Texsox Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 It would be a bad idea if the BCS limited teams in the championship game to just conference winners and here's why: First off you have eliminated the possibility that the top two teams in the country could be in the same conference. The Big 12 and the Big 10 both have 2 teams in the top 6 or 8 this season. It is theoretically possible, if not probable, that someday two teams from the same conference could finish 1-2 in the country. In NCAA basketball they do not put every team from the same conference into the same bracket. It is possible the championship game could be with two teams from the same conference. One of course would not be the conference champion. If the NCAA went to a 8 team playoff and you believe that conference champions only should be eligible to play for the title you would have to toss out Texas and Oklahoma, both top 8 teams. Ohio State would also get tossed. That's 3 of the top 8 out of the playoffs. Would you take the winner of the MAC most years over the 2nd place Big 10 team? Looking back I couldn't see a year that made sense. In prosports you would eliminate the wild card and the Marlins would not be the WS Champs. College football will always have subjective rankings. There is no feasible way to have a 64 team tourney so someone or something (computers) will have to rank subjective factors like quality of wins, quality of schedule, etc. to determine the champions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Honda Civic Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 At first I thought conference championships were only a bad thing... Read in the BCS and Making a case for Playoffs thread... but after going through all the scenarios in my head, I think EVERY CONFERENCE SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO HAVE A CONFERENCE CHAMPIONSHIP GAME.... The BCS was developed to make sure that in the event of having multiple 0-loss teams the Top 2 would meet to play in a "National Championship"..... But here's the rub... Last year the big ten had two Undefeated teams in conference, it was one bad half of football away from having 2 totally undefeated teams. This leaves the unfair possibility, that by not having to play each other, even though they are the same conference, the Big 10 could have the #1 and #2 ranked teams in the BCS... The Pac-10, even though it would only take a 9 game season to play every team, only plays 8, leaving the possibility of having 2 undefeated teams... Who knows what the Big east will look like in the future, I don't even know if they have the quality of teams to be guarenteed a spot in the BCS. The ACC loks to be expanding to have a schedule where not everyone plays, thus requiring a conference championship... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bones Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 The argument is against the BCS Championship Game not a playoff system. If they're just picking 2 teams, how can they pick a team that doesn't win it's conference? Now, if they had an 8-team playoff however, they could take all the Big 6 Conference Champions and the 2 highest ranked teams that didn't win their conference. You would still have the question of whether 3 teams should be allowed from one conference. And who would play who. Whether to keep the tie-ins w/ the Pac-10 and Big Ten in the Rose Bowl or to rank them #1 through #8 and have the matchups based on that. But, this is just an idea. It would have these teams Conference Champions Florida State Kansas State LSU Michigan Miami USC Other 2 Oklahoma Ohio State, Tennessee, or Texas (depending on which poll you use) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Honda Civic Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 Here's a point to think about.... Why is Kansas State the conference champion?... They lost 2 conference games, Oklahoma lost one. Here's the answer. This coming season, BCS leagues will receive between $11.78 - 14.67 million depending on the conference affiliation of the at-large participants. Should the at-large participants come from outside the original BCS conferences -- ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-10 or SEC -- those participants will receive $13.78 million. If one or both at-large selections come from within the original BCS group, the conference shall receive $13.54 million for the first participant and $4.5 million for the second participant from that same league. The remaining dollars (the difference between $13.54 million and $4.5 million) will be split among the BCS conferences. This all but guarentees the Big 12 of 2 teams in the BCS, thus increasing thier cut of these large paying bowls... all other New Years Day games pay less than $4.5 MIL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted December 9, 2003 Author Share Posted December 9, 2003 If they're just picking 2 teams, how can they pick a team that doesn't win it's conference? How can you automatically say that one conference can never have the two best teams in the nation? By limiting the championship game to conference champs only we are saying before they play a single down that no two teams from the same conference can be 1-2 in the nation. Does that make sense logically? It also then makes the assumption that, for example, the winner of the MAC is a stronger team, more worthy of national title hopes, than say Ohio, Texas, or Oklahoma. You just eliminated mid conferences from your equation. Why does the NCAA invite more than 1 team from some conferences into the basketball tourny? Could it be they recognize that the second place team in a conference may be the best team in the nation? How many times have we seen the winner of a b-ball conference tourny is seeded lower than another team in their conference? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bones Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 That's why there needs to be a playoff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted December 9, 2003 Author Share Posted December 9, 2003 That's why there needs to be a playoff. Would you leave Oklahoma in the playoffs? Texas? Ohio? Or would you just invite the conference winners? Wouldn't there be more controversy with Kansas in the playoffs this year and not Texas and Oklahoma, both ranked by everbody in the top 8? Do you think a playoff would be better that didn't take the top 4 or 8 teams in the nation, regardless if they won their conference championship or not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 Also if you look at the NCAA tourney for hoops there are teams that lose their confrence tournaments that still end up as number #1 seeds. I do believe that it should be based on the whole season, otherwise why play the first 10 games? