Post-season Play-offs

[mountainman]

When I consider the current environment and landscape of college football I cannot see much good resulting in have a conference championship game. For sure, the game will generate revenues for a conference, but that's about the only good thing I see.

I think it's just a matter of time before some team in one of a conference's divisions goes undefeated in the regular season, is ranked #1 or #2 in the BCS, loses to a divisional team that is 7 - 4 and then falls out of national title contention in the BCS final rankings due to the loss.

I can already hear the bean counters in the conference's meeting room as they present their little graphs and charts showing the simple actuarial analysis that it's O.K. for that to happen because the conference made more money.

I can't help but wonder what kind of graphs and charts they will have to show that demonstrate how the players, fans and college football was denied having the two best teams play for the national title. Don't sell those guys short, they will either blame it on something or somebody else or convince people it was a good thing because we made all this money. And you know what I think is really sad? There will be a lot of people who believe it.

[Guest]

here's an idea - how bout TCU become and independent and go play teams from the big-10, pac-10, ACC, SEC and find out if they really are a top level team.

Sound great if they could do it.
But I would wager none of those team wold played them at there home turf.
TCU would have to be on the road all the time.

[colorado_loves_football]

When I consider the current environment and landscape of college football I cannot see much good resulting in have a conference championship game. For sure, the game will generate revenues for a conference, but that's about the only good thing I see.

I think it's just a matter of time before some team in one of a conference's divisions goes undefeated in the regular season, is ranked #1 or #2 in the BCS, loses to a divisional team that is 7 - 4 and then falls out of national title contention in the BCS final rankings due to the loss.

I can already hear the bean counters in the conference's meeting room as they present their little graphs and charts showing the simple actuarial analysis that it's O.K. for that to happen because the conference made more money.

I can't help but wonder what kind of graphs and charts they will have to show that demonstrate how the players, fans and college football was denied having the two best teams play for the national title. Don't sell those guys short, they will either blame it on something or somebody else or convince people it was a good thing because we made all this money. And you know what I think is really sad? There will be a lot of people who believe it.

Mountainman, your fears that the national championship would somehow be compromised are unsubstantiated. A team would necessarily have to 'earn' their way into the BCS, much the same way a team 'earns' the right to either go to the BCS or not, through BCS ranking.
Do you honestly think Virginia Tech 'earned' a BCS bid, after losing the ACC title to FSU? Or Miami, for that matter? Or LSU? Auburn?
Throw any team into the debate and I'll give you a reason why they weren't BCS worthy. Even Oregon comes up short, through competitive play. So does OSU, but since Penn St. lost to Michigan St. they got lucky.
They 'tied' for Big Ten honors, thereby getting in on a technicality, something they are good at.
Regardless, whether or not you agree with me doesn't change the fact that the BCS could allow for greater participation, and better competition, through confernece representation.
I know you worry about the ramifications, but consider how it might have worked out this year, had it already been in place.
More likely than not, the OSU-Notre Dame would have been one preliminary pairing of teams, UO-TCU being the other one.
OSU won, so they likely play USC in the Rose Bowl. For argument's sake we'll say TCU wins (to make me happy), putting them against Texas in the Fiesta Bowl. The other bowl pairings remain the same, for simpliciity.
USC and Texas likely win their games, making their BCS 'championship' pairing one week pre-mature, but let's assume the result is the same, Texas wins, in regulation on Vince Young's scramble, the greatest semi-final game ever!
Now, Penn St. and W. Virginia meet in the other semi-final. The winner 'earns' the right to play Texas for the national championship.
How much better is that for everyone? I'm not making any value judgements here, that's a likely scenario.
W. Virginia, or Penn St. could have had an opportunity to play for a national title, this year, not just dream about it.
W. Virginia might have even beaten Penn St. and played Texas in the national championship game, yet you debate me about whether or not it would be a 'fair' pairing of teams?
Who cares? Maybe Texas beats them, maybe Texas loses. I don't see how you can argue that's not a better arrangement for W. Virginia, regardless.
A playoff of BCS teams is fair, and it would give equal opportunity to every team, not just 2, for a national championship.

[Spence]

Spence, you seem to think that simply because a team is in the ACC necessarily makes them 'better'. I couldn't disagree with your position more than I already do. Virginia wasn't a very good ACC team.

