BCS Playoffs Now Forum » Recent Topics

BCS Playoffs Now Forum » Recent Topics http://www.bcsplayoffsnow.com/ Just another bbPress community en-US Sat, 13 Mar 2010 07:33:50 +0000 usmc_0203 on "Dear BCS" http://www.bcsplayoffsnow.com/topic/dear-bcs#post-8 Sat, 09 Jan 2010 21:15:00 +0000 usmc_0203 8@http://www.bcsplayoffsnow.com/ Dear BCS, As your infamous Bowl Championship Series was created in 1998 to address the problems of the past in crowning a collegiate football champion, let us continue to evolve using common sense to find an even better solution. As I'm sure you will admit, the BCS is far from an ideal solution and can surely be improved upon with little change to our beloved status quo. From the 2000 season when a 10-1 Florida State team was ranked ahead of a 10-1 Miami team that had not lost since the first game of the season and beat FSU in a head to head matchup, to 2009, when five undefeated teams remained with only two getting the opportunity to play for a national championship, there has been no shortage of BCS controversy. Let me propose a solution: The BCS Playoff (8 teams) Let me show you how this would work, and how much excitement it would bring to the greatest sport on the planet, college football, as well as the windfall of money it would produce for schools, conferences and cities around the country. Let's take this past season as an example: Final BCS Rankings (end of regular season) 1 - Alabama 2 - Texas 3 - Cincinnati 4 - TCU 5 - Florida 6 - Boise St 7 - Oregon 8 - Ohio State 9 - Georgia Tech Georgia Tech was the ACC champion, but did not make the top 8 of the BCS rankings. The eight playoff teams could either be made up of the champions of the six BCS conferences plus two at large bids (this would result in Georgia Tech being in and Boise State being out), or it could just be the top eight teams regardless of conference. I think the latter is the better solution, especially given the example above where I don't think many would argue that Georgia Tech deserves a spot over an undefeated Boise St that has proven itself in the BCS in the past. But I am sure the ACC would have a major problem with not having a spot in the playoff and that could cause problems. You could also make it the six BCS conference champions plus two at large non-BCS conference teams. That would have put Boise St in and knock Florida out (Sorry Gators, next time win your conference championship game). In reality, the Big East has no business being a BCS conference anyway, but I'm trying to stick as close to the current system as possible and would not have made a difference this year anyway, so we'll leave that alone. For our example of how this playoff would look, let's go with the top ranked eight teams regardless of conference (sorry Georgia Tech, you've got to sit this one out). The regular season ended 05Dec09. The two weeks later the playoffs begin: Fiesta Bowl - Glendale, AZ (Fri 18Dec09, 8pm ET) 2 Texas vs 7 Oregon Capital One Bowl - Orlando, FL (Sat 19Dec09, 1pm ET) 3 Cincinnati vs 6 Boise St Cotton Bowl - Dallas, TX (Sat 19Dec09, 4pm ET) 4 TCU vs 5 Florida Orange Bowl - Miami Gardens, FL (Sat 19Dec09, 8pm ET) 1 Alabama vs 8 Ohio St Are you salivating looking at these matchups? because I sure am. Just imagine the excitement and enormous TV audiences that would go with a weekend of football like this. Fans would of course make the flight or drive, and football fans who are not fans of either Texas or Oregon, for example, would still tune in and watch the game because the result actually matters. Playoff Week 2: Sugar Bowl - New Orleans, LA (Sat 01Jan10, 4pm ET) Winner of Alabama/Ohio St vs Winner of TCU/Florida Rose Bowl - Pasadena, CA (Sat 01Jan10, 8pm ET) Winner of Texas/Oregon vs Winner of Cinci/BSU Playoff Week 3: BCS National Championship - Pasadena, CA (Mon 11Jan10, 8pm ET) Sugar Bowl Winner vs Rose Bowl Winner And there you have it, a bonafide, undisputed, national champion. What a beautiful concept. Of course the location of the BCS Championship would continue to rotate between Glendale, Pasadena, New Orleans, and Miami Gardens, and the Fiesta, Sugar, Orange, and Rose would rotate being a first or second round playoff venue. bcsplayoffs on "Does winning the bowl games even matter?" http://www.bcsplayoffsnow.com/topic/does-winning-the-bowl-games-even-matter#post-7 Sat, 02 Jan 2010 18:01:26 +0000 bcsplayoffs 7@http://www.bcsplayoffsnow.com/ I'm watching the bowl games and can't help thinking does it really matter who wins? Do the Gators really care if they beat Cincinnati? How about Iowa, Oregon, USC, Penn State? Maybe FSU cared because it was Bowden's last game, but for the other teams, what does it matter if you win and then the season ends without a national trophy? The reduced importance of these bowl games makes me less interested in who wins and with even watching the games. claudio tonelli on "Thanks to the BCS but it’s time to move on" http://www.bcsplayoffsnow.com/topic/thanks-to-the-bcs-but-it%e2%80%99s-time-to-move-on#post-5 Thu, 31 Dec 2009 18:26:05 +0000 claudio tonelli 5@http://www.bcsplayoffsnow.com/ The BCS was useful to get people accustomed to something different and yet not to different to the traditional bowl system, but it remains an insufficient hybrid when compared to a full playoff system, as proved by the fact that this year we will end up with at least two and perhaps three