bird Whiskey Smartest
Funniest
2012-04-05 12:57:14 PM


USE THE GODDAMNED PLAYOFF SYSTEM THAT ALREADY EXISTS IN THE OTHER DIVISIONS OF YOUR SAME F*CKING SPORT YOU F*CKING RETARDS. YOU DON'T HAVE TO RE-INVENT THE F*CKING WHEEL HERE.

F*CK.




You both speak for me as well.

Plus both posts made me laugh out loud. gracias
 
2012-04-05 03:00:52 PM  

Adjective Bird Whiskey: USE THE GODDAMNED PLAYOFF SYSTEM THAT ALREADY EXISTS IN THE OTHER DIVISIONS OF YOUR SAME F*CKING SPORT YOU F*CKING RETARDS. YOU DON'T HAVE TO RE-INVENT THE F*CKING WHEEL HERE.

F*CK.


^ this
 
2012-04-05 03:01:25 PM  
Really, really sick and tired of the Rose Bowl and Jim farking Delany always being the things that hold up a reasonable college football postseason.
 
2012-04-05 03:02:58 PM  
So, this year's "semi-finals" would have looked like this:

BCS Bowl
#1 LSU (13-0)
#4 Stanford (11-1)

BCS Bowl
#2 Alabama (11-1)
#3 Oklahoma State (11-1)

Rose Bowl
#5 Oregon (11-2)
#10 Wisconsin (11-2)

So...what would have happened if Stanford upset LSU and Oregon and Bama won? Would the BCS take #2 Bama and #4 Stanford even though #5 Oregon beat Stanford and won the Pac-12? Just sounds like another clusterfark to me.
 
2012-04-05 03:03:00 PM  
That actually kind of works. Most years you have between 3 and 5 teams with an argument strong enough for #1 at the end of the season. I've yet to see anyone outside the Top 6 have a strong argument for #1.

So you'd have to win your game and not have the least impressive of the three wins. So it is an improvement of what we have now. I still say +1 though.
 
2012-04-05 03:06:31 PM  
How about imposing a death penalty on the SEC from the BCS for a good part of this century? 75 years should do nicely.

That'll fix your BCS problem with all the scandals that don't get reported in the SEC - yet everything is done scandalwise to off good coaches elsewhere (Tressel, Paterno) or to inflict an additional coup de grace on the football program (USC, Ohio State with Urban Meyer).
 
2012-04-05 03:06:59 PM  

ha-ha-guy: That actually kind of works. Most years you have between 3 and 5 teams with an argument strong enough for #1 at the end of the season. I've yet to see anyone outside the Top 6 have a strong argument for #1.

So you'd have to win your game and not have the least impressive of the three wins. So it is an improvement of what we have now. I still say +1 though.


Then let them play for it! Its the same thing in College Basketball. The final four is generally all chalk, except in a few rare instances. But UNC-Asheville is still invited to the party.

Now, of course I don't want a 64 team football playoff. But let a #6 ranked team to the party. You never know what'll happen. Upsets happen to the #1 ranked team during the regular season all the time.
 
2012-04-05 03:09:47 PM  
Let's put the blame where it lies: The individual bowl games who are too self-interested to do what needs to be done.
 
2012-04-05 03:11:19 PM  

velvet_fog: So, this year's "semi-finals" would have looked like this:

BCS Bowl
#1 LSU (13-0)
#4 Stanford (11-1)

BCS Bowl
#2 Alabama (11-1)
#3 Oklahoma State (11-1)

Rose Bowl
#5 Oregon (11-2)
#10 Wisconsin (11-2)

So...what would have happened if Stanford upset LSU and Oregon and Bama won? Would the BCS take #2 Bama and #4 Stanford even though #5 Oregon beat Stanford and won the Pac-12? Just sounds like another clusterfark to me.


If neither of the Rose Bowl teams is in the top 4, they are not eligible for the national championship

Let's adjust those rankings slightly to see how bad an idea this is:

BCS Bowl
#1 LSU (13-0)
#5 Stanford (11-2)

BCS Bowl
#2 Alabama (11-1)
#3 Oklahoma State (11-1)

Rose Bowl
#4 Oregon (11-1)
#10 Wisconsin (11-2)

In this case, you have a possibility that only one of the top four is eliminated (if LSU and Oregon win) or that only one remains (if Stanford and Wisconsin do). Which means you could still end up with arguments about the more deserving finalists even after a "playoff" round.
 
2012-04-05 03:12:44 PM  

downstairs: But let a #6 ranked team to the party. You never know what'll happen. Upsets happen to the #1 ranked team during the regular season all the time.


F*ck yeah, let everyone in, that way some random team can get lucky and completely undo a season's worth of work based on one game!

