re: The BCS

quote:

---

Plus, people will still bitch at the 8 team playoff because there are bound to be 5 or 6 teams with identical records vying for the last spots.

Exactly! and how are these spots filled? POLLS, which is what everyone is complaining about in the first place.

The polls would be become even more political and, with all the money involved, it would become even more questioned.

---

And then there will be times, such as in 2005, where there are a couple unbeaten teams that should play for it all, but instead will have to navigate playoffs against teams with 1 or 2 losses.

Either they join a more powerful conference or create a more powerful conference and the join the BCS. They deserve a chance at the title but not by the gov't stepping in.

The Qualifications Based Playoff
as proposed by xiv


The number of playoff teams is not predetermined, though it never exceeds 8.

You make the playoffs if any of the following are true:
- You are BCS #1
- You are BCS #2
- You are undefeated, and your SOS is more than .450 (ie, two times your opponents' winning percentage, plus your opponents' opponents' winning percentage, divided by three) (2006 Boise State and 2004 Utah would have qualified this way; 2007 Hawaii would not have qualified.). If there are more than six such teams that are not BCS #1/#2, the six that have the highest BCS ratings will be chosen.
- You have a BCS rating of at least .90000 and there are not already eight teams who have qualified.

Seed the teams in order of their BCS rating, and make a bracket. Any opening rounds are to be played the 2nd and 3rd Saturdays of December at the home stadium of the higher-seeded teams. In the case of odd-numbered teams selected, byes are given to higher seeds. Seed switching to reduce travel will be encouraged. The BCS title game will be played the 2nd week of January at a predetermined site.



I believe this is the best method.

Previous Seasons Hypothetical Brackets:

Let's look at 2006, a really controversial year.

Qualifiers:
-Ohio State (BCS #1)
-Florida (BCS #2
-Boise State (Undefeated with adequate SOS, BCS #8)
-Michigan (.9000 BCS rating, BCS #3)

Opening round:
Boise State at Ohio State
Michigan at Florida

BCS Title Game (Glendale): BSU/OSU vs. UM/UF


Let's take 2007, a really weird year.

BCS #1: Ohio State
BCS #2: Louisiana State

And that's it. frick you, Georgia. The only undefeated team was Hawaii, who had the single weakest FBS schedule, so they're out. And no other schools had .9000 BCS ratings. No playoffs in 2007, other than the BCS title game.



2004 was a fun year. Let's do that one.

BCS #1: Southern California
BCS #2: Oklahoma
>.9000 BCS rating: BCS #3 Auburn
Undefeated with a decent SOS: BCS #6 Utah
Notable non-qualifier: Boise State (undefeated, inadequate SOS)

This playoff would have kicked arse:
Utah at Southern California
Auburn at Oklahoma

The two winners square off in Miami.

And 2003:

BCS #1: Oklahoma
BCS #2: Louisiana State
>.9000 BCS rating, BCS #3: Southern California

USC at LSU

Oklahoma gets a first round bye and plays the winner.


This system is different from all others in that, if any team ever had a complaint about its exclusion, you could always pin-point the exact reason they didn't make it. Either they didn't achieve a high-enough BCS rating, they played too many cupcakes, or they were Georgia.

How about a built in

"frick You Ohio State you can't beat anybody out of conference, especially the SEC, so you are not allowed to play for the BCS Championship ever again" Amendment

quote:

---

and I think does most definitely violate antri-trust laws.

---

Which ones? Unlawful barriers to market entry? Improper collaboration between competitors? And how do you define the "market" and the "competitors"? Is it all football, including a direct competitor to the BCS in both the NFL and the NCAA? Or is it specifically FBS division football, which would be a unique (and unprecedented) step to define a market for competitive purposes among a voluntary division of a voluntary organization? Or is it all of the NCAA, or all of college football? Who are the competitors (or potential competitors)? The conferences? The schools? The BCS? The bowls?

It is extremely easy (as well as simplistic, and incorrect) to throw out lines like "most definitely violate antitrust laws", but actually supporting such a claim is nigh impossible in a situation such as this.

Bear in mind that the only factors acting against the so-called "mid-majors" are consequences of their membership in lesser conferences, which is not a consequence of the BCS. And the regular and consistent flow of new teams into the BCS conferences over the last several years makes any argument of their non-competitive nature very difficult to take seriously. If the Utahs and Boise States of the world today were in the same boat as the Louisvilles and South Floridas and Florida States and Penn States and Miamis of yesteryear. The only difference is that some teams stepped up and actually tried competing on an even field to earn their shot, and others shied away and merely complained about not having it handed to them.

The name of the game, is who makes the most noise and has influence. Tulane didn't, Auburn didn't, but Utah did. Have always agreed that the BCS needed an overhall. Eapecially after LSU got demoted in 2003 when AP handed NC to USC. Since when in the same light did LSU get even mentioned as the NC when USC is involved? Its a travesty in Division I not to have a playoff. At least Baseball is well deserved and earned. That is more than I can say for Division I football.

quote:

---

Eapecially after LSU got demoted in 2003 when AP handed NC to USC.

---

SC was already #1 in the polls before the BCS standings and bowls. They handily won their bowl and retained their ranking in AP. AP did nothing different than it did in its history. Get over it.

As defenders of the BCS rightly point out, a bowl system helps make college football the most compelling regular season in sports....

quote:

---

this is all true, but everyone agreed that the BCS determined the national champion before the season. Pete Carroll even said this himself earlier in the season. you can't change the rules in midstream because things didn't go your way.

---

The agreement was that the winer of the BCS CG would be NC via votes from the coaches. Nothing about the AP "at all". The coaches poll and AP poll reamined distinct from one asnother with each awarding a NC. You may not remember, but the BCS organization itself called 2003 "a split decision" with "LSU winning the coaches NC and USC, the AP". That is the god's honest truth. Even some of the most die-hard LSU fans who are honest can recall that. Many bombarded the BCS with e-mails saying the BCS was wrong about the BCS.

And yes, everyone knows, Carroll included acknowledges that LSU was the BCS/Coaches NC for 2003.