...why not a playoff system in 1a football?

[Brian in Boston]

"If you want to play for a Nat'l Championship, don't sign with a mid-major."

Oh, I did previously read your pithy little comment about not signing with a mid-major. However, there's a problem with your "logic".

The unfortunate part about being a mid-major powerhouse like Boise State is that there is very little incentive for a major conference to take them in as a member, even if Boise State wanted to make the move. After all, why would the established programs in a major conference - particularly those schools who already have a tough time competing in said major conference - wish to invite in a new member that may well prove to be competition for said conference's title?

Bottom line? The reason that a Boise State won't get into a major conference is the same reason that so many Division 1-A college football programs don't want to go to a true playoff: too many people are comfortable protecting their own interests by maintaining the status quo... no matter how patently unfair said status quo happens to be.

[Epiphanic]

The "don't sign with a mid-major" line of thought is exactly what is wrong with the current system. Why should Boise State be excluded on the basis of their classification? The WAC not being a BCS conference is not the doing of the WAC its the doing of the six (really 5) "major" conferences. The current system is inherently biased towards the few programs that have a historic track record of success. In NCAA D1 football, Cinderella can't go to the ball because the party starts after midnight.

[Broken Record]

Sheer genius. I never thought of it like that... "go :censored: yourself."... yeah, that's exactly right. Why didn't I think of that sooner?

[Guest]

In NCAA D1 football, Cinderella can't go to the ball because the party starts after midnight.

Hey, well put.

[Broken Record]

It's unfair to Boise State, but every one of those kids knew when they signed at Boise State to play football that they weren't going to be playing for National Championships. They signed up so they could play against Utah State, New Mexico State, Reno, etc.

1A is too big.

[slightly shotgunned]

1A is too big.

what would you do, then, to make it smaller. if you believe that the problem is not with the bcs, but with the size of 1a football, which schools should be eligible and which schools shouldn't?

[Broken Record]

1A is too big.

what would you do, then, to make it smaller. if you believe that the problem is not with the bcs, but with the size of 1a football, which schools should be eligible and which schools shouldn't?

Don't know. I don't have all the answers, just most of them

[slightly shotgunned]

and my responce to those saying that is "go :censored: yourself" .

...i didn't start this post to get arugments like this one.

either have an argument that someone can actually respond to, or keep your fingers away from the keyboard. there's no room in this thread for that kind of argument.

Don't know. I don't have all the answers, just most of them

nice.

back to the argument though...consider the scenario i posted on the "gators in the national championship" thread. where 4 schools go undefeated and never play each other. (I believe i chose bottom feeders like vanderbilt, kentucky, baylor, and stanford). rank those teams and tell me why the computer and voters could decide that better than a playoff?

...and don't say anything about how 'it could never happen.' first of all, yes it could. it's a long shot. a very VERY long shot. but it COULD happen. second, this is still a hypothetical situation so answer it for the sake of the argument.

[rams80]

1A is too big.

what would you do, then, to make it smaller. if you believe that the problem is not with the bcs, but with the size of 1a football, which schools should be eligible and which schools shouldn't?

I'm thinking we can afford to lose 12 schools in the Southeast.

[PeytonManningRocks]

I agree with some of you that these so-called "Mid-Majors" have absolutely no chance at a championship because of the way this is set up....but I'll take this a step further. If Arkansas had run the table in the SEC and won the SEC championship game, something tells me they would not have jumped Michigan, even though they would end up winning their conference, simply because Arkansas doesn't have the notoriety of Florida. Also, another evidence that sometimes even playing in a conference doesn't help you is that Auburn and Wisconsin finished 9th and 7th in the BCS, but since they were third in their conference, they were left out, and Notre Dame (who I believe is ranked high for reputation only) gets in. It's a stupid system, and that's why I'd be in favor of at least a different selection committee other than coaches and media pick the teams in it, instead of the computers.

[Broken Record]

and my responce to those saying that is "go :censored: yourself" .

...i didn't start this post to get arugments like this one.

either have an argument that someone can actually respond to, or keep your fingers away from the keyboard. there's no room in this thread for that kind of argument.

Don't know. I don't have all the answers, just most of them

nice.

back to the argument though...consider the scenario i posted on the "gators in the national championship" thread. where 4 schools go undefeated and never play each other. (I believe i chose bottom feeders like vanderbilt, kentucky, baylor, and stanford). rank those teams and tell me why the computer and voters could decide that better than a playoff?

...and don't say anything about how 'it could never happen.' first of all, yes it could. it's a long shot. a very VERY long shot. but it COULD happen. second, this is still a hypothetical situation so answer it for the sake of the argument.

You'd have to pick someone besides UK and Vandy because they play each other every year. Let's sub Mississippi State for Kentucky. Wait... I can't do that because if they were both undefeated they'd have to play in the SEC Championship weeding one out.

Let's go Baylor, Duke, Vandy and Northwestern. OK, you are right, this is a very long shot, but to make your point better we could just as easily say Florida State, Nebraska, Tennessee and Michigan. That's certainly possible isn't it?