It isn't that at all. Indiana plays in the B-10 and they would have finished at or near the bottom of every D-1 conference. What I am saying is teams in those conferences play more ranked teams. The more ranked teams you play the better your SOS will be if you are successful. That doesn't mean just playing ranked teams gets you a leg up, you have to win some or most of them. Every team in a "top six" conference plays 3 or 4 ranked teams a season at least. That is how you get the strength of schedule that gets you in the BCS.

Even if you don't win those games against ranked opponents, you give the human poll and the computers a direct comparison to judge the strength of the team. If you are in a conference where you don't play enough ranked teams and they don't play and beat enough teams that are ranked, there is no direct comparison as to your strength. That doesn't mean you don't have a good team, it just means that your team is harder to judge. If 4 teams in the MWC would have played and beat top 20 teams, that added with TCU's win over Oklahoma, would have gotten them strong consideration in the BCS.

Take the MAC conference for example, they play a lot of big programs OOC. One of these days when someone has a really good year and the rest of the conference knocks some highly ranked schools, they will get an at-large.

On the surface it seems like the mid majors have a longer row to hoe, but the big conferences have to play the ranked teams to get in too.(at least to get an at-large) It is just a lot of times they can do it inside the conference, against teams they know a lot better.

If you look at the strength of the schedules between all teams you will find out that the system is a lot more fair then you give it credit for being. It isn't perfect and sometimes teams who should get in go, but much the same system would be used in determining a play-off. So play-offs aren't the great savior that most think they would be.

All the big conferences have teams that play in those conferences that aren't as good as the top teams from the mid majors. Some are not even close to being as good as the top teams from the mid major conferences. That isn't what you are comparing here. You are talking about the BCS. This year TCU would be comparing themselves with USC, Texas, Penn St., Florida St., West Virginia, Georgia, Ohio State, and Notre Dame. That is some very good company. Ohio State lost to Texas by 3 and Penn State by 7. Those were the #1 and #3 teams in the country. That is a very good direct comparison of whether or not Ohio State was good enough to be selected an at-large even if they didn't get locked in by finishing in the top 4.

I am not saying that TCU could not have been competitive in a game against any of those teams, but how many of them would they have been favored to beat?

When you are talking about a BCS berth, you are talking (most of the time) about the best of the best. Teams that have played enough ranked opponents that you have a pretty good idea how good they will be. TCU didn't have that luxury, so they have a lot harder road to prove they should be there. If they would have manhandled Iowa St. in the bowl game, they could have made a better argument. They won, they had a great season and the deserve to be ranked in the top 15.

Most schools would consider that a great season. I like the fact that you think it should have been better. If enough TCU fans, alumni, and administators would think that way also, TCU would be highly ranked a lot. If they stay ranked high they will eventually fight their way into the BCS.

[colorado_loves_football]

It isn't that at all. Indiana plays in the B-10 and they would have finished at or near the bottom of every D-1 conference. What I am saying is teams in those conferences play more ranked teams. The more ranked teams you play the better your SOS will be if you are successful. That doesn't mean just playing ranked teams gets you a leg up, you have to win some or most of them. Every team in a "top six" conference plays 3 or 4 ranked teams a season at least. That is how you get the strength of schedule that gets you in the BCS.

Even if you don't win those games against ranked opponents, you give the human poll and the computers a direct comparison to judge the strength of the team. If you are in a conference where you don't play enough ranked teams and they don't play and beat enough teams that are ranked, there is no direct comparison as to your strength. That doesn't mean you don't have a good team, it just means that your team is harder to judge. If 4 teams in the MWC would have played and beat top 20 teams, that added with TCU's win over Oklahoma, would have gotten them strong consideration in the BCS.

Take the MAC conference for example, they play a lot of big programs OOC. One of these days when someone has a really good year and the rest of the conference knocks some highly ranked schools, they will get an at-large.

On the surface it seems like the mid majors have a longer row to hoe, but the big conferences have to play the ranked teams to get in too.(at least to get an at-large) It is just a lot of times they can do it inside the conference, against teams they know a lot better.

If you look at the strength of the schedules between all teams you will find out that the system is a lot more fair then you give it credit for being. It isn't perfect and sometimes teams who should get in go, but much the same system would be used in determining a play-off. So play-offs aren't the great savior that most think they would be.

