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.

(USA Today)   BCS leaders vow that the BCS will suck less ass next year   (usatoday.com) divider line 121
    More: Unlikely, BCS, Bill Hancock, Mike Slive, Big Ten, Atlantic Coast Conference, playoffs, DeLoss Dodds  
•       •       •

734 clicks; posted to Sports » on 26 Apr 2012 at 11:40 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-26 08:10:07 AM  
Nothing sucks quite like not having a playoff, so it will actually just suck the same.
Quit watching is the only solution then maybe they'll figure it out.....eventually.
 
2012-04-26 09:03:52 AM  
Meet the new BCS, same as the old BCS.
 
2012-04-26 10:37:50 AM  
Bill Hancock spews shiat like a pro.
 
2012-04-26 11:26:14 AM  
BCS will suck less ass next year

Isn't that a law of physics? There is no degree lower.
 
2012-04-26 11:45:38 AM  
So the SEC gets kicked out? Awesome.
 
2012-04-26 11:50:59 AM  
IMPOSSIBLE
 
2012-04-26 11:51:00 AM  
So it won't exist and we'll just go back to the bowl system? Sweet.

BUT AH NEEEDS TO HAVE SOMEUN BE NUMMMMBER ONE! IF YOU AIN'T FIRST YOU'RE LAST AND HOW THE HELL AM I SUPPOSED TO KNOW WHO'S LAST IF THERE AIN'T A RANDOM LUCK TOURNAMENT AT THE END OF A SEASON!
 
2012-04-26 11:51:03 AM  
16 or 8 team playoff. It will still be the big boys only club with just 4 teams. I think you have to allow for a cinderella, people love em in the Hoops tourney
 
2012-04-26 11:52:33 AM  
Not next year. The changes they're talking about won't go into effect until the 2014 season when the contracts are renewed.

Right now it sounds like 1/4 2/3 and then the title game is what they're going to go with, with the games played at neutral sites. Campus sites may have been nice, but at least that godawful plan with the Rose Bowl being a potential 3rd semifinal game is gone. Hopefully they come up with a better way to pick the teams than the polls, I wouldn't be against a selection committee.
 
2012-04-26 11:52:34 AM  
couchgroove.webs.com

Ah -- college football playoffs four-team events? Don't talk about -- playoffs four-team events? You kidding me? Playoffs Four-team events?
 
2012-04-26 11:53:53 AM  

funktilious_j: 16 or 8 team playoff. It will still be the big boys only club with just 4 teams. I think you have to allow for a cinderella, people love em in the Hoops tourney


It will eventually get there. A 4 team playoff is a huge step in the right direction.

Also apparently the proposal to only allow conference champions to play in the "4-team event" is pretty much dead.
 
2012-04-26 11:55:09 AM  

IAmRight: So it won't exist and we'll just go back to the bowl system? Sweet.

BUT AH NEEEDS TO HAVE SOMEUN BE NUMMMMBER ONE! IF YOU AIN'T FIRST YOU'RE LAST AND HOW THE HELL AM I SUPPOSED TO KNOW WHO'S LAST IF THERE AIN'T A RANDOM LUCK TOURNAMENT AT THE END OF A SEASON!


It's so odd that I never see you bashing the NFL playoff system.
 
2012-04-26 11:55:30 AM  

sethstorm: So the SEC gets kicked out? Awesome.


what the fark did the sec do? they have supported a playoff system for years, even proposing one a couple of years ago. it's the big-ten+1+1 and the pac-potato that have been the ones stopping a playoff system. but perhaps that has finally changed.
 
2012-04-26 11:57:18 AM  

YouWinAgainGravity: It will eventually get there. A 4 team playoff is a huge step in the right direction.


It'll get there. Then it will go past it. Then it will go further past it. Then there will be a 32-team playoff. Then a 64-team playoff. If you're going to just act as though playoffs are good, even though a one-and-done playoff is the worst way to determine a champion in terms of actually having the champion be the best team of the year, then you might as well go full retard and celebrate the sheer pointlessness of it all by at least making for some bracket fun.
 
2012-04-26 11:58:03 AM  

Carousel Beast: It's so odd that I never see you bashing the NFL playoff system.


