BCS Championship Game v. Playoff System???

[AU64 10,122]

Whatever they do, the first team out.... (#5 and/or 6) will be unhappy and quickly point out why they should have gotten selected instead of #4. I can't believe that anyone thinks that this system will result with any fewer unhappy people than the BCS.

[WarEagle84 0]

Seriously, though, I am a little curious - those of you who wish for fewer bowl games...what is your normal Saturday like?

I, personally, start making a nice breakfast with extra bacon with ESPN GameDay on (and, I guess for this next season, the SEC Network GameDay), and then from Noon until Midnight, my rear end is parked on the couch.

You are either single or you have a VERY understanding wife.

[Auctoritas 2,828]

Seriously, though, I am a little curious - those of you who wish for fewer bowl games...what is your normal Saturday like?

I, personally, start making a nice breakfast with extra bacon with ESPN GameDay on (and, I guess for this next season, the SEC Network GameDay), and then from Noon until Midnight, my rear end is parked on the couch.

You are either single or you have a VERY understanding wife.

My wife is a huge Clemson football fan and I have been given full blessing so long as I don't yell too much during the Auburn game.

Curse you, Penn Wagers...always getting me in trouble...

[Tiger 8,818]

Whatever they do, the first team out.... (#5 and/or 6) will be unhappy and quickly point out why they should have gotten selected instead of #4. I can't believe that anyone thinks that this system will result with any fewer unhappy people than the BCS.

Right, but if you are #5 or #6 you can't really argue with a straight face that your team is the best or should have a shot at being #1. I mean, FIFTH best? Barring some unusual circumstance where there are 5-6 teams with 1 loss or no losses, you just cant argue it. Usually the 5th ranked team has 1-2 losses, while the top 2-3 have 0-1 losses. At the end of the day, take care of your business and you will end up in the top 4 most of the time. There is always room for somebody to get screwed though in special situations. But I just don't want to see any 2 loss champions. Nobody can claim to be the best if you only won 84% of your regular season games, IMO.

Unless its AU, of course. LOL!

[Aufan59 60]

Whatever they do, the first team out.... (#5 and/or 6) will be unhappy and quickly point out why they should have gotten selected instead of #4. I can't believe that anyone thinks that this system will result with any fewer unhappy people than the BCS.

Right, but if you are #5 or #6 you can't really argue with a straight face that your team is the best or should have a shot at being #1. I mean, FIFTH best? Barring some unusual circumstance where there are 5-6 teams with 1 loss or no losses, you just cant argue it. Usually the 5th ranked team has 1-2 losses, while the top 2-3 have 0-1 losses. At the end of the day, take care of your business and you will end up in the top 4 most of the time. There is always room for somebody to get screwed though in special situations. But I just don't want to see any 2 loss champions. Nobody can claim to be the best if you only won 84% of your regular season games, IMO.

Unless its AU, of course. LOL!

Being number #5 is just an opinion. That team may very well be able to win a playoff.

While four teams is an improvement, the post season will continue to be a joke as long as it is based on opinion deciding who the "best teams" are.

Other sports don't care about "best team". If you win the games, you advance, deciding who the "best team" is is irrelevant.

[Dom1ni0n 51]

Cliff notes for those experiencing a softie for the BCS:

1. 2000. In only the third season of its inception, there was controversy for that coveted #2 spot, which was ultimately granted to FSU, despite their sole regular season loss to Miami, despite their sole regular season to Washington who dropped their sole regular season game to 10-win Oregon.

2. 2001. The very following season, After having their man-card suspended by Colorado in their one-time regular season finale, Nebraska found themselves out of the Big XII championship game, but somehow managed to find the backdoor the BCS title game, where they proceeded to have then have their man-card revoked by Mia

3. Two short seasons later in 2003, Chokelahoma gets its doors blown off in the Big XII championship game, and is rewarded with the top spot in the BCS title game, while U$C gets.... the screwjob. Many argued that the BCS title game should have been LSU vs. U$C.

4. The first rule of 2004 is Don't Talk About 2004! Next...

5. Fast forward to 2006. In an unbeaten archrival showdown, Ohio St. and Michigan were playing for it all in a defacto Big 10 title game and a spot in the BCS championship game, but a nail-biting loss had Meatchicken fans carrying the shaft torch this season as UF got the nod.

6. Flip the calendar to 2007, where the homework assignment was trying to determine the best two 2-loss teams. Arguably the biggest clusterpluck in the BCS era. That season alone deserves its own segment of bullet points.