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 Again, by what devine right does USC have to play for the National Title? http://www.soxtalk.com/index.php?showtopic...30entry220792 They played 1 ranked opponent all yr. 15th ranked Wash St. Hell, ND beat WSU! The BCS got it right. The teams with the best record vs the toughest schedule are playing for the Title. Think of the WWE or heavy weight boxing. You have to beat the best to play for a championship. USC clearly did not do that this year. The truth is that if Michigan was so stupid on the field this yr, they would not have lost to both Oregon & Iowa & would likely be playing OSU in the Sugar Bowl. Stupid because they made bone head plays in those 2 games that cost them the victory. In otherwords, the talent level on UofM is so far superior to most teams that if they had played these 2 teams 10 times each, they would probably have beaten them 8/10. So USC should quit it's dry tear drama scenes & concentrate on the task at hand : playing a #4 in the Rose Bowl who might very well have finished the season playing like a #1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bones Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 Would you leave Oklahoma in the playoffs? Texas? Ohio? Or would you just invite the conference winners? Wouldn't there be more controversy with Kansas in the playoffs this year and not Texas and Oklahoma, both ranked by everbody in the top 8? Do you think a playoff would be better that didn't take the top 4 or 8 teams in the nation, regardless if they won their conference championship or not? I still think you should take the conference champions for the fact that it shows they ended the year on a high note. As I said before K State's QB, Ell Roberson, was injured for the games that they lost earlier in the year. He is an electric, Mike Vick, type of player who can change how a team has to defend and prepare for them. Also, It takes some teams awhile to gel. If the NFL had this formula and shortened schedule, Philadelphia would likely not be placed in the championship because of their slow start. Remember the NCAA has no preseason games. It takes luck, not just skill to end a season undefeated or in this year's case with one loss. I do not think that anyone wants to play a team like Michigan or Kansas State right now because they both ended the season so well. Bottom line is I think there should be more emphasis on how you end a season than how it begins. You obviously don't feel that way and I can see your stance. But if a team loses a few non-conference games to start the year then comes back to win their conference isn't a contender for the national championship, then I don't know who is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted December 9, 2003 Author Share Posted December 9, 2003 I still think you should take the conference champions for the fact that it shows they ended the year on a high note. As I said before K State's QB, Ell Roberson, was injured for the games that they lost earlier in the year. He is an electric, Mike Vick, type of player who can change how a team has to defend and prepare for them. Also, It takes some teams awhile to gel. If the NFL had this formula and shortened schedule, Philadelphia would likely not be placed in the championship because of their slow start. Remember the NCAA has no preseason games. It takes luck, not just skill to end a season undefeated or in this year's case with one loss. I do not think that anyone wants to play a team like Michigan or Kansas State right now because they both ended the season so well. Bottom line is I think there should be more emphasis on how you end a season than how it begins. You obviously don't feel that way and I can see your stance. But if a team loses a few non-conference games to start the year then comes back to win their conference isn't a contender for the national championship, then I don't know who is. I'm not being specific to this season which is why I started a different thread. I believe that just like the basketball playoffs, that the two best teams in the nation can come from the same conference. You are eliminating that possibility. This year there are two Big Ten teams and two Big 12 teams in the top 6. Using Michigan and Ohio as examples; if they had finised 1-2 in the polls would you have argued that one should be tossed out of the championship game and replaced by the 3rd rated team? That only one from the conference, the champion should play? If we make it a rule that to play in the championship game you have to win your last game of the season we will have programs scheduling stiffs to end the season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bones Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 First of all, let it be known that I hate the BCS and that it will never be right to just pick two teams to play for a "championship" after the regular season. The BCS would have been wrong no matter what the championship game was this year because there were three teams with one loss and only 2 can play in a championship game. My argument is for when, hopefully, in 2 years they come up with a playoff system for college football. Take the 6 conference winners and the top 2 rated teams that didn't win there conference and there is no way the top 2 teams get left out. Sure, some teams will still argue about not being one of the top 2 to go but it will be 100% better than the BCS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted December 9, 2003 Author Share Posted December 9, 2003 First of all, let it be known that I hate the BCS and that it will never be right to just pick two teams to play for a "championship" after the regular season. The BCS would have been wrong no matter what the championship game was this year because there were three teams with one loss and only 2 can play in a championship game. My argument is for when, hopefully, in 2 years they come up with a playoff system for college football. Take the 6 conference winners and the top 2 rated teams that didn't win there conference and there is no way the top 2 teams get left out. Sure, some teams will still argue about not being one of the top 2 to go but it will be 100% better than the BCS. So then you don't think a team has to win their conference to play in the championship game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bones Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 So then you don't think a team has to win their conference to play in the championship game. As long as they come up with a playoff it's fine to have teams in it that don't win their conference. But if they stick with the BCS Championship I think they should make it for conference winners only. Nobody wants to see two teams from the same conference playing for the national title, even if they didn't play each other in the regular season. It just would not be fair to the other conferences that hold championship games that basically eliminate that possibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted December 10, 2003 Author Share Posted December 10, 2003 So if Ohio State and Michigan finished 1-2 in the polls you would favor throwing one out and letting the highest rated team from another conference play? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bones Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 Yes, or make every conference hold a championship/tie-breaker game if necessary. This is why the BCS is so messed up right now. It can't evaluate things from an even viewpoint. Not all teams play conference championships. Not all teams have tough schedules. How can the fact that Notre Dame lost to Syracuse be the deciding factor that puts LSU in the championship over USC. It's ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted December 10, 2003 Author Share Posted December 10, 2003 Yes, or make every conference hold a championship/tie-breaker game if necessary. This is why the BCS is so messed up right now. It can't evaluate things from an even viewpoint. Not all teams play conference championships. Not all teams have tough schedules. How can the fact that Notre Dame lost to Syracuse be the deciding factor that puts LSU in the championship over USC. It's ridiculous. A lot depends on how you view the conferences. Are they divisions of a league in which case half the NCAA Div 1 teams are left out of consideration (and possibly correctly) or do we have 100+ teams all vying in a beauty contest of sorts? The NCAA could call the 6 major conferences divisions, then set up a playoff with those 6 conferences and only count wins and loses within those conferences . The two wildcards teams would be teams with the best records against other Big 6 conference schools. The smaller schools who fund a lot of their programs by playing Enormous U for cash and prizes will suffer or half to fold, but the playoffs will be cleaner. Right now smaller Div 1 schools are paid to play these games which almost guarantee the big school a win. I still think it is wrong to legislate that a conference can't have the two best teams in the nation. Basketball allows it and so should football. Even within the Big 6 a couple conferences are stronger than the others. Right now the Big 12 and Big 10 are both pretty powerful conferences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bones Posted December 11, 2003 Share Posted December 11, 2003 Basketball allows it because they have a tournament. But, in football they just pick two teams to play for the title and that's all there is to it. It's a lot different handing a conference a championship by placing two teams from the same conference in the championship game than putting 6 or 7 or even 8 teams into a 64 team tournament to decide the champion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted December 11, 2003 Author Share Posted December 11, 2003 I guess the point I am making is an arbitrary rule like you have to win your last game of the season or one conference can not have the two best teams in the nation would be a step backward. This is still better than the system it replaced. In the old system USC would never have played for the National Championship either. They would be playing Michigan no matter where they both were ranked. It was a bidders war for teams and Bowls were looking to grab the teams that "travelled" the best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted December 11, 2003 Share Posted December 11, 2003 Remember when the Big 10 was derogatorily called the Big 2 and the Little 8? And with good reason. Now, let's say you had a season where Ohio St and Mich were not scheduled to play each other in the regular season. You could conceivably have OSU and UM go through the regular season and come out at the end as the only two undeated teams in the nation... yet, since they were both in the same conference, both teams skated by on only playing cupcakes. No, when selecting two teams to play in a national championship game, they should not be from the same conference. If they make their way through a playoff or Tournament system, then they have earned it and there is no controversy. But picking OSU to play Michigan for a "National" championship under the above circumstances would be a travesty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted December 11, 2003 Author Share Posted December 11, 2003 The system should have as a goal having the two best teams in the nation playing each other. By adding things like you have to win your last game, or can't be from the same conference, you are undermining that goal. I'll agree to disagree whether it should be the best two teams for the totality of the season or the best two teams at that moment (the "when you lose matters" argument) but to replace an arbitrary system that allows any two teams in division 1 who are rated 1-2 in the final poll for a system that would toss out one of the teams because they happen to be in the same conference with another equally good team is taking a giant step backwards. If you go to a conference winner only playoff be ready for controversy when a team like OU, Ohio, or Texas is left out of the tourny while someone like Kansas is in. I'm certain LSU would feel better beating Kansas than OU this season. Remember what the BCS replaced. This is an improvement. The Bowls were nothing more than a post season exhibition designed to draw fans to warm weather games to spend $$. Each Bowl tried to attract not necessarily the best teams, but the one that "travelled" (spent $$$) well. When they had a decent matchup they would hype this "mythical" national champion. Compeating Bowls would each try and promote their winner as the national champion. Some Bowls had contractual arrangements like the Rose Bowl to assure themselves of a good game every year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.