I bash it frequently in these threads. There aren't a lot of headlines whining about it, however, so there's not really a forum for that debate to occur.
 
2012-04-26 11:58:26 AM  

YouWinAgainGravity: with the games played at neutral sites


I hope that they go farther than the south half of the United States. I know they would try to keep the other bowl sites but I would love to see a good National Championship played in the snow.
 
2012-04-26 11:59:27 AM  

Aar1012: YouWinAgainGravity: with the games played at neutral sites

I hope that they go farther than the south half of the United States. I know they would try to keep the other bowl sites but I would love to see a good National Championship played in the snow.


I think it's still being debated whether the sites will be bidded out, or the existing BCS bowl sites will continue to be the "neutral" sites.
 
2012-04-26 12:01:05 PM  

A Fark Handle: sethstorm: So the SEC gets kicked out? Awesome.

what the fark did the sec do? they have supported a playoff system for years, even proposing one a couple of years ago. it's the big-ten+1+1 and the pac-potato and Notre Dame that have been the ones stopping a playoff system. but perhaps that has finally changed.


FTFY. I'm surprised Notre Dame doesn't get into a BCS game anyway despite its perennial 7-5 or 6-6 finishes.
 
2012-04-26 12:03:23 PM  

Carousel Beast: IAmRight: So it won't exist and we'll just go back to the bowl system? Sweet.

BUT AH NEEEDS TO HAVE SOMEUN BE NUMMMMBER ONE! IF YOU AIN'T FIRST YOU'RE LAST AND HOW THE HELL AM I SUPPOSED TO KNOW WHO'S LAST IF THERE AIN'T A RANDOM LUCK TOURNAMENT AT THE END OF A SEASON!

It's so odd that I never see you bashing the NFL playoff system.


yeah, but i do. 2007 the 14-6 giants declared champs over the 18-1 patriots. season series tied 1-1, aggregate score even, and the patriots didn't even host a game (at nyc, and neutral site).
 
2012-04-26 12:07:42 PM  
The BCS is the only system that pretends it determines the "best" team. Every other sport knows that champion does not necessarily mean "best team", which can't really be definitively proven.

I don't really care whether the Giants were "better" than the Patriots as a team or for just one game, or if Alabama was "better" than LSU. I watch sports to be entertained and a playoff system is a heck of a lot more exciting and entertaining than 1 round of exhibition games.
 
2012-04-26 12:13:42 PM  
So it will be Alabama, LSU, Florida and each year the 4th seed will rotate between Oregon, USC,, Ohio St and Texas?
 
2012-04-26 12:15:35 PM  

A Fark Handle: yeah, but i do. 2007 the 14-6 giants declared champs over the 18-1 patriots. season series tied 1-1, aggregate score even, and the patriots didn't even host a game (at nyc, and neutral site).


2011 Giants still have fewer wins than the Patriots, 49ers and Packers and are 1-1 against all three.

2007 Giants were actually 1-2 against the Cowboys, also.

If you'd like other stupid examples of one-and-done tourneys resulting in stupid things, there's always college basketball conference tourneys. Sure Kentucky went undefeated in their conference in the regular season and won the NCAA tourney...but they're not even champions of their own conference because of a stupid tournament system.
 
2012-04-26 12:16:12 PM  
They say that every year and every year it's just as false.
 
2012-04-26 12:20:32 PM  
The problem isn't just the fact that only two teams get to play for the championship after the regular season is done, it's also in HOW those teams are determined. The BCS needs a committee like the NCAA tournament where there's some degree of accountability and human judgement on how teams are selected.

Also, are there people in this thread that are honestly claiming post-season playoffs ruin the ability to declare a champion? Who poured the derp normally reserved for the Politics Tab in our water today?
 
2012-04-26 12:20:57 PM  
We already have a National Championship Playoff. It's called the SEC Championship Game.
 
2012-04-26 12:21:35 PM  

basemetal: Meet the new BCS, same as the old BCS.


is this the new new BCS or the old new BCS. How many times have they changed it for the "better" only to have it suck more?
 
2012-04-26 12:22:38 PM  

Cat Food Sandwiches: We already have a National Championship Playoff. It's called the SEC Championship Game.


But a team from the SEC that did not even play in that game is the current National Champ!
 
