I wish basketball had just conference winners make the tournament. I think it would make it BETTER in determining who actually is the best team of the season.

 

I think the key would be to force the top quality teams to have to play more games versus teams like Boise State and TCU. No games can be counted that are not BCS schools. Less games on the schedule against teams like a Northeast Southern Valley State type of school.

 

Then, I guess there's no reason to hold the conference tournaments at the end of the regular season, either. I mean, if you're looking for "fairness", and not necessarily the best team over a 3 or 4 day period...then the only way is to look at how each team does playing everybody else in a home-away format.

 

Which is fine, when you're only looking at a 12 team conference. But, you're still relying on a tournament when it comes to deciding a national champion.

 

However, there's still another flaw in your thinking for football. And that is, no matter what system you use to decide who is the "best" two teams to play for the national championship...there's still a chance that one (or more!) teams can be left out.

 

Say I'm UC and I schedule both Boise State and TCU for next year, and think I'll get big credit because of what they've done this year. And, I happen to win both games. BUT, at the end of the year, both teams go 9-3 and 8-4. Now, suddenly I'm getting knocked for not playing a tough enough schedule. And the SEC or Big 12 school gets the nod over me, because they happened to play Notre Dame (who sucked this year, but goes 10-1 next year).

 

There's simply no way to make it "fair"...other than playing the games on the field. If you want to "reward" a team for playing (and winning!) in a more difficult conference...then let them host a playoff game or two. Then, move the games to more neutral (bowl) sites.

We won't, unfortunately.

 

And the team that wins when it matters is better IMO. If a team pulls off an upset in the NCAA tournament in basketball, they were better on that night and deserve to move on.

 

If a team can't win, when they are supposed to, they're not really the best anyways.

 

The fundamental argument that I've made in ANY post-season scenario.

Then, I guess there's no reason to hold the conference tournaments at the end of the regular season, either. I mean, if you're looking for "fairness", and not necessarily the best team over a 3 or 4 day period...then the only way is to look at how each team does playing everybody else in a home-away format.

 

Which is fine, when you're only looking at a 12 team conference. But, you're still relying on a tournament when it comes to deciding a national champion.

 

However, there's still another flaw in your thinking for football. And that is, no matter what system you use to decide who is the "best" two teams to play for the national championship...there's still a chance that one (or more!) teams can be left out.

 

Say I'm UC and I schedule both Boise State and TCU for next year, and think I'll get big credit because of what they've done this year. And, I happen to win both games. BUT, at the end of the year, both teams go 9-3 and 8-4. Now, suddenly I'm getting knocked for not playing a tough enough schedule. And the SEC or Big 12 school gets the nod over me, because they happened to play Notre Dame (who sucked this year, but goes 10-1 next year).

 

There's simply no way to make it "fair"...other than playing the games on the field. If you want to "reward" a team for playing (and winning!) in a more difficult conference...then let them host a playoff game or two. Then, move the games to more neutral (bowl) sites.

 

Exactly.

Then, I guess there's no reason to hold the conference tournaments at the end of the regular season, either. I mean, if you're looking for "fairness", and not necessarily the best team over a 3 or 4 day period...then the only way is to look at how each team does playing everybody else in a home-away format.

 

Which is fine, when you're only looking at a 12 team conference. But, you're still relying on a tournament when it comes to deciding a national champion.

 

However, there's still another flaw in your thinking for football. And that is, no matter what system you use to decide who is the "best" two teams to play for the national championship...there's still a chance that one (or more!) teams can be left out.

 

Say I'm UC and I schedule both Boise State and TCU for next year, and think I'll get big credit because of what they've done this year. And, I happen to win both games. BUT, at the end of the year, both teams go 9-3 and 8-4. Now, suddenly I'm getting knocked for not playing a tough enough schedule. And the SEC or Big 12 school gets the nod over me, because they happened to play Notre Dame (who sucked this year, but goes 10-1 next year).