7. And the hits kept coming. 2008, OU benefited from a Big XII tiebreaker rule between themselves, Texas and Texas Tech. U$C again gets the cold shoulder treatment from the BCS.

8. Then of course the straw that built the playoff's house. 2011. Although Oklahoma St. fell victim to the Friday night lights of Ames, Iowa, * snicker * they too had the shaft torch reluctantly passed to them as they were passed over by the BCS for the crew from West Vance.

Ah, yes. Memories that will be cherished forever.

[Auctoritas 2,828]

Written by someone who didn't like the BCS from the beginning. Other than 2004, which of those got it demonstrably wrong? There's not a true travesty of justice on that list, except for the 2004 issue, after which the formulas were rejiggered and poll voters deliberately took pains to make it not happen again.

As much as people complain about the BCS, it did its job, and did it better than anyone wants to admit. Or, should just go back before that to where we had seasons where several teams could "legitimately" claim a national championship?

Oh, and if you don't like "opinions" deciding who is better, then you're free to go watch the NFL, where none of the games in the regular season really have any luster or intrigue, and it's hard to get too mad over a regular season loss. It's not just someone's "opinion", it's a poll of a heck of a lot of people's opinion, with methodology and consensus.

I swear, I will never understand why people want to take something so fun and exciting to watch and discuss and argue about and take all the damn fun out of it. I mean, seriously...the absolute BEST part of college football, other than watching AU beat the snot out of somebody, is when you get to watch some unranked, disrespected team play their hearts out, have everything somehow come together, and knock off a top 10 team.

What's more interesting and special? Seeing a ticker that says "Tulsa 45, Oklahoma St 38" or seeing one that says "Tulsa 45, #6 Oklahoma St 38"? And then you get to see the game break, see the game winning TD, and watch that raw emotion as players and students rush the field to celebrate because they did what nobody thought they could do. That's why college football is special.

There's 126 or so college football teams. There's no way to have them all play each other in a bracket or round robin to see who is "best". So, instead, we watch the games, grade the standout players, study the schemes and coaching, see the emotion and the guts those teams have. And you know what? That's also why college football is special.

If you want to be an Auburn fan, then you can just follow Auburn. But if you are a fan of College Football, you get to enjoy an entire season's worth of intrigue and emotion, because in order to really enjoy it and understand it, you have to get emotionally and mentally involved with it. So, no, the "post-season" (the bowl season, in reality) is not a joke, nor is looking at 126 teams and having enough hutzpah to form your opinion about which one of them is the "best." That's what makes college football college football.

If you want the NFL, go watch the NFL. But leave CFB out of it.

[Randman5000 4,226]

GREAT discussion. Been hoping for this for some time. The BCS did actually have the top teams playing EXCEPT for a few Oklahoma and Ohio State teams and yes I will say it even though they took advantage of the situation an Alabama team and we slipped right in last year, but totally deserved the shot thanks to MSU and the SEC. That being said, it really does allow for it to be more accessible. Think of Auburn, we didn't need to be top two in 2004 or 2014/15, we just need to be top FOUR. Then it starts over, we can be hot or not, but we would have every opportunity to win it ON THE FIELD. We didn't last year but we had the chance that is all we can ask for, its not like we would be bama and play cupcakes when everyone is down, but come final four the team would play stiff competition. I would love to see the expansion just because we are selfish but its going to be a much better system than the BCS. There was too much spotlight on the top two. However there was some great teams during the BCS, think of the Miami teams, USC, UF and Bama. Hell, WVU, Auburn and TCU/Utah make the cut. The formulas were logical but all said and done, the bowls really didn't take advantage of the system. Next year will be exciting. And it gives us a better shot of reaching the final four because we will be top five ranked next year, and a loss does not put us out.

ITs great for Auburn and great for College Football!

WDE

[AU64 10,122]

GREAT discussion. Been hoping for this for some time. The BCS did actually have the top teams playing EXCEPT for a few Oklahoma and Ohio State teams and yes I will say it even though they took advantage of the situation an Alabama team and we slipped right in last year, but totally deserved the shot thanks to MSU and the SEC. That being said, it really does allow for it to be more accessible. Think of Auburn, we didn't need to be top two in 2004 or 2014/15, we just need to be top FOUR. Then it starts over, we can be hot or not, but we would have every opportunity to win it ON THE FIELD. We didn't last year but we had the chance that is all we can ask for, its not like we would be bama and play cupcakes when everyone is down, but come final four the team would play stiff competition. I would love to see the expansion just because we are selfish but its going to be a much better system than the BCS. There was too much spotlight on the top two. However there was some great teams during the BCS, think of the Miami teams, USC, UF and Bama. Hell, WVU, Auburn and TCU/Utah make the cut. The formulas were logical but all said and done, the bowls really didn't take advantage of the system. Next year will be exciting. And it gives us a better shot of reaching the final four because we will be top five ranked next year, and a loss does not put us out.

