An Easy Fix to the BCS.
by bbbmaker on Dec 8, 2011 9:55 AM CST
Email
Print
Some of you may remember me from 2009 just before the BCS against Texas. I posted a blast from the past as my sacrifice to the football gods for a Bama win and, well, it worked! But that's not why I'm here.
I wanted to give my two cents worth on a solution for the BCS that won't require much change to make a simple playoff system that "should" make everyone happy. As far as this year is concerned, it would include the pokes from Okie St. and would give them the chance they feel they deserve.
Most of the way the current system works would stay in place except for adding two games. The current system of polls and computers would stay the same. After the final weekend, when everything is said and done, the top 8 teams would be chosen the play a short 3 week playoff season.
Out of the long list of bowls, four could be randomly chosen to host the first week of playoffs These bowls would be assigned by ranking starting with #1 playing #5, #2 against #6, #3 against#7 and #4 playing #8. These 4 games would be played the week of Christmas. The four winners then move into the semi-finals to play in two of the BCS bowls, Fiesta, Orange, Sugar or Rose. Personally I would prefer to drop Fiesta into the lower tier. Each year one of the big three would host the BCSCG with the other two hosting the semi-finals.
So the way it would look this year would be:
#1 LSU vs. #5 Oregon
#2 Alabama vs. #6 Arkansas
#3 OSU vs. #7 Boise State
#4 Stanford vs. #8 Kansas State
This wouldn't be hard to implement, but it's also not going to please everybody. I'm sure with this, #9 and #10 would start complaining about being left out. You can't please everybody but you would let lower ranked teams get into the playoffs and try to prove that they belong too.
FanPosts are just that; posts created by the fans. They are in no way indicative of the opinions of SBN and the authors of Roll Bama Roll.
73 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Something similiar has been put out there before...
although the seeding the way you have it wouldn’t suffice most…as there would be much whining going on…it would have to be #1 v. #8, #2 v. #7, #3 v. #6 and #4 v. #5.
Yeah, why should #1 play #5 instead of #8??
You should be rewarded for getting the top seed, not punished.
God bless our Dark Lord.
Burton?
Some of you may remember me
One of Burton’s menny ghosts, buyt not all?
'There are two pains in life. There is the pain of discipline and the pain of disappointment. If you can handle the pain of discipline, then you'll never have to deal with the pain of disappointment,'- Nick Saban
Not enough typos,
unless he figured out how to work the dark keys.
"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that." - George Carlin
by Slice of Life on Dec 8, 2011 11:24 AM CST up reply actions
Disagree
The answer to your statement “An Easy Fix to the BCS”
STRENGTH OF SCHEDULE component. Done.
Attempting to remove humor from posts since August 30, 2011
SOS is already in the system... (used in cpu rankings)
"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that." - George Carlin
by Slice of Life on Dec 8, 2011 12:45 PM CST up reply actions
true
But I mean a real SOS component, like they used to have. By the time that SOS gets mangled through the computer rankings and then the computer rankings are mangled together and then they are 1/3 of the overall BCS rankings….well, that’s pretty watered down, IMO.
I’d like to see something along the lines of Harris Poll, Coaches Poll, Computer Rankings, and SOS component (to help offset the human factor or actually enhance the human factor for some teams).
I’d also be okay with allowing the computer polls to add the MOV component back in like we’ve discussed before (i.e. capped at 20 or something).
Attempting to remove humor from posts since August 30, 2011
Not really
The humans take SOS into account, or at least the ones with a clue do, although you seem to assume it only shows up in computer polls. Well, only the computer polls are mathematical and based on stated factors, but the human polls at least theoretically take everything into account.
FIXING the SOS component of computer polls is needed, but you’re way over-simplistic in your initial post.
Any scenario that requires teams to travel to multiple bowl sites
has almost no chance (imho). It’s too much travel money for most fan bases.
A seeded arrangement where the higher seeds are awarded extra home games would have a chance though.
"Never start a fight with an old man...if he's too old to fight, he'll probably just kill you."
They aren't,
except that their absence means less money to bowl destinations.
"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that." - George Carlin
by Slice of Life on Dec 8, 2011 12:47 PM CST up reply actions
In the discussions in the past week,
I think I’ve decided that I’d like a 6 team playoff where #6 plays at #3 the second week of December (after finals, whenever that needs to be, to make the presidents happy) and #5 plays at #4. Then the winners play #1 or #2 in one of the New Years Day bowls. And then the NCG a week later.
Either that or what fig proposes above, with #4 playing at #1 and #3 playing at #2. But I’m not sure the schools would abandon the bowls like this.
With either of those the seeding (and regular season) becomes very important. And it adds home games, which would be a plus for the fans and the AD’s budget. (But seriously I think the fans are a minor concern in all of this.)
God bless our Dark Lord.
I think the seeded plus one may have a chance
You can make conference champion a requirement to host a game, which settles that concern somewhat and still allow at large teams in. Play the semifinals early in December, with the losers getting bowl bids to premier bowls where they can face the next two ranked teams i.e. #’s 5 and 6 (I see where this could blow up if they lose, but I think the logistics of a larger playoff would become unwieldy and hurt the bowls too much). Reserve bowl spots for the two loser against these teams. The locations would rotate much like the championship does now.
The winners play in the last game of bowl season
"Never start a fight with an old man...if he's too old to fight, he'll probably just kill you."
I'd like to see that, but the more likely scenario is
having a seeded +1 with the first round being in bowls instead of on campus. That causes the least disturbance to the current system.
God bless our Dark Lord.
I wasn't aware that the BCS needed a fix...
…unless you’re referring to the fact that we didn’t get a rematch with UF in 2008….
"High standards come from passion within...." --Coach Nick Saban
by NiceLittleSaturday on Dec 8, 2011 12:47 PM CST reply actions
TWSS
"High standards come from passion within...." --Coach Nick Saban
by NiceLittleSaturday on Dec 8, 2011 12:54 PM CST up reply actions
Why "fix"
I keep hearing this tired thread being rolled out about the BCS being broken and in need of a fix. That is ridiculous.
The BCS works as designed. It is not now, nor has it ever been broken.
We may not like the outcomes it produces at times but it does exactly what it purports to do. I believe the better line on this is something like, “I do not like the BCS and I prefer a playoff system. Here is my proposed playoff format.” Let’s at least be honest.
As for “deserviing” teams being left out of the BCS NCG or any of the other BCS games, save me the whining (pointing at you Boise, et.al.) There is a reason Mich and VT are headed to NOLA and cashing big checks. The same reason that Bama has been to more bowl games than any other team. Winning combined with a fanbase that will shell out big money to travel and, absent travel, will definitely watch is what makes bowls work.
The Sugar Bowl committee (and all other bowl committees for that matter) acted in the best interests of that committee and the NOLA metro economy. That is why bowls exist. To think differently is delusional. I know the Orange Bowl would have most likely acted differently but they agreed to operate under a set of boundaries that restrict their free market selection ability in order to be part of the BCS. In that instance, the committee decided that the economic benefits of being part of the BCS club outweighed the value they gave up in selecting whomever they wanted.
In Orbe Terrum Non Visi
As for "deserviing" teams being left out of the BCS NCG or any of the other BCS games, save me the whining (pointing at you Boise, et.al.) There is a reason Mich and VT are headed to NOLA and cashing big checks. The same reason that Bama has been to more bowl games than any other team. Winning combined with a fanbase that will shell out big money to travel and, absent travel, will definitely watch is what makes bowls work.
This is fine for the non-championship bowls. They can invite whomever they want (within the rules). But not the NCG. That’s where we need to try to get it right (i.e. make sure the deserving teams aren’t left out).
God bless our Dark Lord.
That is not what the BCS is designed to do.
The BCS is designed to match the #1 ranked team vs the #2 ranked team. Nothing more. Over the years, the BCS has tweeked the way that #1 and #2 are determined but the fundamental goal has remained. Getting it “right” is subjective. Right to whom?
As designed, the BCS does not leave out the “deserving” teams. It defines the deserving teams for the NCG as #1 and #2.
If we want to promote various playoff scenarios then, by all means. But to continually wring hands and gnash teeth about a process that delivers exactly what it is designed to deliver is a waste of energy.
In Orbe Terrum Non Visi
Yeah, I realize that.
And that’s why we’re debating changing it, because we’ve decided the result it’s giving us may not be the result we want. Yes, the formula spit out the #1 and #2 teams this year, but maybe that’s not what we should’ve been asking it for.
God bless our Dark Lord.
I agree that a debate for changing
the method of selecting the NC is in order. I think the genesis of this process was that there were too many scenarios where #1 and #2 were never allowed to play one another due to bowl tie-ins. The Fiesta stepped in and was able to arrange that matchup a couple of times. But it could do nothing if the #1 came from the SEC and the #2 came from the Big or Pac 10.
So, folks got together and figured out how to get #1 and #2 together every year for a game while maintaining the economic benefits of the bowl system. Now, nobody likes how #1 and #2 are selected.
That is the heart of the arguments against the BCS. It will be at the heart of the arguments when, after several years, a hue and cry goes up to expand the playoff field. Last team in will always be somehow undeserving and first team out will always somehow be deserving until we finally have a playoff that is big enough that the arguments become lame. Take the BB tourney, for example – they are now at 64 plus a play in game.
So let’s all just be honest. If you do not like what the BCS is doing – selecting a #1 and #2 team and matching them in a champioinship game – then serve up the playoff scenario that you prefer. Just call it what it is and recognize the BCS for what it is.
In Orbe Terrum Non Visi
I really beg to differ this point
because we’ve decided the result it’s giving us may not be the result we want
I say it’s given us the best 2 teams against each other damn near everytime. There are a couple of instances where an argument could be made for #3 (and #3 ONLY) like with the Barn in 04 (which is why the SOS component would help), but it usually nails it right.
And, again, this year it’s dead-on. Why you would want to go play other games in order to risk injury or some fluky bounce to allow a weak team to win is beyond me.
Attempting to remove humor from posts since August 30, 2011
If I had time to disagree with you
I would go through the record. But off the top of my head, I’m pretty sure that you made a couple of incorrect statements:
There are only a couple of times when an argument for # could be made, and
It’s never anybody more than #3
Well hell, this year Stanford and Boise have arguments, and this is just an average year. It’s pretty normal for several teams to be in the running for the #2 slot. You see bitter arguments more years than you don’t.
That’s off the top of my head. Anybody want to assemble the data, please do.
If Stanford has an argument...
…then Oregon has a better argument. But you’re right, Boise is prolly the best FCS school out there….
"High standards come from passion within...." --Coach Nick Saban
by NiceLittleSaturday on Dec 8, 2011 11:05 PM CST up reply actions
Hands down.
'There are two pains in life. There is the pain of discipline and the pain of disappointment. If you can handle the pain of discipline, then you'll never have to deal with the pain of disappointment,'- Nick Saban
It's not dead on this year.
There is a huge controversy. And obviously it’s not the first time.
God bless our Dark Lord.
Iowa State deserves to play in the championship game, too.
"High standards come from passion within...." --Coach Nick Saban
by NiceLittleSaturday on Dec 8, 2011 11:05 PM CST up reply actions
It feels like the first time.
It feels like the very first time.
'There are two pains in life. There is the pain of discipline and the pain of disappointment. If you can handle the pain of discipline, then you'll never have to deal with the pain of disappointment,'- Nick Saban
Who cares what the BCS is designed to do
Did God hand that down on a tablet or something? We can design to do whatever the right thing is.
I'm confused...
…you think it’s a bad idea that the top two teams play each other for the title?
"High standards come from passion within...." --Coach Nick Saban
by NiceLittleSaturday on Dec 8, 2011 11:06 PM CST up reply actions
OK, then...
"High standards come from passion within...." --Coach Nick Saban
by NiceLittleSaturday on Dec 9, 2011 2:27 PM CST up reply actions
I agree 100%
the BCS is not broken but it needs to be tweaked. There is a way (and i pointed that out below) to use the BCS formula AND have a playoff.
The Sugar Bowl committee (and all other bowl committees for that matter) acted in the best interests of that committee and the NOLA metro economy. That is why bowls exist. To think differently is delusional.
Just cause something has been done a certain way for certain frame of time doesn’t make it certainly right. (too many certains?) BCS bowls make far too much money for the teams/schools in the bowls, to subjectively choose who they want in their bowl. Every other bowl game, which is just an exhibition game can do what they please. But the BCS bowls should be (with no playoff) 1-2, 3-4, 4-5, 6-7 etc etc.
Follow on twitter @thelyell
I agree and I disagree.
- and #2 have to be matched in the BCS title game for there to be a purpose for the rest of it, but all other games are nothing more than exhibition games. Other than the fact that there is more money involved in BCS bowls I don’t see any particular reason the bowl games shouldn’t be allowed to pick whoever they want.
