Football unlike basketball is a game of numbers. Basketball only a few real good players 3 or 4 and some more to play with them. Football requires many good players to have a good team. No team from a small conference like George Mason can beat the big boys in football. Take the best 8 or 16 teams and you can have true champion in football. What you are saying No. 1 team at the end of the year should be champion. All schools not in the same league so tha really not a good case for picking your champion.

Someone mentioned this on the Sports Reporters this morning.

 

It makes every game throughout the season worthwhile. You have to come and leave it on the field every weekend.

When people say the BCS rewards the "best" team for the whole season they define the whole problem with BCS, see to me it's quite simple, "best" is very subjective and I don't believe that "best" is something a computer can determine...

When people say the BCS rewards the "best" team for the whole season they define the whole problem with BCS, see to me it's quite simple, "best" is very subjective and I don't believe that "best" is something a computer can determine...

 

:thumb::thumb:

Someone mentioned this on the Sports Reporters this morning.

 

It makes every game throughout the season worthwhile. You have to come and leave it on the field every weekend.

 

:thumb:

When people say the BCS rewards the "best" team for the whole season they define the whole problem with BCS, see to me it's quite simple, "best" is very subjective and I don't believe that "best" is something a computer can determine...

 

Here is the problem with that: a tournament setup would be the exact same thing except humans selecting the 8 or 16 teams and more importantly selecting the matchups before you get to a national championship game.

 

So, you choose 8 or 16 teams and put them into different matchups along the way and you would end up with different national champs.

 

All a tournament does it decide who was the best team during that tournament run. That is all it does and does minimal to decide who the best team is.

Here is the problem with that: a tournament setup would be the exact same thing except humans selecting the 8 or 16 teams and more importantly selecting the matchups before you get to a national championship game.

 

So, you choose 8 or 16 teams and put them into different matchups along the way and you would end up with different national champs.

 

All a tournament does it decide who was the best team during that tournament run. That is all it does and does minimal to decide who the best team is.

 

I agree. The only possible way a tournament would be worthwhile is if there is more than two undefeated teams. Right now, of Alabama, Florida, Texas, only two have the possibility of being undefeated. Boise St. and TCU have arguments this year, but most years, there isn't.

 

Adding a 1 or 2 loss team in a playoff format is not fair. They didn't win every game like other teams have. The way it is, you have to win every game. If Texas runs the table and there was a playoff, you're basically throwing out their perfect season and forcing them into action whenever they have already proven themselves.

I agree. The only possible way a tournament would be worthwhile is if there is more than two undefeated teams. Right now, of Alabama, Florida, Texas, only two have the possibility of being undefeated. Boise St. and TCU have arguments this year, but most years, there isn't.

 

And UC.

 

If you are going to do a round robin tournament, than you are going to get the best team. One and out tournament rewards the team that is hot at that time but not necessarily the best team.

 

The conference setups with the conference championship game matching the two winners of the division does the best job of getting the true best team of that conference.

Football unlike basketball is a game of numbers. Basketball only a few real good players 3 or 4 and some more to play with them. Football requires many good players to have a good team. No team from a small conference like George Mason can beat the big boys in football. Take the best 8 or 16 teams and you can have true champion in football. What you are saying No. 1 team at the end of the year should be champion. All schools not in the same league so tha really not a good case for picking your champion.

 

Ironically, the best 8 teams might include leaving a undefeated team out of the playoffs.

 

Take the power conferences champs Fla/Alabama, Texas, Georgia Tech, UC/Pitt, Ohio State and the PAC and that only leaves you two spots.

 

Meaning two of the loser of Fla/Alabama and UC/Pitt and Boise St. or TCU has to stay home.

 

Alabama loses to Florida as the #2 team in the country and they stay home to Boise St or TCU. Yeah that is really a way to have a true champion.

Here is the problem with that: a tournament setup would be the exact same thing except humans selecting the 8 or 16 teams and more importantly selecting the matchups before you get to a national championship game.

What you call a problem I call a solution to the problem. I don’t think the BCS is such a science that it can pick the two “best” teams ever year, if it were an exact science all the BCS ranked teams wouldn’t lose to those teams that aren’t ranked. I like my chances in having the “best” team in the top 8 selected for a playoff.

So, you choose 8 or 16 teams and put them into different matchups along the way and you would end up with different national champs.

You mean like how teams play in different conferences and play different schedules in the regular season? Yeah I can see how things might be different for Texas, Cincinatti or TCU if they played Florida, Alabama and LSU…

 

All a tournament does it decide who was the best team during that tournament run. That is all it does and does minimal to decide who the best team is.

Yet weeks 1-4 are the real test of good teams and determine who the “best” team is?

 

 

Yet weeks 1-4 are the real test of good teams and determine who the “best” team is?

 

Yeah, it is. They have to win the games on their schedule and every game is important.

 

UK men's basketball vs. Morehead. If UK had lost, they still could have won the national title. Game was irrelevant.

 

It wouldn't have been in football.

Yeah, it is. They have to win the games on their schedule and every game is important.

 

UK men's basketball vs. Morehead. If UK had lost, they still could have won the national title. Game was irrelevant.

 

It wouldn't have been in football.

 

So why can teams lose in week three to a mid-level BCS conference team and still climb back to the top of the pile while Cincinnati or Pittsburgh can lose to a top ten team in the last week and miss everything completely?

 

Why is there no real punishment for losing one game in September, yet you miss out on all BCS bowls completely by losing one game in November/December?

Ironically, the best 8 teams might include leaving a undefeated team out of the playoffs.

 

Take the power conferences champs Fla/Alabama, Texas, Georgia Tech, UC/Pitt, Ohio State and the PAC and that only leaves you two spots.

 

Meaning two of the loser of Fla/Alabama and UC/Pitt and Boise St. or TCU has to stay home.

 

Alabama loses to Florida as the #2 team in the country and they stay home to Boise St or TCU. Yeah that is really a way to have a true champion.

 

First off the BCS could still be used to determine the top 8, so your hypothetical wouldn't be valid unless of course you admit the BCS system is flawed. Also lets say someone does get left out, it seems you would love that scenario because you can use the "every game counts" mantra to explain how they got left out, seems great for everyone if you ask me...

Yeah, it is. They have to win the games on their schedule and every game is important.

 

UK men's basketball vs. Morehead. If UK had lost, they still could have won the national title. Game was irrelevant.

 

It wouldn't have been in football.

 

Yea UK's players don't care about being ranked #1 in the country, going undefeated, being the top overall 1 seed, being the first team to win 2,000 games, staying the team with the most wins in history, your right that game was irrelevant. And the 24,000 fans that came didn't care either, sometimes I wonder why we even play starters in games like that...

Fact is every game counts in every sport at least for those that play the game. There’s always something to play for.

So why can teams lose in week three to a mid-level BCS conference team and still climb back to the top of the pile while Cincinnati or Pittsburgh can lose to a top ten team in the last week and miss everything completely?

 

Why is there no real punishment for losing one game in September, yet you miss out on all BCS bowls completely by losing one game in November/December?

 

Dead on. It's a fact that a loss in September doesn't hurt you near as bad as a loss in November, seems out of place under the "every game counts" umbrella...