All the big conferences have teams that play in those conferences that aren't as good as the top teams from the mid majors. Some are not even close to being as good as the top teams from the mid major conferences. That isn't what you are comparing here. You are talking about the BCS. This year TCU would be comparing themselves with USC, Texas, Penn St., Florida St., West Virginia, Georgia, Ohio State, and Notre Dame. That is some very good company. Ohio State lost to Texas by 3 and Penn State by 7. Those were the #1 and #3 teams in the country. That is a very good direct comparison of whether or not Ohio State was good enough to be selected an at-large even if they didn't get locked in by finishing in the top 4.

I am not saying that TCU could not have been competitive in a game against any of those teams, but how many of them would they have been favored to beat?

When you are talking about a BCS berth, you are talking (most of the time) about the best of the best. Teams that have played enough ranked opponents that you have a pretty good idea how good they will be. TCU didn't have that luxury, so they have a lot harder road to prove they should be there. If they would have manhandled Iowa St. in the bowl game, they could have made a better argument. They won, they had a great season and the deserve to be ranked in the top 15.

Most schools would consider that a great season. I like the fact that you think it should have been better. If enough TCU fans, alumni, and administators would think that way also, TCU would be highly ranked a lot. If they stay ranked high they will eventually fight their way into the BCS.

Spence, I agree with you that in general the teams outside the BCS don't play as competitive schedules, as those that are directly represented. But that really isn't my argument, either.
You can't penalize a team, simply because you don't like their schedule.
I believe, in general, TCU plays a very competitive schedule, even if it doesn't meet your requirements, shouldn't matter.
I've already made reference to teams they've played, and beaten, many of those teams are now in 'preferred' conferences, according to your 'priority', and the BCS's, also. And many of those teams, TCU beat, fair-and-square.
You mock Iowa State, but Iowa State's record really isn't that bad, all things considered. They didn't win the Big XII N. which was disappointing to me, since they did beat Colorado, at home. They fell short of their goal, nothing new, really, but they probably needed to beat Kansas, to 'earn' everyone's respect, so I'll give you that much.
But you fail to consider what they accomplished in a year, many thought they would win the Big XII N. division, they nearly beat Nebraska at home. That's an accomplishment, regardless. They beat Iowa in a year Iowa was respectable, and have beaten them 3/5 years. Last year, I believe Iowa State tied Colorado for the N. Division, but Colorado had the tie-breaker. This year, Iowa State had the tie-breaker, but had a worse W/L conference record, otherwise they represent the N. Division.
I don't necessarily disagree with you that to 'impress' people Iowa State will have to 'prove' they can win when it matters, and they nearly did, against TCU, but as has been the case in previous years, they choked.
I'm not necessarily basing my argument around that game.
TCU didn't dominate, maybe were lucky to win, but they managed to pull it out, 'snapped' victory out from jaws of defeat. I think Iowa State had a lot to prove, myself, and a win over TCU might have validated them on a national level. I was impressed with how they played, personally, against Kansas. But they need to win to 'earn' people's respect.
That's something TCU has done, over-and-over again.
You can't punish them for not playing a higher-ranked team. They didn't choose their opponent. I would much rather had them play Oregon, but that didn't happen, obviously. They played a team that had been up-and-down all year long in Iowa State, and it's possible they played them when they were 'up'. And they won, regardless.
Maybe you weren't impressed with it, but I was. Iowa State had to figure out a way to shut TCU down, almost did, and almost won. But almost doesn't get it done.
You claim TCU would have been outmatched in a BCS bowl but I argue otherwise. You can't prove TCU would have been beaten by Oregon.
Maybe Oregon had a better team on paper, but that's not what matters.
Football isn't played on paper, anyway.
That's why all your 'statistics' really amount to nothing. Ohio St. had the #10 schedule, good for them. They also lost two games they needed to win. I give them credit for being co-champions along with Penn St., but a tie-breaker would favor Penn St, and with good reason, so they didn't really 'get-it-done'. That's what competition is all about. Penn St. was the better team, that year, doesn't mean they will be better this year.
You have a legitimate right to worry how a BCS of 'non-traditional' champions might play itself out, but there's already evidence to support my side of the argument. This year's Liberty Bowl for example.
'My' pairing would have been even better, a TCU/Boise St. vs. Tulsa.
As it was, Tulsa showed they were better than Fresno St. The same Fresno St. team that beat Boise St. earlier in the year and took USC the distance, losing only because their defense wasn't good enough.
The same Fresno St. team that lost (barely) to Nevada, WAC co-champions along with Boise St. The same Nevada team that beat UCF, in OT. The same Fresno St. team that lost to Louisiana Tech, a team I propose play in the Sun-Belt, for competitive reasons, thereby allowing them an opportunity to play in a BCS bowl, upping the competitive ante.
I'm sorry Spence, I do admire you for your intellect and your insight with respect to the Big Ten.
But the facts refute your argument that somehow a team 'outside' the BCS wouldn't play competitively well enough to win, is unfounded.
Fresno St. all but won the game against USC. A game that won Reggie Bush the Heisman Trophy. Fresno St, earned a Liberty Bowl bid largely due to that game, then didn't win another game.
Tulsa, rose to the challenge, beat Fresno St, in a game many feared would be one-sided toward Fresno St.'s cause, and they nearly took Virginia for that reason, but didn't, thank heavens!
You have a right to your opinion, but unfortunately your argument that a non-BCS team isn't competitive enough isn't valid.
Ask Georgia Tech if Utah isn't good enough.
Ask Northwestern if TCU isn't good enough.
Ask USC if Fresno St. isn't good enough.
Then ask Fresno St. if Louisiana Tech isn't good enough.
I think you might be surprised at the answer.
They are, and they deserve an opportunity to prove it.