Outside of the title game, all other games are just for bragging rights. Only one game matters.
what i meant was that team number 1 and team number 2 have to be matched up.
#autoformatwilldestroyusall
1...
K State, Arky and Oregon are out for losing two games. Sorry bros…You lose two games and you are not deserving of anything but an Ataboy.
2. LIke other people have said the seeding is all wrong. 1 plays 8, 2 plays 7 so on and so forth.
3. 8 is too many. Name me more than 3 out of the last 10 years where the top 8 had a legitimate complaint on being left out? I seriously doubt it goes past 6..
Better option would be…
6 total teams. Top two spots get a bye and home field throughout playoffs.
Game #1- 3 plays 6
Game #2- 4 plays 5
Winner of game #1 plays the 2 seed. Winner of game #2 plays 1 seed. Winners of those games play for the championship. Thats a total of 5 bowl games (including championsihp).
No need to add any more “BCS” bowls.
Still keeps the importance of the regular season. (forces teams to fight for that top 2 spots)
Allows other teams, not in top 6, to stil go to good bowls and make $.
Removes AQ status.
No at large bids.
Add in a heavier SOS component.
DONE.
Follow on twitter @thelyell
Same as what I said above, but I'd have the first round be on campus.
Would make it much more accessible for fans.
God bless our Dark Lord.
BCS is not broken.
And your plan is actually too many games.
I like the BCS with one exception. If a team goes undefeated and does not get a shot at the title that is wrong.
An easy fix of that is to have a Provisional Plus 1. What that means is that if there are more than 2 undefeated teams after championship Sat. you will have a playoff of sorts that year only to eliminate some teams and get to 2 undefeated. The two undefeated then play in the BCS.
In years where there are 2 or less undefeated like this year or last year then the top 2 BCS schools play.There is no playoff, plus 1 that year.
Bottom line is that only an undefeated team that does not get in the BCSNCG has any reason to complain. Every team that looses has no one to blame but themselves. If OSU had gotten in over Bama I would not blame the BCS or OSU. I’d blame Alabama for not beating LSU.
If Auburn was in New Mexico and we never played them I would still hate them and their dumb coach and their cheating players.
by 5026 on Dec 8, 2011 4:58 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
I agree it's not broken
but it’s not perfect either.
Maybe I should have titled it “A way to tweak the BCS to stop slowdown the whining!”
:-)
Yeah, but 8 teams means someone could play 16 games. That is too much.
If Auburn was in New Mexico and we never played them I would still hate them and their dumb coach and their cheating players.
Why is 16 too many?
It was a max of 11 games per season for decades. Then, over a relatively short period of time, the max went from 11 to 14.
I am not aware of any ill effects. I see no obvious increase in serious injuries to players. I don’t see play degrading at the end of the season because everybody is too beat up. Instead, it appears that 14 games is just fine.
Why is there a magic line between 14 and 16? They play up to 19 in the NFL, plus ever how many pre-season games there are (4?), and in the NFL they get hit hella harder and more often—and NFL players’ bones are pretty much the same as college players’ bones.
Because1- these are student athletes, 2- as the season goes on there are more injuries
3- at the end it becomes a war of attrition, 4- travel for fans becomes much harder, 5- Travel for student body becomes impossible- CHRISTMAS, and after all I thought college athletics was somehow tied to the students, 6- NFL is not a good measuring stick for 18 year old boys, 7- Football is not a tournament sport like BBall. 16 games, an 8 team playoff, will not reward the best team but the deepest team.
On top of that I don’t want teams resting their players like the NFL in regular season games. Example, with 8 teams Bama did not have to beat AU to get in…why not rest TR when we get a small lead. I don’t want LSU not showing for the SECCG, etc.
If Auburn was in New Mexico and we never played them I would still hate them and their dumb coach and their cheating players.
I don't think that last part is realistic.
Do you think coaches would rest their players in rivalry games not worrying whether or not they would win? That’s a quick way to get fired at a place like Alabama. This is still college. Everybody doesn’t get the same shot to land their talent. You have to beat your rivals if for no more reason than to keep your recruiting advantage.
Even if rivalries weren’t a factor pro sports playoffs function very differently. There are more than 32 teams here. In the NFL, all you have to do is beat out the other 3 teams in your division and you’re in. It would be almost impossible to lock up a playoff spot in college with only 8 teams getting in. Any given loss can drop you several spots in the polls and all of a sudden you’re done with no recourse to get yourself back up there.
