Message Boards

If it is Conference Champions only, how would you factor in the Indepedents?
What would be the incentive to schedule any "hard" games OOC?
What would be the incentive for a team like BSU to move to a "harder" conference?
How would you play a Conference winner with a 8-3 record (went 8-0 in conference) against a 2nd place team that went 11-1?

No no no please stop it. We already have 147 playoff scenarios and counting. Scroll through the older threads. Besides, expansion scenarios are the new playoff scenarios.

Well...not gonna scroll through a bunch of old threads. Posted this because some folks brought it up as a beauty contest. Oh well...thought it would be interesting.

QUOTE(#4):

Originally posted 11:43 AM ET  07.23 by JRM74

Cliff notes from last year.Most popular scenario was 6 teams. 4 highest ranked conference champions, plus next two highest ranked teams whether conference champs or not (conference runner-up, independent, whatever). Bottom 4 ranked teams play an elimination round the week after conference championship games. Remaining 4 square off in two of the Jan 1st bowls, winners play a week or so later. This preserves the urgency of winning your regular season games and maintaining a strong strength of schedule. And it's highly unlikely there would ever be a year with more than 6 legitimate contenders.We went thru about a dozen and a half threads and 4,000 or so comments to get there.

Thanks...I wasn't here last year for the posts. Just getting tired of hearing about it's a beauty contest.

Might not be the best way to run the BCS right now, but it's all we have...and if someone "wins" based on the current configuration, it shouldn't down play their achievement. I'll hush for now.

Reading back...thought the premise as to why the current format is so bad is that it relies on human voting to pick the teams....and yet with this scenario, and another I ready earlier on another thread, still relying on human votes (some poll), just expanding the number from 2 to 6 or 8....hmmm still going to be a lot of b*tching and moaning...

Seems that any way it is structured, the polls will be involved, and polls mean voters voting, which means someone is going to start talking about it being a beauty contest, and the "top 4" or "top 8" conference winners means that a school like BSU, playing a very weak schedule, would get in the playoffs while a team playing a stronger schedule, losing a couple of games but winning their conference (could be either Big XII(10) or SEC) would be left out??? Hmmmm

Dam, that is a long sentence.... LOL

QUOTE(#5):

Originally posted 12:00 PM ET  07.23 by BackRoads

Thanks...I wasn't here last year for the posts. Just getting tired of hearing about it's a beauty contest.

If you don't sniff, the odor emanating from Armpit about how there is no National Champion won't get to you. To the extent that it is a beauty contest, the BCS has improved the National Championship situation without really changing the bowl format.
The fact is, a plus-1 is the best we can really hope for. An expanded playoff would completely destroy the bowls, and we know that is not going to happen.

8 team playoff- The Plus 1 in between the BCS bowls and the BCS championship game. The winner of each BCS bowl game would play in the semifinals.

QUOTE(#13):

Originally posted 12:31 PM ET  07.23 by BS&B:TrustInO-6

8 team playoff- The Plus 1 in between the BCS bowls and the BCS championship game. The winner of each BCS bowl game would play in the semifinals.

Stole the idea from a PSU blog that is no longer there. So he has no proof that I stole it or accepted 100K from an agent.

Ok maybe I'm wrong but I think they should so it like baseball.. with regional and super regional.. then go to the bowls... the last two teams standing are playing for all the marbles.

Any talk of playoff using the "existing bowl structure" gives a built in bias to southern, fair-weather teams. IF any playoff structure is to be considered, then it should take into account the "home-field" advantage favoring the higher ranked team.

QUOTE(#16):

Originally posted 02:03 PM ET  07.23 by TZ man

Any talk of playoff using the "existing bowl structure" gives a built in bias to southern, fair-weather teams. IF any playoff structure is to be considered, then it should take into account the "home-field" advantage favoring the higher ranked team.

