43 replies to this topic

[AssKickingBoots]

Austin Bronco, on 02 December 2010 - 11:44 AM, said:

The two don't even come close to comparing. I'm surprised you even tried to do so. BYU won because they were voted the #1 team in the country. They went in as the #1 team and won a bowl game they were supposed to win, so they kept that ranking. The Holiday Bowl (which is the only bowl game BYU could play in) was not part of a system that tried to design itself like the BCS has, and was far from being a high-profile bowl. Nice try, but FAIL

I'm sorry, but you used words like "credibility" in your post, and that's something that honestly was the only thing lacking in BYU's national championship season. I'm not saying they're the same, just poking at your reasoning.

Austin Bronco, on 02 December 2010 - 11:44 AM, said:

And the BCS is NOT a playoff scenario.... et cetera

Wow, I think you misunderstood a single sentence I said and ran with it. I'm not defending the BCS and I'm sure as hell not calling it a playoff. I want it gone. I want a real playoff. I was talking about a specific hypothetical playoff scenario.

Many places are discussing the possibility of having a 16 team playoff scenario in place of the BCS. In a 16 slot playoff, what would you want?

A) Automatic bids for every conference champion including the ACC, Big XII, Big East, Big Ten, Conference USA, MAC, MWC, PAC 10, SEC, Sun Belt and WAC with 5 at-large bids.
B) Automatic bids for the champion of the ACC, Big XII, Big East, Big Ten, PAC 10, and the SEC and 10 at-large bids.
C) No automatic bids, all 16 teams determined strictly by a BCS-like system picking the top 16 teams.

There's other details up in the air like whether teams should be penalized in the selection process for losing conference championship games, whether teams from the same conference should face eachother in the 1st round, and so on. Let's ignore those for now.

Scenario A is what is being most widely discussed. That is what I was scoffing at. Who wants to see Auburn vs. an unranked, barely bowl eligible 6-5 Sun Belt Champion Florida International? That sounds like an early season tune up game. That won't get ratings, and that's a huge part of what the BCS crowd is afraid of. That sucks. Pass.

Scenario B is what I want. It maintains the big, evil power conferences grip, but later another Automatic Qualifier slot can be added or subtracted or even swapped if necessary. There's flexibility in this plan. Also, with 10 slots available for at-larges, a worthy team from a non-AQ conference can get in while keeping out a team like Florida International. There'd still be controversy, sure, like if Boise got in and Nevada didn't after beating them or whether to have a 2 loss Virginia Tech team or a 3 loss Alabama, but that's the price you pay for a playoff.

Scenario C would be what is most in line with what you're arguing now (I want to see the best teams, get rid of the conference tie-ins, blah blah). Still, I honestly think that would suck. If anything is going to bring on more corruption and back room deals than the current system, it's this. Maybe you disagree.

Austin Bronco, on 02 December 2010 - 11:44 AM, said:

As for TCU, they were smart in moving. The MWC would have been the better conference, had BYU and UTAH also stayed in. Once they jumped ship, the MWC turned into basically a WAC division. BSU is really the only perennial power left in that conference. Nevada is playing well this season, but it's no Utah. So TCU's jumping ship was smart. They can be competitive in the Big East, get more money from the BCS system, and have a better shot at the National Championship game.

I would agree with that. Again, I still think it's the almighty dollar before all else, but they're going to have a hard time proving to even the people of Texas that they're legit so long as they're not in the Big XII. TCU can't even sell out it's stadium right now. I wonder if this move will put them more on the map there or continue to make them a sideshow that gets more talk nationally than locally.

chiefsfaninky, on 02 December 2010 - 08:06 PM, said:

With TCU going to the Big East, (geographically figure that one out) giving them 17 teams, for basketball, not sure about football, how much longer before the rumored "super" conferences start to take shape? IIRC the most teams in any other conference, and there a few, is 12.
Money is the ONLY reason this came about. I agree that TCU is possibly counting on the auto-bid, but imo, that is immature, and it could end up biting them in the ass. They'll move to a centralized conference, once the dominos start to fall.

With the addition of TCU, there's 9 Teams for Football for the Big East. A long ways from a super conference. I think the Big East is looking to add one more team to get to 10 football schools. Perhaps Notre Dame will finally join the conference in football like it has been in all other sports. That'd be their ideal situation. Who knows...

I absolutely agree with you on the auto-bid. If TCU is counting on that, this is a move that could potentially destroy them if they aren't successful immediately.

[Austin Bronco]

AssKickingBoots, on 02 December 2010 - 10:13 PM, said:

Many places are discussing the possibility of having a 16 team playoff scenario in place of the BCS. In a 16 slot playoff, what would you want?

