Improving the BCS: Plus-One?
by ejruiz on Dec 10, 2009 7:30 PM EST
12 comments
Hey guys. I know this season has taken a turn for the worse for us Gators fan, but that's no reason for us to turn our backs on the game that we love. As expected, BCS bashing has continued through the announcement of this year's Championship Game. Once again, there are too many fan bases that feel they have a rightful claim to that throne and plenty of sports pundits willing to fan those flames. The calls for a playoff continue to come out of all corners, but I come to you with a slightly different solution. What if, instead of scrapping the system, we tweek the BCS once again? If you're at all curious, then please follow me below the fold.
I would like it if the four traditional BCS bowls went back to their original tie-ins, suplemented by the BCS standings to fill in the gaps, for the Championship Game to be determined after those are played and that it be schedule for a week after the four others. This year, we'd end up with much more enticing match-ups and greater clarity as to which teams should be in the season's final game. Check it out for yourselves:
- Rose Bowl: Oregon v. Ohio State
- Orange Bowl: Georgia Tech v. Cincinnati
- Fiesta Bowl: Texas v. TCU
- Sugar Bowl: Alabama v. Boise State
This slate would limit the number of undefeated teams to three, allow the underdogs to face the favorites and provide us with excellent AND significant games throughout. For those that are curious, our Gators would play Iowa in the Capital One Bowl in this set-up. That just goes to show the trickle down effect of narrowing the bottle neck at the top, providing better participants and match-ups further down the bowl hierarchy. So, what do you think of this potential solution to the BCS problems?
Please be kind and use good grammar.
0 recs |
12 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
I don't understand...
how you would have Boise State in a bowl over Florida if you are using the current BCS system. Florida is ranked 5th in the BCS while Boise State is ranked 6th. Does this mean that you actually ignore the BCS Standings and just invite any undefeated team to one of the four major bowls, regardless of their actual BCS ranking?
Other
I dont like this at all, rather it be the way it is then this.
"Why does bottled water have an expiration date?"
Wetzel's 16-team playoff makes me drool.
I read him once a year for his now annual column on why a playoff would be better. IMO, a ‘plus-one’ is a step in the right direction, but not ideal.
The more scenarios I see.....
the more I am satisfied with the current system. 16 team playoff?!?!
I kind of like how NCAA football is different than all other sports where you only have to play a good season and then get hot at the end. I like that every game matters – and if you slip up in week 3 you are severaly disadvantaged, and if you slip up late, or a second time, you are done as far as the national title.
It feels like a season long playoff to me. And don’t complain about the Boise States and TCUs of the world not getting to play for the title. If your conference schedule is that weak, then you need to schedule several top 20 opponents out of conference to offset that and have a legitimate beef.
The current system is awesome for the Floridas of the world
Schedule a bunch of pattycake games OOC, drop a game, and still make it in through the SEC’s “playoff game” in December. But it does kinda suck that half of the FBS is essentially barred from the title game b/c of the perceived lack of strength of their in-conference opponents and inability to schedule BCS-league teams (or those teams being unwilling to schedule them, cough UF and Boise cough).
And its ridiculous to use the anti-playoff argument of “you only have to play a good season and then get hot at the end.” What do you call last year? Florida lost a game at home to an unranked team, then went on and got hot. Same thing happened with Oklahoma, only they lost to a top-5 team at a neutral site. And when was the last time an SEC team won the title and went undefeated? I’m sorry skigator, love ya man, but “season-long playoff” is the most bull—— argument there is against a playoff.
A playoff would give folks a chance to see if these mid-majors can compete without garbage ex post justifications like “our hearts weren’t in it” (Alabama last year) or “they got lucky” (OU a few years back).
Dude, really?!
UF “got hot” last season? Ole Miss was in week 4. So it was a slip up, not a sudden “turn of fortune late in the season.” And the “pattycake” games? Miami, Hawaii, and FSU out of conference? Hawaii lost 1 game the year before. I know, they didn’t play anyone and got their ass handed to them by UGA…..BUT they are just the type of mid-major that you want to invite to compete for the national title in the playoffs.
Playoffs would ruin college football as we know it. Losses wouldn’t matter and you would have the same problems you do now. Except UF could lose 2 game and still make the playoffs, while the mid majors would be knocked out if they lost one. Then you would have teams bitching that THEY should make it as a 16 seed instead of some other team.
In basketball, nobody cares much if you lose a game, or two or six. All you have to do is make the tourney and you can heat up and win it.
The entire season is a playoff, it’s not a load of crap. We lost in the national semi-final game this year. Alabama did the same last year. The same teams would win, you would just have more USC over Iowa blowouts just because people think we need a playoff so everyone gets a chance.
I think Tennessee was the last SEC team to win the title and go undefeated.
Your right. a play off system will make the regular season lack luster.
Why would we care who wins and who loses. I will watch teams that are ranked ahead of Florida just to hope they lose so we can move up. With a playoff I might as well just tune in at the end of the season like everyone does in basketball.
I am so tired of people complaining about the “stigma” of the SEC being over rated. When our best team makes it to the big game, we dominate. So how does that make the SEC over rated?
"Why does bottled water have an expiration date?"
UF played the 4th toughest schedule in 2009
Source: NCAA records.
2nd toughest schedule in 2008.
3rd toughest schedule in 2007.
Toughest schedule in 2006.
Shame on Jeremy Foley for consistently scheduling OOC cupcakes. Fire him immediately.
While they may have the 4th toughest schedule this year, 24 wins and 0 losses are out of our control (SECCG, Sugar Bowl), so our ranking is dramatically inflated by games that we actually didn’t schedule ourselves. Still, playing the 4th toughest schedule or better the past four seasons is impressive.
Good point
Yes, we could have played a 9-3 Bama instead of 12-0, but that would still be a top-10 schedule.
But, I think it is advisable to schedule accounting for the SEC CG being a good team, and the bowl game against a good team will follow. Even for the years we didn’t make the SEC CG, we still played a decent schedule.
My reasoning: strength of schedule starts to matter when you’re competing for the top-notch (BCS) bowl games. To be in contention, Florida will have to win or at least make the SEC CG. In the years that we miss the SEC CG, strength of schedule would be less important.
2005: 27th toughest
2004: 32nd
2003: 2nd
2002: 7th
2001: 15th
2000: 1st
That’s as far back as the records on the NCAA website go.
I'd be OK with a plus-one,
but no more than that. The problem would be that once you had a playoff system in place, all the momentum would be for constantly expanding it to the point where the playoffs would be all that mattered. You can’t tell me that the SECCG would be nearly as important if the loser just got a lower seed in the playoffs instead of being eliminated from the NC hunt. Late-season rivalry games (like UF-FSU in the 90s and I think in the future, not so much recently) would also mean much less.
A 16-team playoff is a stupid fantasy for people who aren’t able to enjoy college football for what it is—a regional sport that is much more about the week-to-week drama of the season, the unique flavor of each team, rivalry, and conference, and the connection fans feel for their team. A “national champion” is really kind of beside the point. To me, winning the SEC is a more significant accomplishment than winning the BCSCG. The former is about tradition and your rival schools, while the latter is a made-up artificial system catering to people who are incapable of nuanced thinking about sports.
This isn’t the NFL, and playoff advocates want to make it more like that. One of the things that attracts me to college football is the fact that it’s so heterogeneous, so diverse, so endlessly interesting. Flattening and standardizing the sport takes away from the things that make it so great.
I mostly agree
except that I like BCS Championships more than conference titles!!!
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Alligator Army
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