 

There's simply no way to make it "fair"...other than playing the games on the field. If you want to "reward" a team for playing (and winning!) in a more difficult conference...then let them host a playoff game or two. Then, move the games to more neutral (bowl) sites.

 

Sounds like seeding to me. Which is how virtually every other sport plays out after the regular season.

You get a tournament champion, not a determination on who the best team in the country is.

 

On the underline:confused::confused:

 

Little boys cannot stay with Big Boys in Football. No way a Villanova or George Mason beats Florida or Alabama in Football. 8 or 16 team playoff best way to decide National Championship or have SEC Champ get bye and play whoever else comes out.

Where in the world is it stated that a champion is the best team for a season? There is no sport that boasts that about it's champion. A champion is a team that has endured a successful season, building towards the playoffs and then peaking at the right time to be the best team in crunch time. The notion of trying to make a champion the best team the whole season is beyond ludicrous. I can't believe anyone thinks this system is a legimate way to name a champion.

I wish basketball had just conference winners make the tournament. I think it would make it BETTER in determining who actually is the best team of the season.

 

I think the key would be to force the top quality teams to have to play more games versus teams like Boise State and TCU. No games can be counted that are not BCS schools. Less games on the schedule against teams like a Northeast Southern Valley State type of school.

 

The Leapin Lizards of NSVSU take umbrage with that comment:D

^ And one of the problems with the "they should play better competition" argument is that the better competition don't always wanna go up against Boise State and TCU.

No, I'm saying that on a given year a team could be upset in the conference championship game and still make the National Championship game. See Oklahoma 2003, who lost the conference championship game and still played in the 2004 National Championship against LSU.

 

The BCS is a computer poll. Are you telling me that you prefer this than the NCAA Basketball tournament? Would you rather just have the National Championship game decided by computer ratings? Isn't the point of the tournament to see who is the best team through a series of battles, not lucky one day? The best team is the team w/ the depth to compete against other top teams and advance to the next round. That is why people say that TCU and Boise St. don't deserve to be in the bogus championship game, b/c week in and week out they don't play the best competition.

 

If it is series of battles against one team, than the bolded is accurate.

But it is not. It is one lucky day.

 

You telling me George Mason was one of the 4 best teams in the nation the year they made the final 4?

^ And one of the problems with the "they should play better competition" argument is that the better competition don't always wanna go up against Boise State and TCU.

 

I agree and why you tell these schools no more cupcakes littered throughout the schedule.

 

Maybe you even do like the NFL and have a rotation where a Big 10 has to play the WAC one year with the #1 rated team playing the #1 rated team in each conference. Next year Big 10, 11 or whatever plays Conference USA while the SEC is rotating to the WAC.

Where in the world is it stated that a champion is the best team for a season? There is no sport that boasts that about it's champion. A champion is a team that has endured a successful season, building towards the playoffs and then peaking at the right time to be the best team in crunch time. The notion of trying to make a champion the best team the whole season is beyond ludicrous. I can't believe anyone thinks this system is a legimate way to name a champion.

 

So, it is ludicrous to try and determine who is the best team for a season? Wow.

They still had to win 5 games to get there, so they deserved to be there. Better than a two loss LSU getting to the National Championship game b/c of computers, or Texas missing out last year b/c of some stupid conference tie-break system.

 

That was the conference's fault, not the BCS.

 

In an 8 team playoff, Texas would have still been out, probably.

Little boys cannot stay with Big Boys in Football. No way a Villanova or George Mason beats Florida or Alabama in Football. 8 or 16 team playoff best way to decide National Championship or have SEC Champ get bye and play whoever else comes out.

 

I am sure that is the way Oklahoma felt when they went up against Boise St.:thumb:

If it is series of battles against one team, than the bolded is accurate.

But it is not. It is one lucky day.

You telling me George Mason was one of the 4 best teams in the nation the year they made the final 4?

 

The run like George Mason had is one of the reasons why we all love sports so much.

The run like George Mason had is one of the reasons why we all love sports so much.

 

I will agree with you but then you have to accept that the tournament is NOT to reward the best team of the season but which team is hottest at the right time of the year.