Well I hope we never get to find out
because it would happen. And as far as locking up a spot I’d say LSU locked a spot when they beat Arky and maybe had it locked when they beat Ole Miss.
If Auburn was in New Mexico and we never played them I would still hate them and their dumb coach and their cheating players.
You say it would happen
I say it wouldn’t. Alabama and Auburn rest their players against each other.
By the way, as long as there is at least a week off before the playoff, there is no advantage from resting your players. If anything, a disadvantage. A week off is PLENTY, more than that is rust.
Well there is the advantage of not risking injuries.
But I still don’t see it happening. First, coaches are hired to win games, especially against rivals. And second, hopefully the system would be set up such that the seeding is a good incentive. Any loss should still be detrimental.
God bless our Dark Lord.
Outweighed by rust
A bye week in the season is a must, but not so much because of the game after the bye. Rust shows in the first game after a bye. The bye week helps for subsequent weeks, because hopefully it helped you stay healthier, and that can have a lasting effect.
In a playoff, the first game is must-win, so you want to have as little rust as possible, even at the expense of an increased injury risk. Rust is a huge factor in the first game.
14 games is too many....
"High standards come from passion within...." --Coach Nick Saban
by NiceLittleSaturday on Dec 8, 2011 11:09 PM CST up reply actions
Menny.
'There are two pains in life. There is the pain of discipline and the pain of disappointment. If you can handle the pain of discipline, then you'll never have to deal with the pain of disappointment,'- Nick Saban
buyt not all, bammer...
…show some D-I-S-I-P-L-I-N-E….
"High standards come from passion within...." --Coach Nick Saban
by NiceLittleSaturday on Dec 9, 2011 2:28 PM CST up reply actions
i like 5026's idea...
…of a Provisional Plus 1. I used to enjoy reading Fiutak on CFN until this year, when his true anti-SEC colors have shone through, but he had an interesting piece about “what if we had always had a plus 1 format?”. There are some years, like 1999 (Florida St – Va Tech), 2005 (USC-Texas) and 2002 (Miami-Ohio St) where no “plus 1” was necessary, and actually would have been counterproductive. Problem is this…are we going to distinguish between AQ and non-AQ? In other words, if we had undefeated Bama, undefeated Wisconsin, and undefeated Florida International, does the “provisional plus 1” kick in? And why should it, considering FIU would almost certainly be nowhere near the top 3 in the BCS? Would FIU be guaranteed a spot in the “provisional playoff” by virtue of their undefeated record? You’d have a hard time convincing me that an undefeated Sun Belt team should get to play for the crystal football while an 11-2 Georgia team or 12-1 USC team doesn’t. In other words, would having more than 2 undefeated teams be the only thing that kicked in the provision, and would it NECESSARILY kick in the provision? I know nobody has hard and fast answers, b/c we’re all just speculating. I like the plus 1 idea, but not in years where there are only 2 undefeateds left standing. Then it’s playing a plus 1 for the sake of the plus 1, and that’s no better than what we have now.
This1s not hard. To meet the qualifications to be in the provisional plus 1
(or the BCSCG itself) an undefeated team must either be in one of the Big 6 conferences or within the top 4 spots in the BCS. Example, this year if Houston had made it all the way to #4, and the only undefeateds were Houston and LSU, then they should play.
What if you have 3 undefeated teams? #2 plays #3 at some point before the BCSNCG. #1 gets a buy. If you have 4 undefeated teams all within the top 4 then it is the highest vs. lowest etc.
With this system a team like Boise does have a shot if they are undefeated because they could probably get to #4. A team like FIU not so much unless they had beefed up their OCS.
You have to give Boise some chance. This year Houston had some chance, just not a very good chance. But, it would have been impossible for Houston to have made it to #4 if they had won and OSU and Oregon had lost on that last weekend.
If Auburn was in New Mexico and we never played them I would still hate them and their dumb coach and their cheating players.
So it wouldn't do anything to change the situation this year.
And yes, even though we came out ahead, I still consider this year a problem. OSU doesn’t have room to gripe because they did lose, but it’s far from clear cut.
God bless our Dark Lord.
If a team loses one game...stop complaining...it is what it is...live with it.
If Auburn was in New Mexico and we never played them I would still hate them and their dumb coach and their cheating players.
