SDK46
Well-Known Member
Especially when an 11-1 MSU team is getting relegated to Orlando.
The BCS is biased, antiquated, corrupt and basically sucks.
Playoff: Decide it on the field.
Fiesta and Orange are going to be ******
- Thread starter BSpringsteen
- Start date
The BCS is biased, antiquated, corrupt and basically sucks.
Playoff: Decide it on the field.
SDK46
Well-Known Member
Ugh...what a bunch of dog match ups, other than the title game. Yes, BCS got the title game right (a two year old could do that).
BCS failed in every other BCS-game match up aspect.
troy
Well-Known Member
I agree. I think TCU is better than Stanford and that Wisconsin /TCU will be a good game.
Unless you are talking about some radical overhaul of the concerence system, or a 16 team, month long playoff MSU still gets left out this year. Now, next year they would get a chance to play in the Big 10 Championship. But, then OSU would not get that opportunity and it could actually hurt the loser in the playoff scenario to actually play in the game.
For instance, does an 11-1 OSU get in before an 11-2 Wisky that lost their last game?
The problem with a playoff is that you have to completely take polls out of it. Which means you need to get all eligible teams into a conference system that is equitable and allows for an abbreviated, no more than 8 teams, playoff. 4 superconferences would do it.
ajbrand33
Well-Known Member
so you arent just pessimistic and negative about the hawkeyes, youre pessimistic and negative about all of college football...just let the games be played out before you bill them as unwatchable.
the end of the season left a bad taste in all of our mouths, most of us have been able to wash some of that bad taste out by now, i did it with makers mark and beer
hawkeyescott
Well-Known Member
Some of you guys need to remember the BCS wasn't created to make matchups for the bowl games, it was only created to pair the top 2 teams. This year is a perfect example, under the old ways, Auburn would be off to the Sugar and Oregon off to the Rose and wouldn't be facing each other.
The rest is up to each bowl, the only thing the BCS say's is that the bowls must take a team in the top 14 for an at large bid.
The rest is up to each bowl, the only thing the BCS say's is that the bowls must take a team in the top 14 for an at large bid.
SDK46
Well-Known Member
100% correct and thank God! You have a selection/seeding committee, just like the NCAA BB tourney. Unbiased, criteria driven members who choose the top 16 teams. Yes, #17 is going to cry foul, but it's far better than the bogus polls, homerism and incomplete computer rankings which is the BCS.
So, no, with a selection committee, and forgetting antiquated conference limits, MSU would have been part of the playoff system.
Last edited:
No way college football is going to a month long post season.
So, your selection committee idea doesn't work either.
There is one way to do it. 4 Superconferences with a championship game in each conference.
That means 8 teams figuratively get into the playoff, only the first game is part of a conference matchup.
Either way, only 2 B10 teams really have a chance to get in.
So, your selection committee idea doesn't work either.
There is one way to do it. 4 Superconferences with a championship game in each conference.
That means 8 teams figuratively get into the playoff, only the first game is part of a conference matchup.
Either way, only 2 B10 teams really have a chance to get in.
Last edited:
DwayneTwill
Well-Known Member
yuck.
ShadasRevenge
Well-Known Member
The BCS' only job is to get the title game right.
People who say they want to see things decided on the field are getting their wish.
SDK46
Well-Known Member
a.) It already is!! It's a month between the last conf champ game and the BCS title game. All other bowls can continue as is. NO need to disband them.
b.) Yeah, the selection committee works perfectly.
c.) Nope. You really need to think outside the box.
d.) Better yet, read this book. Be enlightened.
SDK46
Well-Known Member
Epic fail then.
BCS is biased and wants "brand name only" to be in the national game. Two biased polls (I'll call them homerism and ignorant to boot), and a self-admitted incomplete computer poll decides who's best? Really?
Seriously, for all you guys who think the BCS is doing its job...READ THE BOOK! BE ENLIGHTENED.