If you're going to have a big tourney, just make it like basketball conferences - you have a regular season champion and a tournament champion.

GoodyearPimp: The individual bowl games who are too self-interested to do what needs to be done.


Needs to be done for what, precisely? What benefit is there from a playoff?
 
2012-04-05 03:13:08 PM  

sethstorm: How about imposing a death penalty on the SEC from the BCS for a good part of this century? 75 years should do nicely.

That'll fix your BCS problem with all the scandals that don't get reported in the SEC - yet everything is done scandalwise to off good coaches elsewhere (Tressel, Paterno) or to inflict an additional coup de grace on the football program (USC, Ohio State with Urban Meyer).


how the hell is the sec responsible for a decade long cover-up of kiddy-farking? cousin-farking, sure. but kiddy-farking?

the sec is not the problem. at least they are open about the fact that football matters and the "student-athletes" and "education" do not.
 
2012-04-05 03:13:31 PM  

GoodyearPimp: Let's put the blame where it lies: The individual bowl games who are too self-interested to do what needs to be done.


Only a few of them. The sheer majority host teams that would never be part of this playoff. They'll do fine. Actually, all of them will do fine. If the Rose Bowl is not part of this playoff, the whole pagentry of the thing remains.
 
2012-04-05 03:15:14 PM  

IAmRight: F*ck yeah, let everyone in, that way some random team can get lucky and completely undo a season's worth of work based on one game!


Random? It would most likely be the 4th or 8th ranked team. And that would be the ultimate upset.

By the way, were you dissapointed and pouty when two 15's knocked off two 2's in the first round, "completely undoing their season's work"?
 
2012-04-05 03:15:56 PM  

IAmRight: Needs to be done for what, precisely? What benefit is there from a playoff?


The champion is crowned ON THE FIELD like every other sport.
 
2012-04-05 03:17:30 PM  

downstairs: If the Rose Bowl is not part of this playoff, the whole pagentry of the thing remains.


I didn't want to single any out, but there you go. Stomp your feet and drag your heels until we do it how the Rose Bowl wants.

/Actually I don't really care other than for the health of some soon-to-be millionaires who will have to play a few extra games.
 
2012-04-05 03:18:09 PM  
Until you get the NCAA advertisers ready and asking for it (another month of profit), you'll never see it take off.
 
2012-04-05 03:20:00 PM  
How about they select 8 teams for a national championship playoff, but each selected team has the right to refuse and take a bowl game instread.

Then, during the playoff, if your team loses, you're not allowed to play in the national championship playoffs the following season.

We still get a crazy amount of bowl games, but the playoff games get a super extra urgent 'are you sure you've got the balls to try to claim the national championship?' addedness, in that if you lose, you're back to one of the bowl games the following year.

I mean, I know it would never happen, but seriously, 3 games, and then 'uhhhh, let's pick two!'? I dont even
 
2012-04-05 03:20:24 PM  

A Fark Handle: sethstorm: How about imposing a death penalty on the SEC from the BCS for a good part of this century? 75 years should do nicely.

That'll fix your BCS problem with all the scandals that don't get reported in the SEC - yet everything is done scandalwise to off good coaches elsewhere (Tressel, Paterno) or to inflict an additional coup de grace on the football program (USC, Ohio State with Urban Meyer).

how the hell is the sec responsible for a decade long cover-up of kiddy-farking? cousin-farking, sure. but kiddy-farking?

Apparently you're not aware of how much the rosters of certain SEC teams change, thanks to their own form of "over-recruiting". Which if you look at it, is that much worse given that the NCAA has yanked a good coach at the last minute(Tressel), and made sure that the first good successor won't have a bowl game(Meyer) - which would not happen in the SEC for the same deeds.


the sec is not the problem. at least they are open about the fact that football matters and the "student-athletes" and "education" do not.

If it isn't the problem then there should be no issue with a nice, long death penalty for their actions.
 
2012-04-05 03:20:36 PM  

RminusQ: I've got an idea.

GAT_00: In that scenario, if the top four teams in the BCS standings included teams from the Big Ten and/or the Pac-12, that team (or teams) would play in the Rose Bowl, while the other four highest-ranked teams would play in two other games. Finalists for a championship game would be chosen from among the two semifinal winners and the Rose Bowl can get jack shiat and go fark itself


I'm sure that one is in there as a carrot to the Big Ten, but considering the Big Ten's favored plan is the "campus sites for semifinals" one, I don't know why they bothered to include the ridiculous 3 semifinals plan. It's not happening.
 
