Famous NCAA Dynasties

[Spence]

Now, you said something about favoring an arrangement that gives every team 'fair' opportunity. I don't know of any such arrangement.

The BCS lets every D-1 school know in advance what they must do to be included in a BCS game. Everyone has access to the system. If you want to be included in the championship game, you have to finish #1 or #2. It may be hard to do, but every team has access.

The BCS, really isn't supposed to be a 'fair' arrangement. What it is, is a competitive arrangement of teams, equally 'qualified'. I simply would arrange them in a fashion that allows one team to win the whole thing.
It really isn't a 'playoff' as much as it is a competitive way to select a national champion.

When you play a group of teams in bracket order to determine a champion, that is called a play-off. You can call it whatever you would like , but it is a play-off.

[mountainman]

Hey CLF, you have my post quoted ..... where did I say anything about, "favoring an arrangement that gives every team 'fair' opportunity"?

[Jason G]

The BCS tries to pick the best two teams for the national championship game.

After that, the question is should the other BCS spots be filled by the teams that are perceived to be the best or by the ones that had the best seasons in terms of on-the-field performance against their scheduled competition? Many teams will fit into both categories but one or two teams may differ based on which way it is done.

I see the merits of both sides of that argument. As far as working their butts off goes, they all had to do that just to be mentioned in any BCS argument.

Personally, I want to see how the BCS works out this upcoming season before I get too critical.

[colorado_loves_football]

The BCS lets every D-1 school know in advance what they must do to be included in a BCS game. Everyone has access to the system. If you want to be included in the championship game, you have to finish #1 or #2. It may be hard to do, but every team has access.

That's true in principle, but the liklihood of it happening for a non-BCS team is remote, at best. Remember 2004? 5 undefeated teams going into the BCS, 3 remaining. Louisville was one win from being an undefeated team. Even if both USC and Auburn had somehow 'lost' both Texas and California would have been ranked ahead of Utah (and Louisville, too).

When you play a group of teams in bracket order to determine a champion, that is called a play-off. You can call it whatever you would like , but it is a play-off.

Not exactly. It's a playoff in how the 'champion' is selected. Remember, my proposal applies 'traditional' bowl pairings, then follows a 'playoff' of 4 teams, 'post-BCS'. The championship game, remains a 'winner-take-all' proposition. A 'traditional' playoff is the 8, 16, 32, 64 format. Since when has a ten-team 'format' been applied?

[colorado_loves_football]

The reason I support the BCS arrangement is not because it is fair or unfair. Any system I've seen so far, including yours, can be said to be fair or unfair and will have its shortcomings .... polls are bias, computers lack perception, playoffs ask too much of the student athletes and of college football tradition ..... I support it because, even with its shortcomings, it demands excellence while supporting tradition, provides a national championship game and is representative of every program that has chosen to be classified as D-1A.

I'm not so naive to not recognize you don't like my proposal.

To each his own, but you haven't offered anything 'better' either. And I disagree with you, my proposal is a LOT better than what's in place, you just won't admit it. I've given enough reasons in my defense. You can't legitimately 'argue' the BCS model is 'better' it isn't. If it was, there wouldn't be arguments every year over how to improve it. This year, was 'close' to being 'pefect' from a BCS perspective. But many good teams were still not represented. Tha'ts not a good arrangement. Any arrangement that favors some teams over others isn't a 'fair' arrangement. No, you didn't say the BCS was 'fair' but you blatantly said mine wasn't. Keep dreaming.

[mountainman]

Thanks for clearing that up for me, CLF. That reading between the lines is risky business, one does it at their own peril.

I strive not to be political or personal when considering issues or other things and sometimes it is a struggle, but not one that cannot be overcome.

My opinions and thoughts are just mine, no more or no less. Sometimes I find others in agreement with them while other times in disagreement. Since I expect the freedom to make up my own mind I certainly have no issue with anyone else expecting the same when it comes to making up their mind.

That's one of the really neat things about this forum .... different perspectives ..... it helps me evaluate and reconsider my own.

***************** EDIT *******************

Big WOW, CLF. That was some edit from what you first posted.

Are you familiar with an author by the name Robert Lewis Stevenson?

[Spence]

That's true in principle, but the liklihood of it happening for a non-BCS team is remote, at best. Remember 2004? 5 undefeated teams going into the BCS, 3 remaining. Louisville was one win from being an undefeated team. Even if both USC and Auburn had somehow 'lost' both Texas and California would have been ranked ahead of Utah (and Louisville, too).

The likelyhood of it happening for any team is remote. Remember only one team gets win the championship game. Only two teams in all of college football get a chance to play for it. It isn't an easy championship to win. You must play excellent football against top competition and you can't have letdowns. It is the hardest college sport in which to win a championship. All your ducks have to be in a row to even get there.

[Derek]

But, that's not what I would want, in principle. I prefer a 'representative' BCS, one where every conference is given an opportunity to participate.

It may not ruin the BCS, but it would be unfair to the teams that work their butts off to be the best to watch a team who competitively couldn't keep up with them. that kind of system promotes mediocrity. I also makes the regular season a joke.

Once again. We are in complete agreement.

[colorado_loves_football]

***************** EDIT *******************

Big WOW, CLF. That was some edit from what you first posted.

Are you familiar with an author by the name Robert Lewis Stevenson?

Do you mean Robert Louis Stevenson? Yes, I've heard of him.

[mountainman]

Yep, that's the guy.

Spell check won't catch everything now will it.

[colorado_loves_football]

Yep, that's the guy.

Spell check won't catch everything now will it.

So, maybe you want to explain how he applies to your argument?
But if you don't, I won't mind, either way. I doubt it was a compliment, to my writing ablity, but I could be mistaken.

[mountainman]

Since you don't mind either way, I'll save my thoughts and share them at another time.

[billybud]

Harrr!! Ol Billybud was a whaler and crossed paths with litlle Bobby Louis Stevenson while in the South Pacific....Bobby Louis sniffed at my "mentor", Herman Melville. They didn't get along.

But Ol Billybud loves a riddle....

Could it be that Bobby Louis created this great character that had vast mood swings...the dual personality of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde...

Or...that Bobby Louis' GG grandson created this chain of fish and chips stores named after a peg legged character, Long John Silver...the fish is served with vinegar.

[mountainman]

[Spence]

Harrr!! Ol Billybud was a whaler and crossed paths with litlle Bobby Louis Stevenson while in the South Pacific....Bobby Louis sniffed at my "mentor", Herman Melville. They didn't get along.

But Ol Billybud loves a riddle....

Could it be that Bobby Louis created this great character that had vast mood swings...the dual personality of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde...

Or...that Bobby Louis' GG grandson created this chain of fish and chips stores named after a peg legged character, Long John Silver...the fish is served with vinegar.

Nice catch BB.