2012-04-26 12:31:33 PM  

UNC_Samurai: Also, are there people in this thread that are honestly claiming post-season playoffs ruin the ability to declare a champion? Who poured the derp normally reserved for the Politics Tab in our water today?


the point is not that playoffs ruin everything, but that they are surely not a panacea.

1) they do deminish the value of the regular season.
2) they do grow in size. some day it will be 16-teams
3) one and done tournaments can lead to lesser teams being declared the champions.
4) i would pretend the burden on the athletes actually matters to the schools, but...

/all that said, i'm pro-playoffs since the bowls are corrupt shiatholes that should die.
//but i know that will eventually lead to the 10th best team being crowned champions.
 
2012-04-26 12:31:58 PM  

Cat Food Sandwiches: We already have a National Championship Playoff. It's called the SEC Championship Game.


Which is why a team that didn't win the SEC championship game was allowed to play for the National Championship?
 
2012-04-26 12:43:28 PM  

IAmRight: A Fark Handle: yeah, but i do. 2007 the 14-6 giants declared champs over the 18-1 patriots. season series tied 1-1, aggregate score even, and the patriots didn't even host a game (at nyc, and neutral site).

2011 Giants still have fewer wins than the Patriots, 49ers and Packers and are 1-1 against all three.

2007 Giants were actually 1-2 against the Cowboys, also.

If you'd like other stupid examples of one-and-done tourneys resulting in stupid things, there's always college basketball conference tourneys. Sure Kentucky went undefeated in their conference in the regular season and won the NCAA tourney...but they're not even champions of their own conference because of a stupid tournament system.


It may be flawed, but at least it is an objective system. That seems to me to be a necessary precondition for any reasonable champion determination.
 
2012-04-26 01:06:35 PM  

A Fark Handle: UNC_Samurai: Also, are there people in this thread that are honestly claiming post-season playoffs ruin the ability to declare a champion? Who poured the derp normally reserved for the Politics Tab in our water today?

the point is not that playoffs ruin everything, but that they are surely not a panacea.

1) they do deminish the value of the regular season.
2) they do grow in size. some day it will be 16-teams
3) one and done tournaments can lead to lesser teams being declared the champions.
4) i would pretend the burden on the athletes actually matters to the schools, but...

/all that said, i'm pro-playoffs since the bowls are corrupt shiatholes that should die.
//but i know that will eventually lead to the 10th best team being crowned champions.


I just don't accept the premise of some of those arguments.

1: The value of the NFL regular season has not been diminished by the expansion of the playoffs in 1978 and 1990. What has diminished the regular season, and may do so further, is extending the length of the regular season. The explosion of conference expansion has also done so, as it eliminates traditional rivalries that don't make big money for the conferences. And if a program isn't one of the top handful competing for the two BCS slots, all their games are diminished, because they're playing for the right to go to a slightly more prestigious exhibition game.

2: The growth of the playoffs isn't necessarily a problem, and there's only so much room for expansion on the calendar.

3: If they win, then they're the champion. Villanova was not a "lesser" team, nor was NC State. They beat their opponent on the field/court of play, and that's the biggest problem with D1-A football - you can win all your games and potentially not be eligible for the championship.

4: At some point, the NCAA will get called on their shiat. "Amateur" athletics means something entirely different to the NCAA as opposed to the rest of the civilized world. But those are problems beyond just the scope of a sport's broken postseason.
 
2012-04-26 01:15:17 PM  

Lost Thought 00: It may be flawed, but at least it is an objective system. That seems to me to be a necessary precondition for any reasonable champion determination.


There's no such thing as objectivity.

I think two fumbles by a backup punt returner should have more bearing on who the champion is than an entire season's worth of games that show one team to consistenly outperform another! Nothing shows a team's true greatness like being able to have a ball randomly bounce into someone's knee.

Even disregarding the fluke nature of determining games in close matchups, let's consider things that happen in round-robin scenarios. I remember several instances of this happening in sports...for a while, the Angels always beat the Yankees, the Yankees always beat the Red Sox, and the Red Sox always beat the Angels. (I used baseball because they have larger sample sizes, but over multiple seasons, there were instances like the Denver > New England > Indianapolis > Denver matchups where, for some reason or another, one team always would win - so whoever drew the other one first basically determined who would win the playoffs - not because one was inherently the best team, but because they didn't have to face the team they couldn't handle.