ITs great for Auburn and great for College Football!

WDE

Most likely....but I'm just saying that when the top 4 get picked late this year, that will not be the end of the discussion because as noted above by someone, there is a good likelihood that #5 or #6 could beat #3 or #4 on a given Saturday under the right conditions.....that's college football and that's is what makes if fun for me...'cause I watch all the games and all the bowl games that are available.

As my wife notes, if it is a game with a ball, I'm going to be interested.

[AUloggerhead 2,227]

Cliff notes for those experiencing a softie for the BCS:

1. 2000. In only the third season of its inception, there was controversy for that coveted #2 spot, which was ultimately granted to FSU, despite their sole regular season loss to Miami, despite their sole regular season to Washington who dropped their sole regular season game to 10-win Oregon.

2. 2001. The very following season, After having their man-card suspended by Colorado in their one-time regular season finale, Nebraska found themselves out of the Big XII championship game, but somehow managed to find the backdoor the BCS title game, where they proceeded to have then have their man-card revoked by Mia

3. Two short seasons later in 2003, Chokelahoma gets its doors blown off in the Big XII championship game, and is rewarded with the top spot in the BCS title game, while U$C gets.... the screwjob. Many argued that the BCS title game should have been LSU vs. U$C.

4. The first rule of 2004 is Don't Talk About 2004! Next...

5. Fast forward to 2006. In an unbeaten archrival showdown, Ohio St. and Michigan were playing for it all in a defacto Big 10 title game and a spot in the BCS championship game, but a nail-biting loss had Meatchicken fans carrying the shaft torch this season as UF got the nod.

6. Flip the calendar to 2007, where the homework assignment was trying to determine the best two 2-loss teams. Arguably the biggest clusterpluck in the BCS era. That season alone deserves its own segment of bullet points.

7. And the hits kept coming. 2008, OU benefited from a Big XII tiebreaker rule between themselves, Texas and Texas Tech. U$C again gets the cold shoulder treatment from the BCS.

8. Then of course the straw that built the playoff's house. 2011. Although Oklahoma St. fell victim to the Friday night lights of Ames, Iowa, * snicker * they too had the shaft torch reluctantly passed to them as they were passed over by the BCS for the crew from West Vance.

Ah, yes. Memories that will be cherished forever.

Spot on. The entire BCS era has been full of controversy and not just 2004. Glad to see it in the rear view mirror. Now we get a 10-year stretch of a playoff. Let's have this conversation again in 10 years to compare the BSC vs the Playoff

[gravejd 3,269]

You know I don't think it is possible to have a system that makes everyone happy. So the whole argument about the 5th best team complaining is kind of mute in my mind. What the 4 team playoff does do is create more opportunity for more teams and I think that will make people happier than the BCS. Which is a decent accomplishment in my mind.

[Dom1ni0n 51]

Written by someone who didn't like the BCS from the beginning. Other than 2004, which of those got it demonstrably wrong? There's not a true travesty of justice on that list, except for the 2004 issue, after which the formulas were rejiggered and poll voters deliberately took pains to make it not happen again.

The intent of the post was to point out the gaping holes in a system designed to select only the two "best" teams. Your focus was on my sarcastic opening and closing sentences. If you think 2004 was the only time the BCS was a colossal failure, then try removing the Orange and Navy shades occassionally. Other fan bases felt just as much angst as we did toward the BCS when it failed their teams preceding and following 2004.

As much as people complain about the BCS, it did its job, and did it better than anyone wants to admit. Or, should just go back before that to where we had seasons where several teams could "legitimately" claim a national championship?

The BCS only fit like a glove whenever two unbeatens remained from automatic qualifier conferences were giftwrapped to the selection committee after the war of attrition known as the regular season. This only occurred half the time.

Oh, and if you don't like "opinions" deciding who is better, then you're free to go watch the NFL, where none of the games in the regular season really have any luster or intrigue, and it's hard to get too mad over a regular season loss. It's not just someone's "opinion", it's a poll of a heck of a lot of people's opinion, with methodology and consensus.