A) Automatic bids for every conference champion including the ACC, Big XII, Big East, Big Ten, Conference USA, MAC, MWC, PAC 10, SEC, Sun Belt and WAC with 5 at-large bids.
B) Automatic bids for the champion of the ACC, Big XII, Big East, Big Ten, PAC 10, and the SEC and 10 at-large bids.
C) No automatic bids, all 16 teams determined strictly by a BCS-like system picking the top 16 teams.

There's other details up in the air like whether teams should be penalized in the selection process for losing conference championship games, whether teams from the same conference should face eachother in the 1st round, and so on. Let's ignore those for now.

Scenario A is what is being most widely discussed. That is what I was scoffing at. Who wants to see Auburn vs. an unranked, barely bowl eligible 6-5 Sun Belt Champion Florida International? That sounds like an early season tune up game. That won't get ratings, and that's a huge part of what the BCS crowd is afraid of. That sucks. Pass.

Scenario B is what I want. It maintains the big, evil power conferences grip, but later another Automatic Qualifier slot can be added or subtracted or even swapped if necessary. There's flexibility in this plan. Also, with 10 slots available for at-larges, a worthy team from a non-AQ conference can get in while keeping out a team like Florida International. There'd still be controversy, sure, like if Boise got in and Nevada didn't after beating them or whether to have a 2 loss Virginia Tech team or a 3 loss Alabama, but that's the price you pay for a playoff.

Scenario C would be what is most in line with what you're arguing now (I want to see the best teams, get rid of the conference tie-ins, blah blah). Still, I honestly think that would suck. If anything is going to bring on more corruption and back room deals than the current system, it's this. Maybe you disagree.

Not really. What I'm saying is the Big East sending an unranked team into the BCS is wrong. It's against what the BCS claims to be about, but they have to do it because of the auto-bid thing. If the BCS is what we get stuck with for the foreseeable future, it needs to showcase the top teams, not unranked teams.

A playoff system is a different animal. It's not trying to be a "showcase" like the BCS. It's sole purpose is to determine on the field the nation's best. I actually like a system in between #A and #B. Maybe have 8 auto bids and 8 at large bids. Here's the thing though: Auto-bids aren't perennially guaranteed. Each conference would be required to stay at a high level of play across the board to qualify for a bid. Have it use a 3-year running average. That way, if a conference is on the rise (like MWC was before the carnage). That gets rewarded. On the opposite side, a conference like the Big East could lose it's bid if it's level of play remains where it's at now. Then you still have at large spots to fill in.

I don't like version C for a playoff.

Now it may seem like I contradict myself, but I'm taking into account the fact a playoff would be a completely different animal from the BCS. Two different ideas with two different goals need to be treated differently. That's what I'm doing. So a BCS, which was designed to showcase the best in college football should avoid unranked teams playing in their games. It' contradicts their purpose. A playoff, on the other hand, can more easily include an unranked team that wins a big conference. The playoff would build interest over time, if such a team makes a run.

[Dom]

Didn't the Big East extend an invite to FCS Villanova in football? That would put them at 10. I still I think 17 teams in basketball could be pretty ugly... Time to start getting rid of some of those all basketball schools (Depaul, St. Johns, and Seton Hall) to name a few. As far as the travel time for TCU they will have to travel a little longer (not much compared to some of the teams they play in the west.) Also I would assume getting plane rides straight to the college cities would be a lot easier against Big East schools. Not to mention the more money TCU will be getting, so that should cancel out time. I know when Missouri State takes a flight to somewhere like UNI they still have to bus like an hour and a half just to get there.

I just hope for the love of God we get new conference names next year... It's so Bush league for the Big 10 to have 12 teams, the Big 12 to have 10 teams and the Big East to have a midwest state.

Also conference shifts are still in the making. Temple and Umass are debating on moving to the MAC (football only)

EDIT: Doesn't a 16 team playoff for football seem like a bit much? How long is the regular season going to be? Are they going to even be able to play non conference games?

[AssKickingBoots]

Austin Bronco, on 03 December 2010 - 12:02 AM, said:

Not really. What I'm saying is the Big East sending an unranked team into the BCS is wrong. It's against what the BCS claims to be about, but they have to do it because of the auto-bid thing. If the BCS is what we get stuck with for the foreseeable future, it needs to showcase the top teams, not unranked teams.