If weather was all that concerned anyone, a playoff structure using the existing bowls would favor the northern teams. Southern teams play in overly warm or hot conditions for half the season and decent conditions the other half. Bowl game weather in the south in late December or early January would be more like what northern teams are used to.

But weather is maybe the least of the concerns in developing a playoff system.

QUOTE:

Originally posted by

That's true but I think the bias that TZ Man mentions has more to to do with things like Northern teams and their fans having to travel to a bowl game right in the backyard of the SEC against an SEC opponent.

It could be what he meant, but I've had this discussion with him before abou this, so I am presuming to know where he is coming from. When he uses the term "fair weather teams" it brings weather into the picture.

Their are other considerations, as you say, though I tend to believe they are usually over stated.

QUOTE(#19):

Originally posted 02:57 PM ET  07.23 by JPax

It could be what he meant, but I've had this discussion with him before abou this, so I am presuming to know where he is coming from. When he uses the term "fair weather teams" it brings weather into the picture. Their are other considerations, as you say, though I tend to believe they are usually over stated.

JP, we have discussed this previously, so lets not re-hash the whole argument.

One question though...do you think the Big10 (specifically) and/or northern conferences (generically) would have a worse, better, or the same record in bowl games if the "where" is reversed?

QUOTE(#19):

Originally posted 02:57 PM ET  07.23 by JPax

It could be what he meant, but I've had this discussion with him before abou this, so I am presuming to know where he is coming from. When he uses the term "fair weather teams" it brings weather into the picture. Their are other considerations, as you say, though I tend to believe they are usually over stated.

Well...we might see how weather effects the games when the SuperBowl in played in NY...

QUOTE(#20):

Originally posted 03:35 PM ET  07.23 by TZ man

JP, we have discussed this previously, so lets not re-hash the whole argument.One question though...do you think the Big10 (specifically) and/or northern conferences (generically) would have a worse, better, or the same record in bowl games if the "where" is reversed?

I think it is obvious that a team that plays no cold weather games will have a harder time playing against a team that plays some cold weather games.

So the northern teams would have the weather advantage either way, but would have a much greater advantage if the situation were reversed.

QUOTE(#20):

Originally posted 03:35 PM ET  07.23 by TZ man

JP, we have discussed this previously, so lets not re-hash the whole argument.One question though...do you think the Big10 (specifically) and/or northern conferences (generically) would have a worse, better, or the same record in bowl games if the "where" is reversed?

Similar discussions have happened across this swatch of land that I call the Buckeye state, and I find that even if the bowl attendance is broken up 50/50 (can't actually be) that the 'home' team (regional team playing there) would still have the advantage because generally speaking fans of the conference still cheer for the conference team. A UF team in the Rose Bowl playing Arizona in the Rose Bowl for instance is going to get Arizona the home field advantage, even though both are used to the nice weather (relatively speaking) for the simple fact that the fans there are going to support the Pac 10.

Or am I mistaken there? I feel that weather can be a limiting factor, and would love for some bowl games to come up here. Though I don't see this ever happening because the Big 4 bowl games are all historical and are so popular that it would be hard to have a new one broken up. Not to mention that financially/politically, the cities those games take place in are not going to just let the regional conference leave to go play there game in a northern state where the weather might be inclement.

Hell, I'd even be up for there being a bowl game played in Washington State or something like that just to get the Bowl Monopoly taken out of the South. Can you imagine the overhead visuals... the majestic Lake Washington with gorgeous Husky Stadium. Beautiful. A lot more beautiful than downtown Atlanta imo.

QUOTE(#22):

Originally posted 03:39 PM ET  07.23 by JPax

I think it is obvious that a team that plays no cold weather games will have a harder time playing against a team that plays some cold weather games. So the northern teams would have the weather advantage either way, but would have a much greater advantage if the situation were reversed.

How do you figure that the Northern teams have the advantage weather wise no matter which region of the country the bowls are played in? Shouldn't the games be representative of the entire culture of college football, and not just limited to southern locales?