unbeaten teams, if Cincinnati wins the Sugar Bowl. Therefore it is time to evolve from the BCS, that I would rename Bridge Championship Series for its role as a bridge from the old bowl system to a modern playoff system. What I suggest is a composite scheme made up of a mayor 16 teams playoff and 4 regional playoffs with overall 64 teams playing in the post season – this year the teams in the postseason are 68. The goal is to retain all the best of what we have today, bowl tradition included with 6 games on or around New Year’s Day, and at the same time adding more great games, so more fun, and ending up with an undisputed champion. That is how it would work: 1) Mayor 16 teams playoff tournament a. Who – Teams qualify either automatically by winning one of the conferences that reserve a berth or at large. Assuming that a conference to have the right of guaranteeing one spot in the playoffs needs to place at least two teams in the top 25 of the ranking in at least two of the last three years, seven places would be clinched by conference winner, Mountain West would join the six conferences that today assures a berth in the BCS. The remaining 9 places would be assigned through a ranking similar to the one employed today by the BCS but hopefully with also the AP ranking and consequently less weight to the computer ratings. b. When – Considering this year calendar for illustrative purpose, the schedule would be as follows: first round - between Thursday night Dec 9 and Saturday Dec 11 (teams losing in this round will qualify for one of the four regional playoff); quarterfinals – around Christmas (24-26 Dec); semifinals - New Year’s Day; championship – Thursday night 7 Jan (same date as this year BCS Championship) c. Where – The first round would be played at home of the seven conference champions and the best rated among the at large teams. Then, from the quarterfinals, the playoff would move to neutral location. Since the games scheduled from the quarterfinals are seven there would be room for three more stadium to join the four BCS location (i.e. the places could be Arlington Tx, Orlando Fl and Jacksonville Fl because of their important bowl tradition) eventually limiting the rotation to host the championship to the four seats now in the BCS. d. Why – The advantages of this scheme, in my view, are: 1) it guarantees that all the teams that could aspire to the national title are included; 2) the right to play at home in the first round and the chance to qualify in case of loss for the regional playoff should balance the risk for a top team to be eliminated in the first round, besides, by adding big names to the regional playoffs, it would guarantee more relevance to the regional playoffs that otherwise could be considered only minor events; 3) It would add two very entertaining dates: the first round on the second weekend of December (perhaps Army vs Navy could be moved to the third Saturday of the month), and quarterfinals around Christmas time, and still maintain the traditional New Year’s Day Bowl schedule and related TV marathon since together with the two semifinals, also the four finals of the regional playoffs would be scheduled on Jan 1 (eventually one of the four could be anticipated to Dec 31 and one postponed to Jan 2). This 6 games pack between Dec 31 and Jan 2 would allow for the traditional bowls to take place on Jan 1 (i.e. The Rose Bowl could be either a semifinal or the final of the western regional playoff when the Rose Bowl does not host a semifinal). 2) 4 Regional 12+2 teams Playoffs (arranged dividing the nation in 4 areas and named North & East, Southeast, Southwest and Mid & West) a. Who - Teams winning the conferences that does not guarantee a berth for the Mayor Tournament will automatically qualify for the regional playoffs geographically closer to them. If the winner of one of these conferences qualifies for the mayor tournament, this year it would have been the case for Boise St., the right would passed to the runner up, unless he had a losing season. The eight losers of the first round of the Mayor tournament, two for each regional tournament will join from the second round. The remaining spots will be filled through at large designations, keeping the principle, as it is today, that a team with a losing season is not eligible for the postseason games. The North & East tournament will mainly see teams from the Big East, Big Ten, the Southeast will be centered around the SEC and the ACC, the Southwest will mainly pick up teams from the Big 12 and the Mid & West will have as major feeder the Pac 10 and the Big Ten. So there will be cases of a conference giving teams to different regional tournaments, the Big Ten will likely be the most significant example. b. When – The first round will be played the second weekend of December (same date of the Mayor tournament) and it will consist of 24 games as 12 teams for each regional tournament will play. The second round or quarterfinals – six winners of the first round and two losers of the Mayor first round - will take place the following Saturday (Dec 19 this year) with the chance of scheduling a few games Thursday and Friday. Thus it will consist of 16 games. The eight semifinals will take place the following week (it would have been Dec 24-26 this year) and the four finals, as anticipated around New Year’s Day (Dec 31 – Jan 2) c. Where – The total