[Spence]

You don't even read what I write. I said that just because a team is in the B-10 doesn't make them better then a team not in the B-10. The same goes for any other conference. Indiana was the example. Indiana, by the way, contributes heavily to B-10 athletics in basketball. Ohio State is the doormat in basketball most years.

Utah made it to the BCS because they beat a number of ranked opponents, opponents that did well. They deserved to be in the BCS because their schedule strength was good. Being in a major conference doesn't mean that you strength of schedule is automatically better. Pitt was a prime example of that fact. Major conferences usually have several strong teams, with usually means they don't always have to go OOC to get a good power rating. That is all that means.

TCU and their opponents didn't play enough ranked teams to put TCU into the BCS. That isn't a shot at TCU, it is just a fact. That doesn't mean TCU wouldn't be competitive against a top team in a major conference, it just means it that they don't have the necessary data(ranked teams) to make a judgement. Which means their power ranking isn't good enough. TCU has beat exactly 3 ranked teams since 2002. That is the reason they aren't considered for BCS games. It has nothing to do with any special treatment for other teams, it has to do with schedule strength.

If they want to counter that, they need to take on more ranked opponents and talk the whole conference into doing that also. That would give them the necessary strength to make it into the BCS. This isn't my oppion it is how the system works. If you didn't know that, I am posting it to inform you of it. I didn't make these rules. I actually had nothing to do with making these rules. No one that has any power in CFB has ever even asked my opinion or even cares what I think.


In reference to Ohio State playing out of conference games on the road, Ohio State goes to Austin this September to complete a home and away deal with Texas. In the next 8 or 10 seasons Ohio State has scheduled Miami(fla), USC, Washington,Washington St., Cal, and Virginia Tech to home and away deals. The reason Ohio State, Oklahoma, or any other top level team doesn't come to play TCU at home is because they can make more money at home. TCU couldn't pay to get them there. Most small schools like San Diego St. play Ohio State in the Horseshoe because they want the game check. Teams line up to play Ohio State at home for that reason. That is what that has to do with.

Ohio State was going to play a game at San Diego St. the last time they came here, but their AD changed the game to Columbus to get the money. They did it because they would have lost money having Ohio state in and they made a big check by coming to Columbus. There is no big conspiracy here.

I haven't ever said that a mid major can't compete. I haven't ever changed what I believe.

[Larry]

After the Outback Bowl - I'll take ANYTHING. I only ask that the officiating is half way close to being fair.

[mountainman]

Oh, colorado ... I see were you re-posted a post again, sorry I miss those sometimes.

Let's see here, you say my fears are unsubstantiated ..... that's O.K. with me if you think that, but it does little to convince me.

