BCS created this site

[OreDucks01284]

http://www.playoffproblem.com/

interesting....

[Limerickob1]

This site shows three very important realities:

1. The BCS is really feeling a lot of pressure and is trying to go on the offensive
2. You can spin numbers to make any point no matter how ridiculous (see global warming)
3. Big money trumps common sense (see Al Gore, big government and Soros).

[ducksrock]

This site shows three very important realities:

1. The BCS is really feeling a lot of pressure and is trying to go on the offensive
2. You can spin numbers to make any point no matter how ridiculous (see global warming)
3. Big money trumps common sense (see Al Gore, big government and Soros).

Athletically, you may have some points..Politically? Dont waste your breath and/or our time..This is a Duck site and I doubt many are really interested in your political views or concepts...
I personally find those that feel the need to express either their political and/or religious views offensive, but, thats just me...

[gregspechtismyhero]

I came up with this idea and voiced it back when we were on the old board, but I think it'd be interesting to simulate. Have a bowl program for those who are eligible, and have the top 25 go through a playoff system. Of course, those who are a few votes outside of the 25, but they would still get a postseason which is important for potential recruits and extra practices for the teams. And, of course, they would still be making as much or maybe more money, depending on how well the bowl teams travel. Just an idea, what do you guys think?

[goducks75]

I'd be far more satisfied with a playoff than the bowl system we have. Until we implement a playoff, the BCS will be laughing its way to the bank... Their arguments really suck too. Yes there will always be problems of teams feeling like they are left out but they fail to mention that the problem is actually WORSE in their system. Also, how is the importance of the regular season diminished? Don't you still have to do well during the regular season to even earn a playoff spot? I don't get it.

[SuperDuck]

It's ridiculous to say that any system other than a playoff is the best way to determine a national champion in any sport. People in favor of a playoff could easily create a website explaining why there SHOULD be a playoff.

That being said, I do agree with one point made there. That's that there should be a limit to how many teams are included in the playoff format. I'd also do everything possible to eliminate any team with three losses or more from consideration. After seeing the example of the Arizona Cardinals reaching the Super Bowl last year with a 9-7 record, I have to agree that there must be a line drawn in the sand.

I'd think that a 16-20 team playoff would be enough to include all deserving teams.

Also, conference championship games should be eliminated.

Teams should also not play a round robin schedule, as the Pac-10 is doing. Eight league games and four non-conference, one of which, can be an FCS team, if desired. That would level the playing field for all teams across the board and increase the chances of having enough teams that would qualify with two losses or less.

My two cents.

[wheaton4prez]

This site shows three very important realities:

1. The BCS is really feeling a lot of pressure and is trying to go on the offensive
2. You can spin numbers to make any point no matter how ridiculous (see global warming)
3. Big money trumps common sense (see Al Gore, big government and Soros).

Athletically, you may have some points..Politically? Dont waste your breath and/or our time..This is a Duck site and I doubt many are really interested in your political views or concepts...
I personally find those that feel the need to express either their political and/or religious views offensive, but, thats just me...

I don't feel that way. I think that people are too thin skinned about this type of thing.

I didnt see a credible argument on that site. Yes. You cant easily sort the top 8. But how we have a top 8 is part of the BCS system. They shoot themselves in the foot there. Yes. College football is popular. That doesn't mean that the BCS is. Two different things. They don't get to take credit for the appeal of the game itself.

[OreDucks01284]

I want them to explain how the hell did Nebraska end up playing against Miami for national champ?, It should be Oregon Vs Miami!!!. didnt they want #1 vs #2 for BCS national champ?

[Greydrake]

Anytime you put the idea of a championship into the hands of rankings you remove objectivity from the decision. What is being done on the field should be the only qualifier, not that a bunch of sportswriters or coaches who can't possibly watch every game.

Conference champions only should be in the playoff. Wildcard additions are pure bulls##t and unfair, otherwise why even hold the season.

I would like to see the conferences expand to eleven teams with a full round robin slate (balances home and away at 5-5) and have a regional playoff for a qualifier immediate on season completion. That still gives teams a couple of non-conference games to play and allows all but 4 to be eligible for the slew of bowls games. Make those non-conference games non-counting, you might see some good inter-conference matchups. as to the championship hold their playoff over the next month, say a game every 2 weeks.
A MWC-PAC10 championship showdown would be down right exciting to see.
Granted it only covers 88 teams but its better than what we got.

[SuperDuck]

Anytime you put the idea of a championship into the hands of rankings you remove objectivity from the decision. What is being done on the field should be the only qualifier, not that a bunch of sportswriters or coaches who can't possibly watch every game.

Well said. I agree 100%.

Conference champions only should be in the playoff. Wildcard additions are pure bulls##t and unfair, otherwise why even hold the season.

I don't agree with you here, though. What about the old saying "on any given day?" What I mean is, what about the occasional upset that's bound to happen from time to time in conference play? USC is a great example of this recently, although they were still good enough to win the conference.