I am unsure as to how you drew this conclusion from anything I posted.

I swear, I will never understand why people want to take something so fun and exciting to watch and discuss and argue about and take all the damn fun out of it.

a. It's the off season

b. This is a discussion forum, where healthy arguments and debates are typically found. Especially in the off season.

If you want to be an Auburn fan, then you can just follow Auburn. But if you are a fan of College Football, you get to enjoy an entire season's worth of intrigue and emotion, because in order to really enjoy it and understand it, you have to get emotionally and mentally involved with it. So, no, the "post-season" (the bowl season, in reality) is not a joke, nor is looking at 126 teams and having enough hutzpah to form your opinion about which one of them is the "best." That's what makes college football college football.

If you want the NFL, go watch the NFL. But leave CFB out of it.

I enjoy CFB just as much as the next person. Just because I don't accept the status quo as to how a champion is determined doesn't make me any less of a fan.

............and yet another unrelated NFL reference.......

[Dom1ni0n 51]

You know I don't think it is possible to have a system that makes everyone happy. So the whole argument about the 5th best team complaining is kind of mute in my mind. What the 4 team playoff does do is create more opportunity for more teams and I think that will make people happier than the BCS. Which is a decent accomplishment in my mind.

Excellent post, with emphasis on the highlighted portion. Could not have been stated better.

[Auctoritas 2,828]

Written by someone who didn't like the BCS from the beginning. Other than 2004, which of those got it demonstrably wrong? There's not a true travesty of justice on that list, except for the 2004 issue, after which the formulas were rejiggered and poll voters deliberately took pains to make it not happen again.

The intent of the post was to point out the gaping holes in a system designed to select only the two "best" teams. Your focus was on my sarcastic opening and closing sentences. If you think 2004 was the only time the BCS was a colossal failure, then try removing the Orange and Navy shades occassionally. Other fan bases felt just as much angst as we did toward the BCS when it failed their teams preceding and following 2004.

As much as people complain about the BCS, it did its job, and did it better than anyone wants to admit. Or, should just go back before that to where we had seasons where several teams could "legitimately" claim a national championship?

The BCS only fit like a glove whenever two unbeatens remained from automatic qualifier conferences were giftwrapped to the selection committee after the war of attrition known as the regular season. This only occurred half the time.

Oh, and if you don't like "opinions" deciding who is better, then you're free to go watch the NFL, where none of the games in the regular season really have any luster or intrigue, and it's hard to get too mad over a regular season loss. It's not just someone's "opinion", it's a poll of a heck of a lot of people's opinion, with methodology and consensus.

I am unsure as to how you drew this conclusion from anything I posted.

I swear, I will never understand why people want to take something so fun and exciting to watch and discuss and argue about and take all the damn fun out of it.

a. It's the off season

b. This is a discussion forum, where healthy arguments and debates are typically found. Especially in the off season.

If you want to be an Auburn fan, then you can just follow Auburn. But if you are a fan of College Football, you get to enjoy an entire season's worth of intrigue and emotion, because in order to really enjoy it and understand it, you have to get emotionally and mentally involved with it. So, no, the "post-season" (the bowl season, in reality) is not a joke, nor is looking at 126 teams and having enough hutzpah to form your opinion about which one of them is the "best." That's what makes college football college football.

If you want the NFL, go watch the NFL. But leave CFB out of it.

I enjoy CFB just as much as the next person. Just because I don't accept the status quo as to how a champion is determined doesn't make me any less of a fan.

............and yet another unrelated NFL reference.......

This is, as you pointed out, a forum. Did it occur to you that maybe I wasn't talking about what you said, and was responding to someone else? Especially since, I don't know, I didn't quote your post?

As for the rest, you have your opinions. I don't see how you could make the logical conclusion that because the BCS wasn't cut ant dried year after year that it was a colossal failure. There's lots of shades of grey between "Works Like Magic" and "Pile of Horse Manure." Since when is "fits like a glove" the lowest standard we can accept? It's based on a hundred guys voting in polls, there's gonna be some wiggle room.

The point stands, though, except for 2004, the BCS worked, in that it pitted #1 and #2. Are there people with gripes? sure, and some of them may be legitimate (to a degree). But you people talk about the BCS as if somehow Alabama got matched up with Georgia Southern. Or they accidentally invited 3 teams.

