BCS--Devil's Advocate Position

[RockyBalboa]

I've always thought that a 16 team playoff was very doable.

Take the Champions from all the D-I Conferences, plus Notre Dame/Navy if they qualify.

From there based on a variety of avenues....use the remaining statistical analysis via rankings and computer jumbo junk to determine the remaining at-large teams to fill out the rest of the slots.

That's 11 Automatic Slots plus sometimes 1 in years where an Independent like Notre Dame or Navy would qualify. Big East, ACC, Big Ten, SEC, Big 12, Pac-10, MWC, WAC, MAC, C-USA, Sun-Belt.

That leaves 4-5 at-large spots remaining.

That also leaves plenty of bowl games left over for teams who didn't make it in.

The higher seeded teams....1-8 could host the first round games and from there on out use the rest of the higher paying out bowls to round the rest of the playoffs.

Seed the games and competition in a similar fashion to how the NCAA Bball Tournament is seeded. If that means the Champion from the SunBelt is seeded #16 all the time, then so be it.

A little crude yes,,,but for all of the money in the BCS....there could be a TON more made with a legit playoff system.

[smokymountainrain]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Good point. But this happens very rarely. The seperation that occurs over a 12 game season seems just as fair in a theoretical sense as the seperation that might occur in a playoff.

My problem is that it can happen and has happened (Auburn a few years ago). With a playoff, if you take care of business, you will win the national championship. Period.

College football is the only sport in which you can win every game or match you play, yet still not win your sport's championship. That, to me, is simply wrong.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by jay santos

I don't like the BCS, but I find this sentiment to be the most ignorant.

Do you really think the selection process to find a champion is not fair?

Back in the day, they took the best from the AL and best from NL and let them play in the world series. Was that unfair by not letting in the other six teams that they do today?

The difference between the BCS and the World Series then is that in baseball, every team had an equal shot to get to the Series. No team had to jump through any hoops to get there.

Non-BCS teams have to meet the requirements set by the BCS to even qualify. All a BCS team has to do is win it's conference and a 2nd place team from any BCS conference has a better shot than a non-BCS conference.

It's never been about what's fair with the BCS; it's always been about the money. They just have their fake little championship as a front.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by smokymountainrain

My problem is that it can happen and has happened (Auburn a few years ago). With a playoff, if you take care of business, you will win the national championship. Period.

College football is the only sport in which you can win every game or match you play, yet still not win your sport's championship. That, to me, is simply wrong.

I'm a playoff guy. Bottom line I agree with this. But this is not the typical argument against the BCS. The most common complaint is IPU's issue about the $ and about the bias towards BCS schools.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by smokymountainrain

My problem is that it can happen and has happened (Auburn a few years ago). With a playoff, if you take care of business, you will win the national championship. Period.

College football is the only sport in which you can win every game or match you play, yet still not win your sport's championship. That, to me, is simply wrong.

Exactly. It's not determined by what's done on the field, but by what teams can generate the most revenue.

[ute4ever]

Originally Posted by jay santos

I don't like the BCS, but I find this sentiment to be the most ignorant.

Do you really think the selection process to find a champion is not fair?

Back in the day, they took the best from the AL and best from NL and let them play in the world series. Was that unfair by not letting in the other six teams that they do today?

In the NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, and NCAA hoops, rarely do the top two regular season teams make the finals.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by ute4ever

In the NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, and NCAA hoops, rarely do the top two regular season teams make the finals.

So is that fair?

Is it less fair to create a championship system that really goes through painstaking effort to get the two best teams into a championship game? And would anyone really argue that the BCS doesn't do this?

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by jay santos

1. Why don't you think everyone has an equal shot?

Because the BCS teams get automatic bids to BCS bowls.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Exactly. It's not determined by what's done on the field, but by what teams can generate the most revenue.

The championship game is not. The other BCS bowls are, but they evolved from pre-BCS Rose, Orange, etc. bowls and the system has improved, providing more access to non-BCS teams and eliminating the go for greed mentality the bowls would usually have, picking a Notre Dame team that wasn't ranked as high as other teams.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Because the BCS teams get automatic bids to BCS bowls.

Seperate the issue. Equal access to championship game is what I'm talking about. Though, you could make a pretty damn good argument that the rest of the BCS bowls have become equal access as well.