2012-04-05 03:27:33 PM  
Abolish the BCS, replace it with nothing
 
2012-04-05 03:28:57 PM  

A Fark Handle: i heart the bcs!!

fortunately as a tennessee fan these decisions will not matter to me for the foreseeable future. wait, that's UNFORTUNATELY...fark yeah, 2012 will totally be the vols year return to the national title hunt!

/you heard it here first.
//you should see the odds vegas is giving me. suckers...
///i'm going to be rich.


Dooley is a bad coach, sorry
 
2012-04-05 03:29:32 PM  

jayhawk88: Reached for comment, NCAA President Mark Emmert has this prepared statement:


Emmert has no say in this, hth
 
2012-04-05 03:29:45 PM  

downstairs: By the way, were you dissapointed and pouty when two 15's knocked off two 2's in the first round, "completely undoing their season's work"?


I didn't watch because college basketball sucks.

downstairs: The champion is crowned ON THE FIELD like every other sport.


Weird, because every title game I see, the teams are on the field and they get awarded the trophy. Keep spouting meaningless cliches, though.
 
2012-04-05 03:30:19 PM  

GQueue: RminusQ: I've got an idea.

GAT_00: In that scenario, if the top four teams in the BCS standings included teams from the Big Ten and/or the Pac-12, that team (or teams) would play in the Rose Bowl, while the other four highest-ranked teams would play in two other games. Finalists for a championship game would be chosen from among the two semifinal winners and the Rose Bowl can get jack shiat and go fark itself

I'm sure that one is in there as a carrot to the Big Ten, but considering the Big Ten's favored plan is the "campus sites for semifinals" one, I don't know why they bothered to include the ridiculous 3 semifinals plan. It's not happening.


can you imagine the hillarity of watching the florida gators try to play a playoff game in happy valley in january?

my god, it would be beautiful.
 
2012-04-05 03:30:24 PM  

GQueue: RminusQ: I've got an idea.

GAT_00: In that scenario, if the top four teams in the BCS standings included teams from the Big Ten and/or the Pac-12, that team (or teams) would play in the Rose Bowl, while the other four highest-ranked teams would play in two other games. Finalists for a championship game would be chosen from among the two semifinal winners and the Rose Bowl can get jack shiat and go fark itself

I'm sure that one is in there as a carrot to the Big Ten, but considering the Big Ten's favored plan is the "campus sites for semifinals" one, I don't know why they bothered to include the ridiculous 3 semifinals plan. It's not happening.


Because there is no way the SEC will agree to to campus sites.

It is a tactic we all use when we have a reasonalbe plan and don't get our way - offer up a dumber idea.
 
2012-04-05 03:34:45 PM  
I don't think a playoff is very fair considering the nature of the game of Football - in the NFL you can have a team win every game but the last one and not be the champion to a team who barely won half of their games and got hot at the right time. Instead of rewarding a team for their excellent play over a regular season, you place them into a tournament where you essentially discount everything they've done and tell them, "Hope you don't screw up." Unfortunately, the game of football doesn't allow for a series of games to decide who advances in a playoff due to the wear and tear on the body, otherwise that would be ideal to ensure that you don't have a bad team get a couple of lucky bounces and advancing.

Combine that with the flaws of giving "division winners" automatic playoff spots over teams with better records and a head to head win and wins over common opponents - and you can produce a more flawed "championship" than the BCS in an NFL style system.
 
2012-04-05 03:35:20 PM  

OtherLittleGuy: If only the NCAA had a postseason system where multiple games can be played for a championship....

[www.nationofblue.com image 400x325]


The NCAA does have a playoff system to determine a Division 1 football championship.

The problem is that most of the D1 schools choose not to participate in it and formed their own subdivision with hookers and blackjack with bowl games and the BCS.
 
2012-04-05 03:35:48 PM  

IAmRight: Weird, because every title game I see, the teams are on the field and they get awarded the trophy. Keep spouting meaningless cliches, though.


But they don't GET there by playing on the field. They get there by a selection.

Why not let Stanford and Oregon have a stab at it?
 
2012-04-05 03:38:55 PM  

downstairs: But they don't GET there by playing on the field.


The title game is played on the first weekend of September?
 
2012-04-05 03:39:20 PM  

Treygreen13: Combine that with the flaws of giving "division winners" automatic playoff spots over teams with better records and a head to head win and wins over common opponents - and you can produce a more flawed "championship" than the BCS in an NFL style system.


FFS, let's look at the last few NFL seasons. Super Bowl champions are teams that either can't win their own division or beat a few teams they've already lost to in order to advance.

I'm sure it's a great idea to eliminate the home games throughout the playoffs, too. Who wouldn't like to support their school by purchasing extremely expensive tickets to a semifinal, then, if they win, pay double THAT cost a week later to go catch the championship game. That sounds like fun!
 
Displayed 50 of 122 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report