Well we should probably just give LSU the title and cancel the championship game then, right?
God bless our Dark Lord.
Well, although it does give us a shot
and I think we can win it all, the truth is they have done enough right now to be crowned.
If Auburn was in New Mexico and we never played them I would still hate them and their dumb coach and their cheating players.
...except for winning the championship game,
which is what we agreed on before the season started.
God bless our Dark Lord.
well, wait a second...
Example, this year if Houston had made it all the way to #4, and the only undefeateds were Houston and LSU, then they should play.
By “they should play”, do you mean they play in the title game? If that’s what you mean, which is what it sounds like, that’s ridiculous. That would remove any motivation whatsoever for rising above #4…just stay undefeated any way you can (i.e., schedule NOTHING but non-conference cream puffs, and say goodbye to the kickoff games in Atlanta, Dallas, etc.), and to hell with #2 and #3. We’d be better off with the system we have now. At least it matches #1 vs. #2, not #1 vs. #4. If #2 and #3 each have a loss while #4 is unbeaten…well, there’s probably a pretty good reason they’re #4, and it’s probably that they haven’t played anybody and their SOS is $hit.
What you described originally and what you described above sound like 2 different things to me. I thought by provisional plus 1 you meant “in situations where there aren’t only 2 undefeateds”. If we have only 2 undefeateds (as in your LSU-Houston example), why not use the system EXACTLY like we have now? #1 vs. #2,,,if #2 is Houston, great. If it’s not, then it’s not. Letting #4 jump past #2 and #3 doesn’t solve anything, it would just create more contorversy.
Now, in case of 3 unbeatens, I think it’s a good idea to let #1 have a “BYE” and let #2 and #3 duke it out. And in the case of 4, I agree with you, too. What about if we have only 1, like this year? What do we do then? If it’s a straight “1 vs. 4, 2 vs. 3”, then that’s just a regular “plus 1” like has been kicked around forever. Not saying that’s a bad thing, but there’s nothing “provisional” about it. I like the “plus 1” in all situations EXCEPT where there are only 2 undefeateds, and they are 1 and 2. In that case, just let 1 and 2 play. Maybe that’s what you meant. Maybe I’m overthinking this :)
Well I know it sounds strange but I actually
think that any undefeated team that rises as high as #4 deserves a shot, even if 2 & 3 ahead of them have a loss.
But I don’t think it will encourage them to play cream puffs because if you play cream puffs the voters nor the computers will elevate you to be as high as # 4.
As long as you have these non big 6 conference teams out there you could have a problem. But, if you tell them if they don’t play anyone they will have no chance if they want a chance they will play people.
Obviously the biggest problem over the years is not Houston but Boise. But they and the other trouble maker TCU are now going to be in conferences. And, althiough we think the Big East is terrible, if they go undefeated in the Big East they should get a shot at a provisional plus 1.
Of course you could solve the problem by just saying the non big 6 conference schools have no shot but I think there would be law suits. But this way they have a chance if and only if they play a decent schedule.
But think about it…how do you tell an undefeated team, even a Houston or an FIU, that rises all the way to #4…sorry you can never win the NC? You don’t tell them that, you make it near impossible and if they do the impossible you give them their shot. And a 1 loss team that does not get in because undefeated Tulsa did they have no one to blame.
If Auburn was in New Mexico and we never played them I would still hate them and their dumb coach and their cheating players.
Houston could've finished #4 this season, and you can't get a schedule much weaker than they had.
Sorry 50, but your proposal is atrocious. You don’t bypass the #2 and #3 teams and let #4 play for the title.
God bless our Dark Lord.
I may have misread it
but I thought he was suggesting 4 would get a shot by playing 1. 2 and 3 would play each other to set up the championship game. In a provisional case year.
No, if...
- is undefeated, #2 & #3 have one loss, but #4 is undefeated, then you just have 1 play 4 for the BCSNCG.
I know, this goes against what we think is fair. After all, why should 4 jump 2 and 3? Because 2 & 3 lost.
The provisional plan is that we keep the BCS as we know it EXCEPT we make a provision that any undefeated team from the Big 6 conf. or any other undefeated team not from the Big 6, but ranked at #4 or higher will get a shot.
If you have 3 undefeated teams you play #2 v. #3 and the winner against #1.