The best way to do it would be to have the top two teams from each Big 6 (BCS) conference and then fill out the field with other conference champs and at-large teams. The top 4 seeded teams could get a bye in the first round (example).

This way, we make 100% sure that the best team doesn't get left out because they fell flat, didn't match up well, had key players out with injuries that cost them a game, which ended up costing them their conference championship.

Kind of like what happened to the Ducks in 2007.

Make sense?

[Greydrake]

The best way to do it would be to have the top two teams from each Big 6 (BCS) conference and then fill out the field with other conference champs and at-large teams.

There lies my objection, opening the bids to subjective decisions, which is fundamental problem of the present system. There is no perfect setup, upsets will occur, but with enough league games the creme of the crop will more than likely rise rise to the surface and NOT be punished for an upset (insert USC here). Consider an 8 team playoff under the current conference format, if the 6 conference champions were guaranteed berths, and open say a mini playoff between the top four non-BCS schools for 2 open spots, the whole system would be so much further along than what it is now. There would be at least a semblance of fairness across the board. The only qualifier I can give you is let the individual conferences decide who their rep is.


The only valid point on that BCS board is that the playoffs could become too burdensome if expanded too large. Mind you eliminating the polls and computers would be putting the BCS (insert cheer here) out of business. Their arguments are premised that their ranking system is material to the issue.

[goducks75]

The best way to do it would be to have the top two teams from each Big 6 (BCS) conference and then fill out the field with other conference champs and at-large teams.

There lies my objection, opening the bids to subjective decisions, which is fundamental problem of the present system. There is no perfect setup, upsets will occur, but with enough league games the creme of the crop will more than likely rise rise to the surface and NOT be punished for an upset (insert USC here). Consider an 8 team playoff under the current conference format, if the 6 conference champions were guaranteed berths, and open say a mini playoff between the top four non-BCS schools for 2 open spots, the whole system would be so much further along than what it is now. There would be at least a semblance of fairness across the board. The only qualifier I can give you is let the individual conferences decide who their rep is.


The only valid point on that BCS board is that the playoffs could become too burdensome if expanded too large. Mind you eliminating the polls and computers would be putting the BCS (insert cheer here) out of business. Their arguments are premised that their ranking system is material to the issue.

Great idea. Too bad there's too much money in this current system. No system will make everyone happy but it is what it is. I'd much rather have the top 2 teams determined by on the field play than a biased opinion (see BCS polls). I will say that the BCS is better than the system that was in place prior to it (the one argument they have right), but the rest of their arguments are really weak (and that's a generous description of their arguments too).

[freedjr]

My problem with their explanation is yes, it would be dicey finding the 8 best teams, but is it any different than definitely saying Texas/SEC Champ are the two best teams? In my opinion, it's easier to find the top 8 teams than just the top 2 teams. With an 8 team playoff, yes this year Oregon and other schools might get screwed, but in reality right now, Cincinnatti, TCU and Boise St. are already getting screwed. Who's to say what's worse?

Personally, I think there should be a 10 team playoff based on BCS standings with the top two seeds getting a bye. Yes it would give them an advantage, but that's what you get for being ranked in the top two.

But as we know, the money's not in it. Oh well I can always dream!

[Greydrake]

You named it exactly, money rules the BCS

[SuperDuck]

The best way to do it would be to have the top two teams from each Big 6 (BCS) conference and then fill out the field with other conference champs and at-large teams.

Consider an 8 team playoff under the current conference format, if the 6 conference champions were guaranteed berths, and open say a mini playoff between the top four non-BCS schools for 2 open spots, the whole system would be so much further along than what it is now. There would be at least a semblance of fairness across the board. The only qualifier I can give you is let the individual conferences decide who their rep is.

I really believe that a 16 team playoff is the best way to go for all concerned.

Here are a few reasons why:

#1. There may be one or more teams with two losses in the top 8. Who's to say who is the most deserving two loss team?

#2. There's always going to be the question of strength of schedule. You look at a team like Boise State and their strength of schedule and wonder if they'd be deserving. I honestly believe that they are - this year, however, in other years, would they be more deserving than a one or even two loss SEC, Pac-10 or Big-12 team? The only way to be 100% certain and fair would be to include both of them, if they were in the top-16.

#3. Injuries and upsets. Let's say that you have a team that is ranked very high at the beginning of the season, but they go on the road and lose a very close game to another highly ranked team. Later in the season they play their main competition for the conference championship, but their starting QB is out with a minor injury and they lose a close game.

This team is clearly more deserving deserving of a playoff spot than many other teams. Do we leave them out because they didn't win their conference championship?

This is definitely a "gray area", as far as including the conference runner-up, because there are times when the team wouldn't be deserving. However, in most cases, they should be included. There would have to be some kind of rule put in place that would eliminate a conference #2 from consideration if they had three losses.

This brings me back to having the schedules modified so everyone plays a comparable level of competition.

Whew! A person could go crazy trying to figure all this stuff out.

The only thing I'm sure of is that we need 16 teams.

My two cents.