Few things on that list approach the level of "mistake", much less the catastrophe you seem to be advocating. This is, as you said, "half the time." So, half the time they got it right without question, so that's batting .500 out of the gate, hardly an unmitigated disaster by any stretch of the imagination. But lets take the rest year by year.

2000 - The gripe is that one 1-loss team beat out another 1-loss team. Convoluted gymnastics doesn't change the fact that it was a close judgement call that went FSUs way. If they had picked Washington instead...FSU would have the same gripe.

2001 - To say Nebraska backed in is...well, maybe they did. But you know why? It wasn't some conspiracy, it was just an absolutely nuts last 3 weeks of the season. Every game matters, and Nebraska had 1 loss. Oregon had 1 loss. Colorado had 2 losses. Arguments can be made for all 3. Which is something completely different than Oregon and Colorado having arguments, and Nebraska not. Just because there's controversy doesn't mean they got it wrong...it just means that it's not cut and dried.

2003 - Oklahoma got their pants pulled down in the BIG XII championship game by (then) 11-3 #16 Kansas State. But, no team finished that season unbeaten. And USC, btw, suffered their only loss to unranked Cal, who finished the season with 6 losses. Again, fun to argue about, but not a travesty by any stretch of the imagination

2004 - That sucked.

2006 - so, the complaint here is that the SEC champion who won their last game beat out a Michigan team who...just lost their last game? An SEC team, btw, who ended up...you know...winning the national championship. Handily. Honestly, this might be the stupidest thing on that list.

2007- Ok, now this one...yeah, it was a toughie. Everybody had 2 losses. (Except Hawai'i. The same thing stands now as it did then...I don't care how undefeated they were, Hawaii doesn't get to play for the BCSNC because rainbows.) But seriously, nobody had a clear shot. The hell of it is, you know what happened? Everyone voted on it. So...democracy, not travesty. This season, I will agree....Mizzou had a legimate complaint when KState got the Orange Bowl invite. Georgia may have had a good argument, but I'll say the same thing they said then: UGA didn't even play in the conference championship. LSU and OSU was the right matchup. #3 was Virginia Tech, who LSU had taken out back behind the shed earlier in the season. I honestly don't know what the complaint about this season actually is. Neither did the OP, apparently, since he just said "needed bullet points." The issue this year wasn't BCS related at all, it was just a clusterf. But it was a fun season to watch football.

2008 - Again, this one's not even BCS related either. This was the Big XII three-way tie between 1 loss teams. Blaming the BCS for a conference's silly tiebreaking rules is really streching it. As near as I can tell, the complaint here seems to be that only 2 teams can play in the championship, instead of all three of the Big XII teams getting to take turns. As a reminder: the three-way tie was for presumptive 2nd place, because #1 and #2 were Alabama and Florida, respectively, who would play each other in the SECCG, causing one of them to fall out. Again, i'm not sure what the gripe is here with the BCS...was Alabama only supposed to fall to #2? Were Oklahoma, Texas, and Texas Tech supposed to meld teams together and make a Big XII all-star behemoth? What is the issue here, again, as related to the BCS?

2011 - I'm not sure what to say here. The OP actually makes my point for me, that OKST lost to Iowa State, wheras bama lost to #1 LSU. The vote was the closest in history, IIRC. OKST had a legitimate gripe, but, again, if the situation were reversed, Bama would also have a legitimate gripe.

So, Thats 8 years without controversy, plus 6 years where there wasn't controversy, just more than 1 team with a legitimate argument. Just because there's not a clear cut #1 and #2 doesn't make it some sort of terrible travesty of justice. The way that "BCS WAS TURRIBULL" is constantly trumpeted makes it sound like the BCS had several years where a team that had no business being in the game got in anyway. 2000, 2001, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2011 were all years that had matchups in the title game where strong arguments could be made that they got the two best teams in the country. People disagree, and that's fine, but there's a huge huge difference between teams barely missing out and teams getting the shaft. Fans of teams feeling like they're getting screwed is not a good measure of the success or failure of a program. They're fans, they're supposed to feel bad when things like that happen.

That said: I'm not sure how any of this could be construed as having "Orange and Navy Shades" on. I'm pretty sure if we took a poll of this forum, there would probably be an 80/20 split with 80% of the people hating the BCS because of what happened in 2004. So...you could probably take that little bit of snark and dust it off for next time.

As for the rest...I wasn't talking to, or about you. Sorry for your confusion.