Playoffs don't solve this. They are also part of a really annoying binary culture, where something is either right or wrong. There's no appreciation of subtlety - the very idea that the champion of a tournament probably isn't the best team seems to offend people for some reason, yet the idea that one of the best two teams in the country is considered the best team is apparently terrible.

Playoffs create chaos and money. They are not good means for ensuring the best team becomes champion.
 
2012-04-26 01:18:00 PM  

UNC_Samurai: 2: The growth of the playoffs isn't necessarily a problem, and there's only so much room for expansion on the calendar.


FCS has grown from 8 to 16 to 20 (a couple years ago) and is expanding to 24. It'll probably expand again.

Since the entire purpose of a playoff is to increase revenue, extra rounds increase revenue. So why would they stop?
 
2012-04-26 01:25:41 PM  
Ah, I'm at work and it's a slow day, so what the hell:

*Expand and merge the existing conferences into 6 superconferences, which would include some versions of the Big East, the ACC, the SEC, the Big 10, the Big 12 and the Pac 12.
*Division leaders of each play for the championship, with the winner getting an auto bid to the playoffs; 2 more playoff spots determined by BCS-ish polls
*Higher seeds host the first round
*On a yearly rotating basis, 3 of the existing BCS bowls host semifinals and championship game, with the 4th hosting a game between the 2 highest ranked non-playoff-bound teams
*Whatever other minor bowls that can survive should feel free to invite non-qualifying teams to play in their own post-season games.

Problem solved; college football fixed. You're welcome.
 
2012-04-26 01:26:47 PM  
Anyone else think the SEC vs SEC BCS Championship was a deliberate step toward implementing the playoff?

farm3.staticflickr.com
 
2012-04-26 01:27:37 PM  

IAmRight: There's no appreciation of subtlety - the very idea that the champion of a tournament probably isn't the best team seems to offend people for some reason, yet the idea that one of the best two teams in the country is considered the best team is apparently terrible.


While I know it is useless to try and argue with someone who has just attempted to assert that the concept of objectivity doesn't exist, your use of the second use of the word "best" in your system is incorrect. If it were correct, no one would argue. The phrase should be "one of the top two teams in the BCS rankings", which is where the controversy comes in.
 
2012-04-26 01:28:09 PM  

A Fark Handle: but i know that will eventually lead to the 10th best team being crowned champions.


How often do wild card teams in the NFL win the Superbowl? And there's more parity in the NFL than in college. I don't think there would be as many underdog champions as you think there would.

A Fark Handle: they do deminish the value of the regular season.


I don't know. I think there's too much emphasis placed on losses especially late in the season. A half of a season can be rendered moot even after a close loss to a good team. As long as the field is kept to 8 teams or fewer I don't think the regular season would seem less important. Any team that got in would still have to be elite.
 
2012-04-26 01:32:14 PM  
Seems like it gets worse each year. 5 undefeated teams at the end of a season, regular season rematches that prove just how much the regular season means in college football.
 
2012-04-26 01:33:13 PM  

Lost Thought 00: The phrase should be "one of the top two teams in the BCS rankings", which is where the controversy comes in.


Fair enough. Determining the top two teams with a playoff for 'em is also a poor way of choosing. There's no good way. I'm fine with the bowl system and I'm comfortable with the idea that two or more teams might be equally great. I don't NEED for random people I don't know to win a championship to validate my enjoyment of the sport.

/yes, my school did win a national championship in playoffs
//would've preferred to go directly to the title game as the No. 1 team, then our best player wouldn't have gotten injured - sure, making it through the other three games to win the title with a backup RB was cool, but I'd rather he'd have been healthy for the title game.
///oh, and the school lost more money every round it advanced (luckily I'm sure the champions merch has made up for that difference, but if we'd lost the final then all those wins would've just cost our school money and damaged the athletic program).
 
2012-04-26 01:34:34 PM  

IAmRight: Lost Thought 00: It may be flawed, but at least it is an objective system. That seems to me to be a necessary precondition for any reasonable champion determination.