number of games of the regional tournaments is 52, adding the games of the mayor tournament with the exclusion of the first round we reach 59. The games that will be played in the postseason this year is 34, so there are more than enough games to cover all the seats of the existing bowls. Consequently there is the option either to find new seats for games or to adopt - like in the Mayor tournament - the rule to play the first round at home of the top ranked teams; since without the first round the number of games would go down to 35, it would remain still slightly above the one of this year. d. Why - The main reasons that supports the idea of adding 4 regional postseason tournaments to the Mayor Tournament are in my opinion the followings: 1) it allows to have a number of teams in the postseason very close to the one that we have today and 2) to have enough games to cover all the bowls events that we have today, each stadium that today host a bowl will still host a postseason games, same reasoning is valid for TV broadcasting. 3) New Year’s bowl tradition would be safe with 6 games on or around Jan 1 as said above. 4) It would introduce some new elements of interest in the postseason like some possible spicy games for example Penn St vs Pittsburgh as the final of the North & East tournament, (another catchy intrastate game that we could have in the future is Ohio St vs Cincinnati) or opportunity for revenges, think for example of Oregon losing in the first round of the Mayor event and facing Oregon St in the final of the Mid & West tournament or even chances for some minor team to make an historical upset of one big team in the second round. In conclusion the scheme that I have just illustrated would deliver, in my view, the best of both worlds: a true playoff system and bowl tradition and we need both, because if the only way to have an unquestionable number 1 is through a playoff tournament on the other hand paraphrasing what a “quite famous” English writer from Stradford upon Avon once wrote “that which we call the Rose by any other name won’t smell as sweet”!. Zips999 on "Proposed 2009 Playoffs" http://www.bcsplayoffsnow.com/topic/proposed-2009-playoffs#post-4 Mon, 07 Dec 2009 21:59:02 +0000 Zips999 4@http://www.bcsplayoffsnow.com/ BCS Games- 15 1) Alabama Troy 2) Texas Navy 3) Cincinnati East Carolina 4) TCU Central Michigan 5) Boise State Virginia Tech 6) Oregon Iowa 7) Ohio State Florida 8) Georgia Tech Bowl Bid** **Bowl Games- 15 1) LSU Ohio 2) Penn State Nevada 3) Brigham Young Middle Tennessee 4) Miami Houston 5) West Virginia Arizona 6) Oregon State Utah 7) Oklahoma State Pittsburgh 8) Nebraska FCS Bid*** ***FCS Games- 4 1) FCS 1 FCS 4 2) FCS 2 FCS 3 3) FCS 1/4 Loser FCS 2/3 Loser 4) FCS 1/4 Winner FCS 2/3 Winner Total Games- 34 Jan 3rd week- Championship Jan 2nd week- Semifinals Jan 1st week- Quarterfinals Dec 4th week- BCS Opening Dec 3rd week- Bowl Finals Dec 2nd week- Bowl Semifinals Dec 1st week- Bowl Quarterfinals Nov 4th week- Bowl Openings Nov 3rd week- FCS Finals Nov 2nd week- FCS Semifinals Nov 1st week- FCS Quarterfinals Oct 4th week- FCS Opening Regular Season FBS-11 games(12- Conference Championships) FCS-10 games FCS teams may have to start the regular season in mid-August No team in each bracket shall open with another team from the same conference -unless it is the bowl bid Only two teams from each conference in each bracket -ensures meaningful regular season Each conference is guaranteed at least 1 team in each bracket -Gives weak conferences a chance and higher seeds a suppossedly easier team This system would ensure that only 1 team at most could play more than 4 games in the FBS bcsplayoffs on "SI's Mandel takes our conference championship idea. Calls it Mendel plan" http://www.bcsplayoffsnow.com/topic/sis-mandel-takes-our-conference-championship-idea-calls-it-mendel-plan#post-3 Thu, 05 Nov 2009 03:33:10 +0000 bcsplayoffs 3@http://www.bcsplayoffsnow.com/ Stewart Mandel from Sports Illustrated posted his <a href="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/stewart_mandel/11/04/mailbag/index.html?eref=sihp">BCS playoff plan</a> today. If it looks familiar, it's because it's almost the same as the conference championship format we've been advocating over the last couple years. He uses the conference champions along with two at-large teams. He even uses the BCS bowls as the semi finals. The main difference is that he is advocating a plus-one system to start off with. He doesn't state it, but I'm willing to bet he would like to see a full conference champion playoff. No problem here, just don't call it the Mandel plan. bcsplayoffs on "Info" http://www.bcsplayoffsnow.com/topic/info#post-2 Wed, 04 Nov 2009 03:00:58 +0000 bcsplayoffs 2@http://www.bcsplayoffsnow.com/ Use this forum to add your own version of a BCS playoff format by preseeing the "Add New Topic" button bcsplayoffs on "First Post - Nov 1st BCS rankings" http://www.bcsplayoffsnow.com/topic/your-first-topic#post-1 Sun, 01 Nov 2009 23:37:08 +0000 bcsplayoffs 1@http://www.bcsplayoffsnow.com/ First Post! The latest BCS rankings came out and Florida is still first. Texas moved up past Alabama. Also Oregon moved up. Iowa and Cinci are sitting around waiting for someone to lose. 1 Florida .992 2 Texas .923 3 Alabama .917 4 Iowa .841 5 Cincinnati .803 6 TCU .801 7 Boise State .786 8 Oregon .765 9 LSU .712 10 Georgia Tech .629