I read that book and it has some fatal flaws. People hate the BCS so much that they fail to understand the flaws in the whole system. You need to change the entire system before you change the post season radically.
For instance, how do you deal with the issue of competitive equality? In basketball when you have 20+ games and over 60 playoff teams it is easier.
And the post season is not continuously a month long. People are not going to travel to four plus games over break and if the play the games on campus, the students will be out of session.
It is really more complicated than people think. But, you start with the regular season and move to a playoff if you want the right system.
For instance, how do you deal with the issue of competitive equality? In basketball when you have 20+ games and over 60 playoff teams it is easier.
And the post season is not continuously a month long. People are not going to travel to four plus games over break and if the play the games on campus, the students will be out of session.
It is really more complicated than people think. But, you start with the regular season and move to a playoff if you want the right system.
ShadasRevenge
Well-Known Member
Epic fail then.
BCS is biased and wants "brand name only" to be in the national game. Two biased polls (I'll call them homerism and ignorant to boot), and a self-admitted incomplete computer poll decides who's best? Really?
Seriously, for all you guys who think the BCS is doing its job...READ THE BOOK! BE ENLIGHTENED.
You would disagree that Auburn and Oregon are the best two teams in the country?
If they aren't, then who?
SDK46
Well-Known Member
Not saying it's perfect. No system is, but for cripes sake, the BCS is so fatally flawed, it's humorous. The fact people hate it is not by accident. The FB playoff system will work 1000% better than the crap the BCS puts out.
Competitive equality is determined IMO statistically fine over a 12 game season. SOS needs to come into play....big time, for the selection committee in FB.
Students make up what percetage of hard-core traveling? Not much.
Students make up what percentage of Kinnick capacity? 15%?
Very true....not everybody will travel to every game. But so what? Did I travel to every single away game? Of course not, but I made it to two of them. Different people will travel to any away playoff game. Iowa will be represented just fine. The argument that every fan needs to travel to every single playoff game is flawed. And if Iowa gets a home game, even better.
When the Prius came out, which was a whole new technology, the "old guard (GM)" laughed at it. Our cars are fine. Nobody will buy the prius..too radical. Don't worry...."Daddy GM" will take care of you just fine.
Fast forward to the Volt. Same thing from the old guard. Too radical, the old way is always going to be the best way.
Uh huh.
SDK46
Well-Known Member
Not arguing. But a two year old could figure that out. You DO NOT need the BCS to keep others out through bogus polls.
Look...if you're so endeared to the BCS, then why not do it for NCAA BB? Simply decide who the top two teams are, exclude the others, and let them play one game for the BB trophy?
Sounds stupid? It is....just like the BCS selection process is.
ShadasRevenge
Well-Known Member
Take a pill, chief. Who exactly is the BCS keeping out?
SDK46
Well-Known Member
They exclude teams from participating.
TCU this year. And Boise even if they had gone undefeated.
Auburn in years past.
Many excellent one-loss teams.
For those of you who want the BCS structure to continue, but love the NCAA BB selection and tourney, you're speaking out of both sides of your mouth.
Both processes are so dichotomous....you simply can't have it both ways.
P.s. have to add....has everyone forgotten last year?...when Iowa was cruising at 9-0? The pollsters, talking heads, ESPN and the BCS I'm sure didn't know what to do with us. They had their minds pretty much made up the "right" NC game should be between Alabama and Texas. Everybody was relieved when we lost to NW. Everybody wanted blue-blood, not farm boys.
I'm 100% convinced, if Iowa had won out, we would have been shut out of the NC game and relegated to the Rose Bowl with a "here's a nice consolation prize...enjoy it" type of pontification from the cartel. 100% convinced.
Last edited:
SDK46
This is the problem I have with most playoff advocates. You think any argument that addresses a potential problem with a playoff system is pro BCS.
Put the bong down and try to pay attention. My argument is NOT pro BCS. My argument is against the currently flawed conference system in college football. The conference system makes it very hard to set up a decent playoff.