There's no such thing as objectivity.

I think two fumbles by a backup punt returner should have more bearing on who the champion is than an entire season's worth of games that show one team to consistenly outperform another! Nothing shows a team's true greatness like being able to have a ball randomly bounce into someone's knee.

Even disregarding the fluke nature of determining games in close matchups, let's consider things that happen in round-robin scenarios. I remember several instances of this happening in sports...for a while, the Angels always beat the Yankees, the Yankees always beat the Red Sox, and the Red Sox always beat the Angels. (I used baseball because they have larger sample sizes, but over multiple seasons, there were instances like the Denver > New England > Indianapolis > Denver matchups where, for some reason or another, one team always would win - so whoever drew the other one first basically determined who would win the playoffs - not because one was inherently the best team, but because they didn't have to face the team they couldn't handle.

Playoffs don't solve this. They are also part of a really annoying binary culture, where something is either right or wrong. There's no appreciation of subtlety - the very idea that the champion of a tournament probably isn't the best team seems to offend people for some reason, yet the idea that one of the best two teams in the country is considered the best team is apparently terrible.

Playoffs create chaos and money. They are not good means for ensuring the best team becomes champion.


Your problem is that you think the "best" team should be the champion, and also that there really is one objectively "best" team.

America celebrates champions, it celebrates winners. And without some sort of playoff, there cannot be one winner. We crave having that one team to crown in each sport, and the best way to determine that, with all the drama we enjoy and want, is to have a playoff sysytem
 
2012-04-26 01:37:22 PM  

UNC_Samurai: 1: The value of the NFL regular season has not been diminished by the expansion of the playoffs in 1978 and 1990. What has diminished the regular season, and may do so further, is extending the length of the regular season. The explosion of conference expansion has also done so, as it eliminates traditional rivalries that don't make big money for the conferences. And if a program isn't one of the top handful competing for the two BCS slots, all their games are diminished, because they're playing for the right to go to a slightly more prestigious exhibition game.


a 7-9 seasucks team made the playoffs. the regular season is a mockery when that is possible. granted with only 4 spots and 120 teams it's not the 12 of 32 the nfl does. but when it grows to 16 and 8-4 texas is competing in the first round it will make the regular season less meaning full.

UNC_Samurai: 2: The growth of the playoffs isn't necessarily a problem, and there's only so much room for expansion on the calendar.


see: ncaa football 1-aa. expansion will come. and expansion will lesson the regular season. as i said above 4 teams doesn't, but 16+ would.

UNC_Samurai: 3: If they win, then they're the champion. Villanova was not a "lesser" team, nor was NC State. They beat their opponent on the field/court of play, and that's the biggest problem with D1-A football - you can win all your games and potentially not be eligible for the championship.


yes, they were lesser teams. i can roll a die and have it land on 6 three times in a row. that does not make 6 the superior number.

now for some more unrelated thoughts. part of the problem with d1 football is that there is a huge farking gap in quality between the bcs conference school plus a few others and the rest of the d1 teams. this makes seeding or selecting teams for any playoff much more difficult. a problem not found in the nfl. if western kentucky runs the table in the sun belt and crushes akron, austin peay, and murray state they shouldn't be in a playoff over a 12-1 oregon. in the nfl/nhl/nba we know what a win is worth. not so much in college football. not all wins are equal. personally, i think the solution is to move some of the shiat 1a teams back to 1aa.
 
2012-04-26 01:43:40 PM  

jackiepaper: Your problem is that you think the "best" team should be the champion, and also that there really is one objectively "best" team.


No, my problem is that people treat the tournament champion as though they were the best team, and celebrate only them.

jackiepaper: We crave having that one team to crown in each sport, and the best way to determine that, with all the drama we enjoy and want, is to have a playoff sysytem


GODDAMMIT THIS IS 'MURICA AND IF THERE AIN'T ONE TEAM THAT'S THE BEST HOW THE HELL AM I GONNA KNOW WHO TO ROOT FOR?

A Fark Handle: personally, i think the solution is to move some of the shiat 1a teams back to 1aa.