All right, so we've got four teams from four big conferences and they are all undefeated at the end of the year. That's certainly a mess that the BCS has no real way of solving. I suppose at the end you'd still have two unbeatens and a split championship. As I've said before, I'd be a proponent of a +1 in that situation.

[slightly shotgunned]

Let's go Baylor, Duke, Vandy and Northwestern. OK, you are right, this is a very long shot, but to make your point better we could just as easily say Florida State, Nebraska, Tennessee and Michigan. That's certainly possible isn't it?

All right, so we've got four teams from four big conferences and they are all undefeated at the end of the year. That's certainly a mess that the BCS has no real way of solving. I suppose at the end you'd still have two unbeatens and a split championship. As I've said before, I'd be a proponent of a +1 in that situation.

whatever schools you wish to use are fine by me, it was just part of the argument. the names don't really matter all that much.

and yeah, you mentioned the +1 system before, but what exactly is that? i really have no idea.

1A is too big.

what would you do, then, to make it smaller. if you believe that the problem is not with the bcs, but with the size of 1a football, which schools should be eligible and which schools shouldn't?

I'm thinking we can afford to lose 12 schools in the Southeast.

...as in the sec? if not, which 12 and why?...i feel like a high school teacher...

[WJMorris3]

If Rutgers hadn't lost either of the games, they might have been left out as well anyways.

[slightly shotgunned]

If Rutgers hadn't lost either of the games, they might have been left out as well anyways.

absolutely. but hey, they get to play in the Texas Bowl. that's good enough for them right?

*note*

HEAVY SARCASM ABOVE

[Broken Record]

+1 is what the BCS committee has recently called a "slippery slope" towards a playoff. Basically, all it means is that after all the bowl games are over, you add one more game.

In the scenario we're playing with above with four big undefeated schools, let's say that Tennessee plays Florida State and Michigan plays Nebraska in BCS Bowl games. If Florida State and Michigan are the two winners, then they play each other in a "National Title" game.

[slightly shotgunned]

+1 is what the BCS committee has recently called a "slippery slope" towards a playoff. Basically, all it means is that after all the bowl games are over, you add one more game.

In the scenario we're playing with above with four big undefeated schools, let's say that Tennessee plays Florida State and Michigan plays Nebraska in BCS Bowl games. If Florida State and Michigan are the two winners, then they play each other in a "National Title" game.

makes sense. thank you for clearing that up for me. my question now is, why not do that all the time with the top 4 teams in the bcs?

[Broken Record]

The short answer is that we don't do that because the bowls don't want us to. I personally don't think we need to do that every year, but in some years (split champion years) I'd be for it.

[Epiphanic]

What's wrong with a split championship?

If a split championship is what we are trying to avoid, then something needs to be changed because the BCS failed in that endevor. A playoff is really the only way to do determine a true, and unsplit, championship. Since that idea is anathema to many people, I propose something so radical, so revolutionary, that it can be summed in two words.*

Flex. Scheduling.

That's right. The ultimate power scheduling. Undefeateds play undefeateds. Once you have a loss, then it doesn't matter who you play because you lost. Once we have the last undefeated they are crowned the national champion. Everybody wins, no playoff, no controversy, best record wins.

*sarcasm used extensively afterwards.

[rams80]

Let's go Baylor, Duke, Vandy and Northwestern. OK, you are right, this is a very long shot, but to make your point better we could just as easily say Florida State, Nebraska, Tennessee and Michigan. That's certainly possible isn't it?

All right, so we've got four teams from four big conferences and they are all undefeated at the end of the year. That's certainly a mess that the BCS has no real way of solving. I suppose at the end you'd still have two unbeatens and a split championship. As I've said before, I'd be a proponent of a +1 in that situation.

whatever schools you wish to use are fine by me, it was just part of the argument. the names don't really matter all that much.

and yeah, you mentioned the +1 system before, but what exactly is that? i really have no idea.

1A is too big.

what would you do, then, to make it smaller. if you believe that the problem is not with the bcs, but with the size of 1a football, which schools should be eligible and which schools shouldn't?

I'm thinking we can afford to lose 12 schools in the Southeast.

...as in the sec?

That was my (sarcastic) implication, yes....

[Brian in Boston]

+1 is what the BCS committee has recently called a "slippery slope" towards a playoff.

Correction. "Plus-One" is nothing more than a watered-down pseudo-playoff that allows a majority of NCAA Division 1-A football schools to "have their cake and eat it, too". It's meant to appease a certain percentage of college football fans who are clamoring for a true playoff, while allowing a slew of university presidents, athletic directors, coaches and boosters to continue thumping their chests and crowing about how their program qualified for a bowl game.

Bottom line? The "Plus-One" proposal is as big a pile of steaming fecal matter as the current system. Period.

The short answer is that we don't do that because the bowls don't want us to.

And THAT is what is so wrong with the current system. The bowls are dictating policy to the NCAA and it's member institutions, with the result being that NCAA Division 1-A football doesn't crown a true champion.