You ask, "Do you honestly think Virginia Tech 'earned' a BCS bid, after losing the ACC title to FSU? Or Miami for that matter? Or LSU? Auburn?"

No, I don't. Honestly or otherwise. I don't understand what prompted the question since I never mentioned VT, FSU, Miami, LSU, Auburn or the ACC.

This other stuff you are talking about seems like some hypothetical justification for an imaginary playoff where the Mountaineers play Penn State and then play Texas for the title ...... C'mon colorado, that's not the way things work.

You finish by saying, "A playoff of BCS teams is fair, and it would give equal opportunity to every team, not just 2, for a national championship."

As I've said before, a playoff has the same inherent problems that the BCS has. First, they both have a selection process that cuts off the number of participants at some point. Next, the "champion" is decided by one game. A playoff doesn't address either of those problems any better than the BCS system so in my mind, when considering what would have to be sacrificed for a playoff system, it would not be justified.

[Spence]

I am the one who thought Virginia Tech was the better team. I still do, but it doesn't matter because Florida State won the championship. Florida St. has a great defense. Sometimes great defenses make up for lack of offense.

I never said that Florida St. didn't deserve to go, just that without a conference championship Virginia Tech would have went. It was in the context of how conference championships can hurt a conference.

[colorado_loves_football]

You don't even read what I write. I said that just because a team is in the B-10 doesn't make them better then a team not in the B-10. The same goes for any other conference. Indiana was the example. Indiana, by the way, contributes heavily to B-10 athletics in basketball. Ohio State is the doormat in basketball most years.

Utah made it to the BCS because they beat a number of ranked opponents, opponents that did well. They deserved to be in the BCS because their schedule strength was good. Being in a major conference doesn't mean that you strength of schedule is automatically better. Pitt was a prime example of that fact. Major conferences usually have several strong teams, with usually means they don't always have to go OOC to get a good power rating. That is all that means.

TCU and their opponents didn't play enough ranked teams to put TCU into the BCS. That isn't a shot at TCU, it is just a fact. That doesn't mean TCU wouldn't be competitive against a top team in a major conference, it just means it that they don't have the necessary data(ranked teams) to make a judgement. Which means their power ranking isn't good enough. TCU has beat exactly 3 ranked teams since 2002. That is the reason they aren't considered for BCS games. It has nothing to do with any special treatment for other teams, it has to do with schedule strength.

If they want to counter that, they need to take on more ranked opponents and talk the whole conference into doing that also. That would give them the necessary strength to make it into the BCS. This isn't my oppion it is how the system works. If you didn't know that, I am posting it to inform you of it. I didn't make these rules. I actually had nothing to do with making these rules. No one that has any power in CFB has ever even asked my opinion or even cares what I think.

Oh, contraire, I do read what you write, whether or not I agree with it is another mattter altogether. You make statements I think most people would have a difficult time validating.
You don't like the schedule TCU plays, but whose fault is that?
Not TCU's for sure. We've had this argument over and over again, and I think it's you that has poor information, not me.
They don't play in the Big Ten so it's hard to find solid evidence as to how they would 'stack' up there, yet they beat Northwestern practically every time, and usually by large margins, so large in fact, they make me wonder how TCU might do in a Big Ten conference, but they don't have that 'luxury'.
You can say Northwestern isn't good, if you want, but they are competiive. I try to be fair, and say give TCU an 'equal' rating to Northwestern, but then you come back and say TCU is more like Indiana.
Your information is shaky at best, if that.
Every time I do some some research I find more information that validates my side and refutes yours. You say TCU has only beaten 3 ranked opponents since 2002, and I can only take your word on that.
I could probably find evidence of more, but I"m sure you'd quantify it, somehow, like you always do.
Either way I"m sure you're wrong. TCU is a lot better than you give them credit for being, and the evidence supports that claim. You argue TCU can't beat 'anyone' away, then I give evidence where they have, every time, you have to eat your words.
I tihnk you should quit while you're ahead, personally, but you don't.
You have a few things that work in your favor.
Ohio State has won, and won regularly in the Big Ten. But I noticed they also lost some games, at home, to teams that some might argue weren't that good. If Ohio State is so good why do they lose any Big Ten games at home. Note I say 'at home'. I'm not expecting they go through the year undefeated, which is what you want from TCU.
I'm simply trying to understand how a team so much better than TCU, can beat teams they need to beat, when it matters.
So, they beat Michigan this, year, but not by much. Some might argue Wisconsin was a better team than Ohio State was.
I take nothing away from them, however, they have proven themselves to be consistently strong for a lot of years, probably as long, or longer than I've been alive.
I'm simply saying give credit where credit is due. TCU had a bad year 2004, rebounded quite nicely, and still have a better home winning % than OSU does. I think that says something.
Go ahead and compare the teams that beat them, side-to-side, you will probably find you are correct, they generally have better records.
But TCU still has a better overall winning %. So you were wrong, again.