I am in favor of a playoff if we create eight 8-team conferences with round-robin schedules and an 8-team playoff. Taking a 120-team system and throwing a playoff on top is stupid. If you want to change the system, change the system. Don't half-ass it. the non-BCS programs are a dead weight on the whole system.
 
2012-04-26 01:44:28 PM  

funktilious_j: 16 or 8 team playoff. It will still be the big boys only club with just 4 teams. I think you have to allow for a cinderella, people love em in the Hoops tourney


Just make it the conference winners. Then you can watch the MAC champ get destroyed by the SEC champ, etc.

No one would be able to complain about a biased selection committee because there'd be no selection committee, just conference winners.
 
2012-04-26 01:47:16 PM  

UNC_Samurai: The problem isn't just the fact that only two teams get to play for the championship after the regular season is done, it's also in HOW those teams are determined. The BCS needs a committee like the NCAA tournament where there's some degree of accountability and human judgement on how teams are selected.

Also, are there people in this thread that are honestly claiming post-season playoffs ruin the ability to declare a champion? Who poured the derp normally reserved for the Politics Tab in our water today?


If only there was a way to have teams just flat-out earn their way into the playoffs without any sort of human judgement... I don't know, maybe you could put them in some sort of "divisions" or "conferences" and have them play the other teams in their grouping with the winner going to the playoffs.
 
2012-04-26 01:49:39 PM  

IAmRight: jackiepaper: Your problem is that you think the "best" team should be the champion, and also that there really is one objectively "best" team.

No, my problem is that people treat the tournament champion as though they were the best team, and celebrate only them.



Then you'd probably like how soccer does things -- they have their tournaments going on alongside the regular season (so a team would play a league game on Saturday and a tournament game on Wednesday) so you end up with a tournament and league champion (plus a champion's league champion). Honestly, something similar could happen in football but you'd have to play WAY more games.
 
2012-04-26 01:55:14 PM  

meanmutton: Then you'd probably like how soccer does things


No, I really don't like anything about soccer.

I'm fine with regular-season and tourney trophies. Basically, I'm fine with it if we just always refer to it as a tournament champion, not the 2012 National Champion.

No, you won a tournament.

/I also think baseball might as well just go to a balanced schedule and whoever has the best record at the end of the regular season is the champion - performance over 162 games is more impressive than being marginally better than a couple of other teams in short series.
 
2012-04-26 01:56:28 PM  

meanmutton: UNC_Samurai: The problem isn't just the fact that only two teams get to play for the championship after the regular season is done, it's also in HOW those teams are determined. The BCS needs a committee like the NCAA tournament where there's some degree of accountability and human judgement on how teams are selected.

Also, are there people in this thread that are honestly claiming post-season playoffs ruin the ability to declare a champion? Who poured the derp normally reserved for the Politics Tab in our water today?

If only there was a way to have teams just flat-out earn their way into the playoffs without any sort of human judgement... I don't know, maybe you could put them in some sort of "divisions" or "conferences" and have them play the other teams in their grouping with the winner going to the playoffs.


No, that's can't work. As you can read above, playoffs allow "lesser" teams to beat superior teams, and therefore ruin the legitimacy of the championship.
 
2012-04-26 02:01:31 PM  

IAmRight: meanmutton: Then you'd probably like how soccer does things

No, I really don't like anything about soccer.

I'm fine with regular-season and tourney trophies. Basically, I'm fine with it if we just always refer to it as a tournament champion, not the 2012 National Champion.

No, you won a tournament.

/I also think baseball might as well just go to a balanced schedule and whoever has the best record at the end of the regular season is the champion - performance over 162 games is more impressive than being marginally better than a couple of other teams in short series.


Wait, you don't like anything about soccer except that they, you know, decide champions pretty much exactly the way you suggested? Which was kind of my point?
 
2012-04-26 02:02:18 PM  
t0.gstatic.com

Only thing that matters anyways.
 
2012-04-26 02:11:08 PM  

meanmutton: Wait, you don't like anything about soccer except that they, you know, decide champions pretty much exactly the way you suggested? Which was kind of my point?


They sort of do, except their season's all f*ckin' wacky with random tournament breaks or random matches. Just stick with NHL-like President's Cup and Stanley Cup.

/but the President's Cup should be more significant
 
Displayed 50 of 121 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 »






Report