For instance, at about the midpoint of the season, I checked the record
of the teams in TCU's conference against BCS teams. It was 3-9 and the most impressive one of the wins was against a non-Bowl eligible
OSU. So, really you have to throw TCU out of the equation, because any team in the top 16 has a more impressive record against equal
competition. But, do you throw TCU out? Guess not, so strength of schedule can't really factor in...
I dislike the BCS, because I feel it was an attempt at the end of the
process to deal with a failed process. I really preferred the process where they played all the games and then let the press figure out who
they thought was the best team, because at least then everyone knew it was mythical. But PSU and Miami beat the system as independents and they decided to try to put duct tape on the whole broken thing. A playoff without changing the system would do the same thing.
So, my argument is about changing the conference system, not pro BCS. So, if you want to argue against me, make your argument about how the conferences give everyone an equal playing field.
This is the problem I have with most playoff advocates. You think any argument that addresses a potential problem with a playoff system is pro BCS.
Put the bong down and try to pay attention. My argument is NOT pro BCS. My argument is against the currently flawed conference system in college football. The conference system makes it very hard to set up a decent playoff.
For instance, at about the midpoint of the season, I checked the record
of the teams in TCU's conference against BCS teams. It was 3-9 and the most impressive one of the wins was against a non-Bowl eligible
OSU. So, really you have to throw TCU out of the equation, because any team in the top 16 has a more impressive record against equal
competition. But, do you throw TCU out? Guess not, so strength of schedule can't really factor in...
I dislike the BCS, because I feel it was an attempt at the end of the
process to deal with a failed process. I really preferred the process where they played all the games and then let the press figure out who
they thought was the best team, because at least then everyone knew it was mythical. But PSU and Miami beat the system as independents and they decided to try to put duct tape on the whole broken thing. A playoff without changing the system would do the same thing.
So, my argument is about changing the conference system, not pro BCS. So, if you want to argue against me, make your argument about how the conferences give everyone an equal playing field.
Last edited:
SDK46
Well-Known Member
My conference argument is thus:
You're correct. To be perfectly and 100% fair, the conferences would need to basically combine into four super conferences. Champs and runners-up go to the playoffs. Then you have room for 8 at-large. Or stop at 8 teams.
Since that's not going to happen, I'll go back once again to the NCAA Men's BB tourney....
...regarding FB, the most logical model I've been exposed to puts in every conf champ into the playoff, plus 8 at large, then they are seeded. #16 versus #1, and so on. Leagues with tougher scheduled-teams perhaps get 2-3 teams in the playoffs. Weaker conferences do not. Just like men's BB. Your reward or penalty lies there.
So, an 11-1 team from a weak conference gets overlooked for a 3 loss team from a power league, based upon SOS. If you can't or won't join a tougher conference, sucks to be you.
Either win your conference and get in, or go to your mid-tier bowl instead.
Teams are not penalized for going to a non-playoff bowl game. They simply get to participate in the traditional bowl scene, just like before. They just don't get to play for the crystal football....just like the system is today.
You're correct. To be perfectly and 100% fair, the conferences would need to basically combine into four super conferences. Champs and runners-up go to the playoffs. Then you have room for 8 at-large. Or stop at 8 teams.
Since that's not going to happen, I'll go back once again to the NCAA Men's BB tourney....
...regarding FB, the most logical model I've been exposed to puts in every conf champ into the playoff, plus 8 at large, then they are seeded. #16 versus #1, and so on. Leagues with tougher scheduled-teams perhaps get 2-3 teams in the playoffs. Weaker conferences do not. Just like men's BB. Your reward or penalty lies there.
So, an 11-1 team from a weak conference gets overlooked for a 3 loss team from a power league, based upon SOS. If you can't or won't join a tougher conference, sucks to be you.
Either win your conference and get in, or go to your mid-tier bowl instead.
Teams are not penalized for going to a non-playoff bowl game. They simply get to participate in the traditional bowl scene, just like before. They just don't get to play for the crystal football....just like the system is today.