[Spence]

I agree wholeheartedly. I have always seen the ACC as weak until the addition of those teams. I know the original teams are more competitive lately, but there is a reason FSU basically never lost a conference game until recently.

I agree that the ACC was weak before Miami and Va Tech joined also, but in context of the argument, the conference as a whole played more ranked teams then most of the smaller conferences. That helps the strength.

The SEC has the most strength inside their conference. The other large conferences go back and forth as to who is better inside the conference. Over all, though, the one way to make sure that your conference schedule won't bog you down in the power rating is to play some good teams OOC.

Adding the 12th game gives all conferences a chance to dramatically improve their power rating if they decide to take advantage of it. If they add cupcakes to their schedule and their conference has a down year they are going to suffer in the BCS.

Whether or not the NCAA adopts playoffs for CFB or sticks with the BCS, the guide to who will be selected wouldn't change much. The "powers that be" in CFB are already selecting the teams they think are the best possible teams. Whether we agree with them or not the selection process would not change much not matter which format they decide to use.

[mountainman]

A slippery little rascal you are colorado ..... did you re-post your post again?

What happened to the one suggesting you, rolltide, Spence and I play a round of golf?

[Spence]

What happened to the one suggesting you, rolltide, Spence and I play a round of golf?

I didn't see that one, but I am always up for a round of golf. Just ask my wife. On second thought, you better not ask her.

[Spence]

Check out S. Miss' and UAB's OOC schedules. Oklahoma, Georgia, Miss. St. and Troy for UAB. NC State, VAtech, Florida, and Houston for S. Miss. I am not trying to pick on TCU, but those are the OOC schedules TCU should have. If they win all the games they would probably have a high SOS. I know that Miss. St., Troy, and Houston aren't very good, but the overall ooc schedule is tough.

That has been my point all along. If either of those teams win those games, even if they happen to drop a conference game somewhere, they will go to the BCS as an at large. There would be no question. Whether or not SOS is a component of the BCS or not, it is figured into all polls.

Every game OOC doesn't have to be tough, but their has to be a couple ranked teams so they can prove it wasn't a fluke win. All teams that make it into the BCS have to play ranked teams along the way. that is how it should be. With 119 teams in D-1 you can exactly play round robin to get a direct comparison in most cases. Strength of schedule is the only viable way to compare teams.

Sure an over-rated team will get in once in a while, but you can't throw the whole system out because of that. It is a pretty good system and it really is pretty fair. Even though if your team is the one shut out, it doesn't feel fair.

[colorado_loves_football]

Has anyone looked at TCU's schedule? Just wondering, it's not going to be an easy road for the Horned Frogs, if they want to represent the MWC in the BCS, this year. Their home opener is at Baylor, a team I believe ended the year with a 'win' against Oklahoma State. And they also nearly beat Oklahoma, in Norman, so that means they have improved over previous seasons, when they were the Big XII doormat. And it will also be an opportunty to see how well TCU plays, on the road, against a Big XII opponent. A good test for both teams, really.
Then they play Texas Tech at home. A rematch of a game in 2004 where Texas Tech pretty much dominated, although the 70-35 final score was somewhat not representative of how the game played, from beginning to end.
But I don't want to make excuses, TCU lost, and lost badly, so revenge will likely be on their minds. Those games will be followed by home games against BYU and Army, and a road game against Utah.
From that point, TCU's schedule isn't too hard, but they play at CSU, a team that could surprise them. So, winning the MWC won't be a cakewalk, and will likely require a better effort, in general, if they are to be MWC champions, 2 years consecutive. But I think they can do it.