A playoff system is a different animal. It's not trying to be a "showcase" like the BCS. It's sole purpose is to determine on the field the nation's best. I actually like a system in between #A and #B. Maybe have 8 auto bids and 8 at large bids. Here's the thing though: Auto-bids aren't perennially guaranteed. Each conference would be required to stay at a high level of play across the board to qualify for a bid. Have it use a 3-year running average. That way, if a conference is on the rise (like MWC was before the carnage). That gets rewarded. On the opposite side, a conference like the Big East could lose it's bid if it's level of play remains where it's at now. Then you still have at large spots to fill in.

I don't like version C for a playoff.

Now it may seem like I contradict myself, but I'm taking into account the fact a playoff would be a completely different animal from the BCS. Two different ideas with two different goals need to be treated differently. That's what I'm doing. So a BCS, which was designed to showcase the best in college football should avoid unranked teams playing in their games. It' contradicts their purpose. A playoff, on the other hand, can more easily include an unranked team that wins a big conference. The playoff would build interest over time, if such a team makes a run.

I can admit that. There is a huge difference in between the BCS as it is and a playoff. If an unranked team were to make the playoffs, if they weren't any good it'd be a situation that rectifies itself pretty quickly.

As far as your rotating guarantee bid, I think it's a little strange and probably not worth it.

My first question is what are we basing it on? Conference record? Are we going to create an RPI type system to judge them? I can't help but think smaller conferences will creatively try to schedule to give themselves an easier road. After all, if this is at all like the BCS, every team in a conference makes money if one team makes it to the tournament, giving cause for a conspiracy.

Using your system, there's almost no way the WAC gets an automatic bid this year based on past conference performance. The MWC would, probably Conference USA after them. All appearances are that it would leave a one loss Nevada or Boise or both on the outside looking in while letting in a three loss UCF team in. If they all got in anyway, you're instead talking about a tournament with 5 slots being non-AQ schools before you even talk about a 2 loss Utah or Northern Illinois. That's not any better than giving every conference an automatic bid, IMO, in fact it just serves to confuse and give the appearance of fairness.

Most good current non-AQ conferences, like the MWC, actually aren't good top to bottom. There are clear-cut haves and have nots. In the MWC this year, 4 of the 9 teams combined for a 9-39 record, an 18.7% winning percentage. Only the MAC had a worse bottom 4, 7-41 for a 14.6% win rate, but then again there are 12 teams in the MAC. Nearly half of the best non-AQ conference is utter dogshit. There is no clear-cut reason to give conferences like the MWC a bid at all. Therefore, 8 is just too many automatic bids, IMO.

To clarify, either good current non-AQ schools suffer or we end up with a watered down, highly questionable tournament. You remove that one guaranteed slot for CUSA, and instead you'll likely get a better team in. You remove the guaranteed slot for the MWC on top of that, and nothing changes, TCU gets in as an at-large.

I know your intention with the performance based bid is to keep the big boys feet to the fire. It's not going to work like that at all. Instead, you'll end up with a needlessly confusing, often slow acting, and potentially unfair system that somebody will find a way to take advantage of. By the standards you're putting forward, even this year, the Big East would not be in trouble. Meanwhile, in the BCS the Big East pretty much had to go get TCU to quell the fires. They were held more accountable in the current horrible system than your dream system.

Besides, I don't know how you'd adjust your system for future conference realignments. It almost seems built specifically for the status quo.

Dom, on 03 December 2010 - 12:12 AM, said:

Didn't the Big East extend an invite to FCS Villanova in football? That would put them at 10. I still I think 17 teams in basketball could be pretty ugly... Time to start getting rid of some of those all basketball schools (Depaul, St. Johns, and Seton Hall) to name a few. As far as the travel time for TCU they will have to travel a little longer (not much compared to some of the teams they play in the west.) Also I would assume getting plane rides straight to the college cities would be a lot easier against Big East schools. Not to mention the more money TCU will be getting, so that should cancel out time. I know when Missouri State takes a flight to somewhere like UNI they still have to bus like an hour and a half just to get there.

I just hope for the love of God we get new conference names next year... It's so Bush league for the Big 10 to have 12 teams, the Big 12 to have 10 teams and the Big East to have a midwest state.

Also conference shifts are still in the making. Temple and Umass are debating on moving to the MAC (football only)

EDIT: Doesn't a 16 team playoff for football seem like a bit much? How long is the regular season going to be? Are they going to even be able to play non conference games?

I'm hoping for new names myself. I think the major conference realignments will really take place around 2014 (assuming the 2012 doomsday theory is incorrect), because that's when the BCS TV contracts supposedly expire.

As far as a 16 team playoff being too long, it's essentially 4 weeks longer of football. I don't see how it's that much different than Bowl season. It'd still be shorter than basketball, but you could easily chop off a non-con game from everybody's schedule if needed.