No team with a defeat will get into a provisional game. A team with a defeat can get in the BCSCG only if there are not 2 or more undefeated.
The idea is: 1. Tell every team they have a shot. 2. Keep the number of extra games to a minimum. 3. Make every regular season game count. 4. Keep the NCAA from expanding it to an 8 or 16 team tourney, which will happen if we go to a straight plus 1. But, with a provisional plus one you will only have 3 or 4 undefeated teams about once every 4 or 5 years…so it will not morph into a full blown playoff.
If Auburn was in New Mexico and we never played them I would still hate them and their dumb coach and their cheating players.
Either way I think change is coming. It always does when Alabama wins too much. The AP poll was released prior to bowl games until and including the ‘64 season. But ’Bama ended up winning the championship and then losing its bowl game. So they changed it for ’65 to include the bowl games. No matter, ’Bama just won its bowl game while Michigan State and Arkansas lost their bowl games. ’Bama won again. This would not do. It was not supposed to happen. So for ’66 until ’68 the system was reversed and bowl games did not matter.
’Bama was tired of the confusion and figured it would just win them all. It did, as the only team. But now the voters had had it. ’Bama was snubbed anyway. The real rule was they did not want ’Bama to win.
Now ’Bama may win the whole thing once again ushering in a change of the system. We need to win and we need to win in the new system. We need to show them that they cannot stop ’Bama whether “they” be poll voters or head coaches or A.D’s or conference commissioners.
I often think fondly of this post (I cannot remember who wrote it so please come forward):
The utter dominance of the season ruins football for the rest of the nation and Alabama is then forced to assemble football teams to play in the NFL
once in the NFL Alabama then dominates to the point that football is ruined for all their fans too and the rest of the country begins assembling football robots to play Alabama
Alabama dominates the football robots so bad that they go insane with rage and begin a war with humanity to take control of the world and all of football
Nick Saban gathers the few free humans under the banner of Alabama and leads them against the robots in the great Robot Wars
Alabama beats the Robots in the Robot Wars and enslaves the robots under the three laws of robotics to serve man
The world asks Alabama to no longer dominate football to ensure this will never happen again – Alabama refuses and continues to make football unenjoyable for anyone who is not from Alabama
Nick Saban appointed Czar of everything – he follows this by doing everything right – creates awesome new future jobs, cures herpes, and fires Bob Bradley
Nick Saban then burns eveything in the world to the ground just so he can build it back into the best world ever
Also we all have flying cars. And flying dogs. All the shit we got is flying.
I’m not a conspiracy theorist really, I just really want us to win because everyone wants us to lose. The 1966 season is the reason people can bring up fairness discussions all they want and no Alabama fan will listen.
"We knew we had to turn it up or we would get beat. We ripped the knob off. We turned it up so much we broke the knob." - Roy Upchurch after beating Florida in the 2009 SEC Championship Game
'66 was terrible,
and showed that changes in the system are sometimes necessary.
God bless our Dark Lord.
can't agree with one contention
But I don’t think it will encourage them to play cream puffs because if you play cream puffs the voters nor the computers will elevate you to be as high as # 4
If Bama had replaced Penn St on their schedule with 1-11 Florida Atlantic, but had beaten LSU, you don’t think they’d be ranked in the top 4? Hell, they’d be #1, even with having played Kent St, FAU, North Texas and Georgia Southern. The best non-conf opponent Va Tech played was Arkansas St, they lost a game at home by 20 pts, and they STILL would’ve been in the top 4 if they hadn’t lost to Clemson a second time. I think you’e underestimating (or, actually overestimating) the voters. If you start in the top 10 (or maybe 20) and go undefeated, even if you play 2 FCS schools and both New Mexico schools in non-conference play, you’ll almost certainly end up in the top 4 every year, if not top 2.
I'm mainly refering to the Houstons and the Tulsas
because Boise and TCU are going to be in a conference. I don’t think Houston or Tulsa would ever rise to #4 unless a whole of teams got 2 losses. BUT…if everyone has a bad year and goes 10-2 or 11-2 and Houston goes 13-0, well I think they should get their shot in that secnario.
But, if Alabama, Ohio St., OU, So, Cal etc. all lose only 1 game, Houston could not get to #4 anyway.But, if you absolutely give them no shot at all you ought to kick them the next division.
If Auburn was in New Mexico and we never played them I would still hate them and their dumb coach and their cheating players.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
