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

 

Then why not give these teams a chance to prove they belong at the end of the year?

 

How do we KNOW that UC, Boise and TCU aren't as good as Florida, Texas and Alabama?

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.

And now you finally start to scratch the surface on why a tournament is as likely to happen as your scheduling suggestion. The NCAA doesn't control the money in CFB because there isn't a NCAA sanctioned tournament. CFB is controlled by the school Presidents, and almost exclusively the Presidents from the 5 leagues with a BCS Bowl tie in (Rose x2, Orange, Fiesta, Sugar). These Presidents will not let go of this system from their cold, dead fingers because it is a windfall of cash in their coffers that the NCAA get zero cut out of...

And now you finally start to scratch the surface on why a tournament is as likely to happen as your scheduling suggestion. The NCAA doesn't control the money in CFB because there isn't a NCAA sanctioned tournament. CFB is controlled by the school Presidents, and almost exclusively the Presidents from the 5 leagues with a BCS Bowl tie in (Rose x2, Orange, Fiesta, Sugar). These Presidents will not let go of this system from their cold, dead fingers because it is a windfall of cash in their coffers that the NCAA get zero cut out of...

 

O, I majorly agree with you about the reasoning why it won't happen unless Congress mandates it to happen. $$$$$

So, do you keep the conference championship games, too?

 

I personally like the BCS. It ain't perfect but has done the best job of giving you the two best teams for the SEASON in a national championship game.

 

No that is not true at all. All it does is put the two best teams based on opinion, not on who the two truly best teams might be. With everyone playing different schedules and in different conferences. It is impossible to tell how one team might do maybe if they had another schedule. There might be a team who loses one game, but could have went undefeated with the same schedule of a team that did go undefeated. So is that team truly better, because they played a schedule that might have been better for them? I mean you really need to not look at how playoffs are for other sports. In football its not a big season, and probably wouldn't be a big playoff system probably 8 at most. So that means every game in the season is still just as important, and you still get most of the best teams for that season and would get more of a true National Champion. One lost even with a bowl system could still keep a team out, so the season would still be just as important.

Leave it as is. We beat the Gators and play the Horns, we beat the Horns and we play one extra game between the winner of the Bearcats/Boise State/TCU. The BCS rankings go to the highest team due to their strenth of schedule which would be the Cats as one of the teams. Also have #s 1/4 and 2/3 play. I'm thinking to much.

 

This example would have been the fair way back when the Sooners/USC played and the Trogans smashed the Sooners, Auburn won their bowl game and should have played USC. with the extra game...Plus 1.

No that is not true at all. All it does is put the two best teams based on opinion, not on who the two truly best teams might be. With everyone playing different schedules and in different conferences. It is impossible to tell how one team might do maybe if they had another schedule. There might be a team who loses one game, but could have went undefeated with the same schedule of a team that did go undefeated. So is that team truly better, because they played a schedule that might have been better for them? I mean you really need to not look at how playoffs are for other sports. In football its not a big season, and probably wouldn't be a big playoff system probably 8 at most. So that means every game in the season is still just as important, and you still get most of the best teams for that season and would get more of a true National Champion. One lost even with a bowl system could still keep a team out, so the season would still be just as important.

 

To me, that's why you take the conference champions and they get an automatic "bid" to the playoffs. There's 11 conferences in D-1...so add in another 5 "at-large" bids to rewards select runner-ups (Florida/Alabama) to round out a field of 16.

 

That way no undefeated team would ever be overlooked and omitted. You win...you get in. You keep winning...and in 4 weeks...your da' Champs! :thumb:

Personally, I only see the top 6 as teams I would REALLY want to see in a playoff format. However, I would take the top 8.

 

While the BCS is better than what preceded it (basically, it was the polls), ... I would like to see them start with a Plus 1 format then move to 8 teams the next season.

This system is just simply a bad system. Its not based on who was best in the season, its based on who people just believe were the two best. I mean just take UC for example. If people's opinion before the season just so happen to been that UC was the #1 team in the country, then they probably will still be #1 right now. However just because people preseason opinions BEFORE ANY TEAMS EVEN PLAY, didn't have them as one of the top teams in the country. They will miss out on the Title game, if these other teams don't lose. There honestly is not much right about this system at all.

No that is not true at all. All it does is put the two best teams based on opinion, not on who the two truly best teams might be. With everyone playing different schedules and in different conferences. It is impossible to tell how one team might do maybe if they had another schedule. There might be a team who loses one game, but could have went undefeated with the same schedule of a team that did go undefeated. So is that team truly better, because they played a schedule that might have been better for them? I mean you really need to not look at how playoffs are for other sports. In football its not a big season, and probably wouldn't be a big playoff system probably 8 at most. So that means every game in the season is still just as important, and you still get most of the best teams for that season and would get more of a true National Champion. One lost even with a bowl system could still keep a team out, so the season would still be just as important.

Here is the problem with the bolded, who gets left out this year? You end up with the same problem you do now.

 

The 6 conference champs get in automatically and then the loser of Fla/Alabama, Boise St or TCU. WHo you going to leave out?

This system is just simply a bad system. Its not based on who was best in the season, its based on who people just believe were the two best. I mean just take UC for example. If people's opinion before the season just so happen to been that UC was the #1 team in the country, then they probably will still be #1 right now. However just because people preseason opinions BEFORE ANY TEAMS EVEN PLAY, didn't have them as one of the top teams in the country. They will miss out on the Title game, if these other teams don't lose. There honestly is not much right about this system at all.

 

I agreed in an earlier post that this is a flaw with the preseason polls.

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

 

Remind me, who does that??

Why do you always compare it to basketball? That doesn't make sense to me. Football and basketball are not even close to the same. It's much easier to pull off an upset in basketball. So many more things come into play. The NCAA basketball tournament shouldn't even be mentioned when talking about a possible NCAA football tournament. It's entirely irrellevant. And regular season games don't matter? I guess the KHSAA should do the state championship like the BCS since none of the games matter throughout the season. Or maybe the NFL should just do away with it's regular season too? You would be playing for a top seed. Which equals a better chance at moving on to the next game and homefield advantage!

I really feel like a team like Stanford or Oregon could make it to a title game this year if there was a tournament. What about teams like Boise, TCU, Cincy. Why even have a season? Boise beat Oregon and runs the table but Oregon gets the better bowl game? A tournament might not be the answer. But the BCS system the way it is now sure isn't the answer either!

If Cincinnati wins today they go 12-0 and get shut out of a chance to play for the mythical national championship. So in essence the "every game means something" is out the window.

The BCS motto: "Every game counts except when it doesn't." Apologies to Mike Decourcey from whom who I borrowed that line.

Margin of victory last ten BCS championships 15.5.

Only three games have been decided by 7 points or less.

Four games have been decided by more than two possessions (17 points or more).

3 largest margins of victory 36, 27 and 23.

3 smallest margins of victory 3, 7 and 7.

Moral of the story, it appears quite evident to me that the BCS hasn’t done a great job of giving us #1 vs. #2 just going by margin of victory.

So are Alamama and Texas the #1 and #2 team in the nation without a doubt? I don't think so. And after it's all said and done and we are left with 2 or 3 unbeaten teams, do we really think the best way to select a champion is with computers, and human opinion? Yeah, that seems like a reasonable way to crown a national champion:rolleyes:. What a joke:puke: