Good article about the BCS vs. Playoffs in college football and comparisons to basketball, pro football.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/tamny200601040936.asp
Post-season Play-offs
Forum rules
NOTICE: Please be sure to check the CFP Message Board Rules and Regulations and the Read Me page before posting.
NOTICE: Please be sure to check the CFP Message Board Rules and Regulations and the Read Me page before posting.
-
colorado_loves_football
Ok Spence, re-read that article, and tried to be as objective as possible.
I don't necessarily disagree with the points mentioned, but that doesn't mean I necessariliy agree with them, either.
This is just one writer's opinion, as he even prefaces it that way, referring to ohters who support my view, that a playoff would select a 'true' national champion, irrespective of how the regular season played out.
Again, should a proposal be adopted that allows for 'equal' participation, that's only partly true. The regular season would be essential to selecting the teams, if conferences are given equal priority. That's possible through conference championship games. The BCS has in fact initiated the process through which teams might be selected, every year.
What's missing is simply the same element, as far as selection is concerned, or in other words, consistency.
At the moment the BCS is trying to appease several different attitudes all at the same time. Those who support the BCS, without modification, and those who want to scrap it altogether, for a playoff.
I propose a 'compromise' be established which allows for a playoff within the BCS, as presently organized.
Ten teams are sufficient for a playoff, note I said 'sufficient' not ideal.
Ideal might be more along the lines of 64 teams, giving more teams 'fair' opportunity to compete, but 10 is 'sufficient', for the following reason.
120/10 = 12, or in other words, ten conferences equally divided gives every team 'fair' opportunity to vie for a national title, in a 'revised' BCS, that awards 'automatic' bids to conference champions.
For those who argue it isn't fair to those 6 already represented, I counter it does, because they hold the 'priority' slots in the BCS.
The four 'remaining' conferences have to play for the two 'at large' bids, or in other words, don't have priority, but must 'earn' their bid, through competition.
Again, that's the only 'fair' way to select teams, but I'll settle for the way it's done presently, as long as the 8 selected given equal opportunity.
I don't necessarily disagree with the points mentioned, but that doesn't mean I necessariliy agree with them, either.
This is just one writer's opinion, as he even prefaces it that way, referring to ohters who support my view, that a playoff would select a 'true' national champion, irrespective of how the regular season played out.
Again, should a proposal be adopted that allows for 'equal' participation, that's only partly true. The regular season would be essential to selecting the teams, if conferences are given equal priority. That's possible through conference championship games. The BCS has in fact initiated the process through which teams might be selected, every year.
What's missing is simply the same element, as far as selection is concerned, or in other words, consistency.
At the moment the BCS is trying to appease several different attitudes all at the same time. Those who support the BCS, without modification, and those who want to scrap it altogether, for a playoff.
I propose a 'compromise' be established which allows for a playoff within the BCS, as presently organized.
Ten teams are sufficient for a playoff, note I said 'sufficient' not ideal.
Ideal might be more along the lines of 64 teams, giving more teams 'fair' opportunity to compete, but 10 is 'sufficient', for the following reason.
120/10 = 12, or in other words, ten conferences equally divided gives every team 'fair' opportunity to vie for a national title, in a 'revised' BCS, that awards 'automatic' bids to conference champions.
For those who argue it isn't fair to those 6 already represented, I counter it does, because they hold the 'priority' slots in the BCS.
The four 'remaining' conferences have to play for the two 'at large' bids, or in other words, don't have priority, but must 'earn' their bid, through competition.
Again, that's the only 'fair' way to select teams, but I'll settle for the way it's done presently, as long as the 8 selected given equal opportunity.
Last edited by colorado_loves_football on Sun Feb 05, 2006 5:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Spence
- Administrator
- Posts: 21255
- Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:52 pm
- Location: Chillicothe, Ohio (Ohio's First Capital)
- Contact:
You missed the whole point of the article. The point was that the regular season in CFB is more exciting then any other sport because one loss could tank your whole season. College football teams can't afford to lay down for even one game. The other point is that rarely does the best team when even if their is a playoff, so why diminish the regular season with it. USC had the #1 spot locked up when they played Fresno St. had there been a play-off this year, SC would have rested their key starters and the game wouldn't have meant anything. Play-offs would do nothing but destroy CFB. They would make CFB like basketball, where no one cares about it until March.
"History doesn't always repeat itself but it often rhymes." - Mark Twain
-
Spence
- Administrator
- Posts: 21255
- Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:52 pm
- Location: Chillicothe, Ohio (Ohio's First Capital)
- Contact:
I still say if they can do it in 1AA, 2 & 3 then D-1 could pull it off - if they wanted to - which seems to me the college presidents do not. again it comes down to the almighty dollar . the irony in all of this is how much money these coaches/schools are making and yet the athlete, the entertainer if you will, does not receive a cut of the money. as we all know that's a whole different topic .
I know they can do it if they wanted to, and it does come down to money.
With the bowl system the athlete, who may not get paid, get exposure. Playoffs take the exposure away from a lot of teams, which in turn hurts their recruiting efforts. Ohio State-Indiana may not be the best game, but Ohio State can't afford to let them slide. Lose to a team like Indiana, under the current system, and you fall of the map in the polls. Even if you play them close it will hurt you. With Playoffs you could lose to Indiana and it wouldn't hurt you. That alone makes the regular season more important and exciting. If you have a bad day your gone.
When Ohio State lost to Texas the second week of the season, they lost almost all chance at a national championship. That is as it should be. You need to be ready to play every week and know every week that if you have a bad week, you are done. the college football regular season games get better rating then college basketball regular season. A lot better. there is a reason for that.
"History doesn't always repeat itself but it often rhymes." - Mark Twain
-
Spence
- Administrator
- Posts: 21255
- Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:52 pm
- Location: Chillicothe, Ohio (Ohio's First Capital)
- Contact:
I shoud have been more clear. 56 teams currently get national exposure with the bowl system. A play-off would cut that down to no more then 16 teams. That would make, for example, a top 100 player who would have committed to Pitt (to play early) wait his turn at Penn St. It would hurt alot of mid level teams be able to compete with the top level teams.
"History doesn't always repeat itself but it often rhymes." - Mark Twain
-
colorado_loves_football
Spence, I re-read that article, and your responses, and my conclusion is that you want a 'playoff' to begin at week#1, for all teams, and I've heard other people mention a similar proposal.
But I"m of the opinion that's too restrictive, as many teams don't 'gel' until late in the year, anyone remember Colorado, 2001? They lost, at home, to Fresno State, lost to Texas, soundly but then rebounded to win the Big XII N. Division outright, and also Big XII Championship, over Texas, before falling to Oregon in the Fiesta Bowl. But maybe if more had been on the line, that game, a semi-final against Rose Bowl Champion, say, they might have played better.
So we disagree on that point.
But you are entitled to your opinion, as well as that writer, who obviously shares your view that the bowls are a 'fair' way to select a national champion.
I would prefer something that involves the bowls but still allows for competition and fair play, which is why I keep mentioning the 6 bowl playoff structure.
It would allow ten teams fair opportunity to play for a national title, would do it within pre-determined bowl structure, and would serve to select one team, every year, as legitimate national champions.
What we have now, is a structure that honors the bowls, but doesnt' serve the public good, from a competitive standpoint.
I've already researched this matter, fairly comprehensively.
From 1933-2003 in general, 6 bowls were influential in selecting a national champion, although typically not the same 6 bowls.
But it 'proved' something that all 6 are necessary for a 'concensus' in a given year.
So if the BCS were to simply adopt a format that allowed each team selected 'fair' opportunity to play for a national title the matter would be resolved, fairly easily.
Maybe they will wake up to the simplicity of it, God willing.
But I would invite you to research the data I analyzed and draw your own conclusions.
FYI, the national champions are listed at http://www.ncaa.org.
I have the data already collated, so let me know if you are interested.
You might be surprised how well a playoff would have selected a 'concensus' national champion, had one been in place, 1933-2003.
(those were the years I collated). 1899-1933 only Rose Bowl existed.
But I"m of the opinion that's too restrictive, as many teams don't 'gel' until late in the year, anyone remember Colorado, 2001? They lost, at home, to Fresno State, lost to Texas, soundly but then rebounded to win the Big XII N. Division outright, and also Big XII Championship, over Texas, before falling to Oregon in the Fiesta Bowl. But maybe if more had been on the line, that game, a semi-final against Rose Bowl Champion, say, they might have played better.
So we disagree on that point.
But you are entitled to your opinion, as well as that writer, who obviously shares your view that the bowls are a 'fair' way to select a national champion.
I would prefer something that involves the bowls but still allows for competition and fair play, which is why I keep mentioning the 6 bowl playoff structure.
It would allow ten teams fair opportunity to play for a national title, would do it within pre-determined bowl structure, and would serve to select one team, every year, as legitimate national champions.
What we have now, is a structure that honors the bowls, but doesnt' serve the public good, from a competitive standpoint.
I've already researched this matter, fairly comprehensively.
From 1933-2003 in general, 6 bowls were influential in selecting a national champion, although typically not the same 6 bowls.
But it 'proved' something that all 6 are necessary for a 'concensus' in a given year.
So if the BCS were to simply adopt a format that allowed each team selected 'fair' opportunity to play for a national title the matter would be resolved, fairly easily.
Maybe they will wake up to the simplicity of it, God willing.
But I would invite you to research the data I analyzed and draw your own conclusions.
FYI, the national champions are listed at http://www.ncaa.org.
I have the data already collated, so let me know if you are interested.
You might be surprised how well a playoff would have selected a 'concensus' national champion, had one been in place, 1933-2003.
(those were the years I collated). 1899-1933 only Rose Bowl existed.
Last edited by colorado_loves_football on Sun Feb 05, 2006 5:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Spence
- Administrator
- Posts: 21255
- Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:52 pm
- Location: Chillicothe, Ohio (Ohio's First Capital)
- Contact:
If you are worried some 'upstart' might fluke it's way to a national title, I think that's unlikely, given the number of hoops they would have to pass through. UCF, for example, might have won C-USA this year, after finishing dead last, last year. It's even possible I suppose, they beat TCU, in a Liberty Bowl pairing, thereby 'earning' a BCS 'bid' according to my qualifying standards, if adopted.
I don't care who ultimately wins the NC. I root for Ohio State so I hope they win it. Ohio State has 5 concensus national championships. If a play-off would have been in place over the last 50 years, Ohio State likely would have one or two more then that. I am not worried about Ohio State's prospect in a play-off in the least.
There are 119 teams that play division one football. The NFL doesn't have close to that many teams and no one cares about the first round of NFL games, except for fans of those respective teams. Part of me hope that the NCAA does go to a play-off system so it would prove to you and those like you how wrong you would be about a mid majors access. I can understand Irish88 wanting a playoff, because playoffs would benefit the Irish. It would benefit any number of highly ranked majors in the country, including all the teams that played in the BCS this year. It would not help TCU, but if that is what you want, I hope you get your wish and the NCAA adopts playoffs for CFB.
"History doesn't always repeat itself but it often rhymes." - Mark Twain
-
colorado_loves_football
Spence I did a 'count' and from what I could ascertain, OSU would have had 10 opportunities to win a 'concensus' national championship from 1933-2003, 'after' the bowls were played, had a single-elimination bracket been in effect. The reason why I said you might be wrong about the number of national championships, is simple.Spence wrote:I don't care who ultimately wins the NC. I root for Ohio State so I hope they win it. Ohio State has 5 concensus national championships. If a play-off would have been in place over the last 50 years, Ohio State likely would have one or two more then that. I am not worried about Ohio State's prospect in a play-off in the least.
.
Only one team would win, through a playoff, every year.
They would have had at least ten opportunities, however, to do it.
Last edited by colorado_loves_football on Mon Feb 06, 2006 12:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Spence
- Administrator
- Posts: 21255
- Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:52 pm
- Location: Chillicothe, Ohio (Ohio's First Capital)
- Contact:
I am not saying that the bowls do not do a pretty good job. I have thought that they do, most of the time. I have been arguing this since the beginning. The national championships may have evened themselves out, I am not arguing that either. My argument with you has been that Ohio State (or any national power) wouldn't get hurt by play-offs, in fact they would be helped. Play-offs would effect the "big fish- small pond" recruiting by several mid level and mid major teams. That in turn would hurt their programs, which would be bad for CFB. The more parity there is in CFB, the better it will become.
There is a reason why the NFL has a draft instead of letting players be recruited to one team or another. Because under there current system, if the let the teams recruit, it would kill the sport. Teams in CFB recruit to take players. They can win a NC and sign 20 out of the top 20 players. That is why the mid majors don't have much access to the championship. It has very little to do with a play-off or bowl system. Except for the fact that play-offs will make it that much harder for a lot of teams to recruit big time players.
There is a reason why the NFL has a draft instead of letting players be recruited to one team or another. Because under there current system, if the let the teams recruit, it would kill the sport. Teams in CFB recruit to take players. They can win a NC and sign 20 out of the top 20 players. That is why the mid majors don't have much access to the championship. It has very little to do with a play-off or bowl system. Except for the fact that play-offs will make it that much harder for a lot of teams to recruit big time players.
"History doesn't always repeat itself but it often rhymes." - Mark Twain
-
colorado_loves_football
Spence, under a 'playoff' where bowls are utilzed for seeding purposes, these are the years OSU would have been 'eligible' for a national championship: 2005, 2002, 1998, 1996, 1973, 1969, 1968, 1961, 1957, 1954, 1949, 1933.
Here are the years TCU would have been eligible for one: 1958, 1956, 1938, 1936, 1935.
So, you can maybe see, how it does favor the 'mid-major', in general.
For comparison reason's you can make your own mind about whether or not there's any merit to my proposal:
2003 USC #4 Ohio St. LSU #5 Miami, FL
2003 #5 Oklahoma OHIO ST. #3 Georgia USC
2001 MIAMI, FL #2 Oregon #4 Tennessee #3 Florida
2000 #3Washington #4 Oregon St. #2 Miami, FL OKLAHOMA
1999 #4 Wisconsin #3 Nebraska FLORIDA ST. #5 Michigan
1998 #6 Wisconsin/#4 Arizona TENNESSEE OHIO ST. #5 Florida
1997 MICHIGAN #4 Florida #3 Florida St. NEBRASKA
1996 #2 Ohio St. #5 Brigham Young FLORIDA #6 Nebraska
1995 NEBRASKA #5 Colorado #3 Tennessee #4 Florida St.
1994 PENN ST. #3 Colorado FLORIDA ST. NEBRASKA
*1993 #6 Wisconsin NOTRE DAME #5 Florida FLORIDA ST.
1992 #5 Michigan #4 Notre Dame ALABAMA FLORIDA ST.
1991 WASHINGTON #3 Penn St. #4 Florida St. MIAMI, FL
1990 WASHINGTON MIAMI, FL GEORGIA TECH COLORADO
1989 #3 Florida St. #5 Tennessee MIAMI, FL NOTRE DAME
1988 #4 Michigan NOTRE DAME #3 Florida St. MIAMI, FL
1987 #5 Louisiana St.FLORIDA ST #7 Auburn MIAMI, FL
1986 #4 Arizona St. PENN ST. #5 Nebraska OKLAHOMA
1985 MICHIGAN #6 Texas A&M #4 Tennessee OKLAHOMA
*1984 BRIGHAM YOUNG#5 Boston CollegeNEBRASKA WASHINGTON
1983 #6 Florida #4 Georgia AUBURN MIAMI, FL
1982 #5 UCLA SMU PENN ST. NEBRASKA
*1981 PENN ST. TEXAS PITTSBURGH CLEMSON
1980 PITTSBURGH NEBRASKA GEORGIA OKLAHOMA
1979 USC #5 Houston ALABAMA #3 Oklahoma
1978 USC #6 Clemson ALABAMA OKLAHOMA
1977 #5 Penn St. NOTRE DAME ALABAMA ARKANSAS
1976 USC #5 Oklahoma #4 Houston PITTSBURGH
1975 #5 UCLA ARIZONA ST. ALABAMA OKLAHOMA
*1974 USC #7 Penn St. #9 Nebraska #6 Notre Dame
*1973 OHIO ST. #7 Nebraska NOTRE DAME #5 Penn St.
1972 USC #3 Texas #2 Oklahoma #4 Nebraska
1971 #3 Colorado #5 Penn St. #2 Oklahoma NEBRASKA
1970 #8 Stanford ARIZONA ST./NOTRE DAME #4 Tennessee NEBRASKA
*1969 #3 USC TEXAS #8 Mississippi PENN ST.
1968 OHIO ST. TEXAS #6 Arkansas #2 Penn St.
*1967 USC texas a&m lsu OKLAHOMA
*1966 #7 Purdue #4 Georgia ALABAMA #11 Florida
1965 #4 UCLA #8 LSU #6 Missouri ALABAMA
*1964 MICHIGAN ARKANSAS #7 LSU #5 Texas
1963 #3 Illinois TEXAS #8 Alabama #6 Nebraska
1962 USC LSU MISSISSIPPI ALABAMA
*1961 #6 Minnesota #3 Texas ALABAMA #4 LSU
*1960 WASHINGTON #9 Alabama/#10 Duke MISSISSIPPI MISSOURI
1959 #8 Washington SYRACUSE MISSISSIPPI #5 Georgia
1958 IOWA #6 Air Force/#10 TCU LSU #5 Oklahoma
*1957 OHIO ST. #5 Navy #7 Mississippi OKLAHOMA
*1956 IOWA #14 TCU #11 Baylor GEORGIA TECH
1955 MICHIGAN ST.#10 Mississippi #7 Georgia Tech OKLAHOMA
*1954 OHIO ST. georgia tech #5 Navy #14 Duke
*1953 #3 Michigan St. #6 Rice #8 Georgia Tech OKLAHOMA
*1952 #5 USC #10 Texas GEORGIA TECH #9 Alabama
*1951 Illinois #15 Kentucky TENNESSEE GEORGIA TECH
*1950 #9 Michigan TENNESSEE KENTUCKY #10 Clemson
*1949 #6 Ohio St. #15 Rice OKLAHOMA #14 Maryland
*1948 #7 Northwestern #10 SMU #5 Oklahoma #11 Clemson
*1947 MICHIGAN #4 Penn St. #5 Texas #10 Georgia Tech
*1946 #5 Illinois #6 Arkansas GEORGIA #10 Rice
*1945 ALABAMA #10 Texas #5 Oklahoma St. miami, fl
*1944 #7 USC oklahoma st. #11 Duke tulsa
*1943 usc randolph field, tx #13 Georgia Tech lsu
*1942 GEORGIA #11 Texas #7 Tennessee #10 Alabama
*1941 #12 Oregon St.ALABAMA #6 Fordham (NY) #14 Georgia
*1940 STANFORD#6 Texas A&M #5 Boston College #9 Mississippi St.
*1939 USC #12 Clemson TEXAS A&M #16 Georgia Tech
*1938 #7 USC st. mary's TCU TENNESSEE
*1937 CALIFORNIA Rice Santa Clara (Ca) Auburn
*1936 PITTSBURGH TCU Santa Clara (Ca) n/a
1935 Stanford n/a TCU n/a
*1934 ALABAMA n/a Tulane n/a
*1933 Columbia n/a n/a n/a
* Years in which a national champion was slected without having play in a bowl.
1993 AUBURN
1984 FLORIDA
1981 SMU
1974 OKLAHOMA
1973 MICHIGAN, OKLAHOMA
1969 OHIO ST.
1967 NOTRE DAME
1966 MICHIGAN ST., NOTRE DAME
1964 NOTRE DAME
1961 OHIO ST.
1960 IOWA
1957 AUBURN, MICHIGAN ST.
1956 OKLAHOMA
1954 UCLA
1953 NOTRE DAME
1952 MICHIGAN ST.
1951 MICHIGAN ST.
1950 PRINCETON
1949 NOTRE DAME
1948 MICHIGAN
1947 NOTRE DAME
1946 ARMY, NOTRE DAME
1945 ARMY
1944 ARMY, OHIO ST.
1943 NOTRE DAME
1942 OHIO ST, WISCONSIN
1941 TEXAS, MINNESOTA
1940 MINNESOTA
1939 CORNELL
1938 NOTRE DAME
1937 PITTSBURGH
1936 MINNESOTA
1934 MINNESOTA
1933 MICHIGAN, OHIO ST, PRINCETON, USC
Here are the years TCU would have been eligible for one: 1958, 1956, 1938, 1936, 1935.
So, you can maybe see, how it does favor the 'mid-major', in general.
For comparison reason's you can make your own mind about whether or not there's any merit to my proposal:
2003 USC #4 Ohio St. LSU #5 Miami, FL
2003 #5 Oklahoma OHIO ST. #3 Georgia USC
2001 MIAMI, FL #2 Oregon #4 Tennessee #3 Florida
2000 #3Washington #4 Oregon St. #2 Miami, FL OKLAHOMA
1999 #4 Wisconsin #3 Nebraska FLORIDA ST. #5 Michigan
1998 #6 Wisconsin/#4 Arizona TENNESSEE OHIO ST. #5 Florida
1997 MICHIGAN #4 Florida #3 Florida St. NEBRASKA
1996 #2 Ohio St. #5 Brigham Young FLORIDA #6 Nebraska
1995 NEBRASKA #5 Colorado #3 Tennessee #4 Florida St.
1994 PENN ST. #3 Colorado FLORIDA ST. NEBRASKA
*1993 #6 Wisconsin NOTRE DAME #5 Florida FLORIDA ST.
1992 #5 Michigan #4 Notre Dame ALABAMA FLORIDA ST.
1991 WASHINGTON #3 Penn St. #4 Florida St. MIAMI, FL
1990 WASHINGTON MIAMI, FL GEORGIA TECH COLORADO
1989 #3 Florida St. #5 Tennessee MIAMI, FL NOTRE DAME
1988 #4 Michigan NOTRE DAME #3 Florida St. MIAMI, FL
1987 #5 Louisiana St.FLORIDA ST #7 Auburn MIAMI, FL
1986 #4 Arizona St. PENN ST. #5 Nebraska OKLAHOMA
1985 MICHIGAN #6 Texas A&M #4 Tennessee OKLAHOMA
*1984 BRIGHAM YOUNG#5 Boston CollegeNEBRASKA WASHINGTON
1983 #6 Florida #4 Georgia AUBURN MIAMI, FL
1982 #5 UCLA SMU PENN ST. NEBRASKA
*1981 PENN ST. TEXAS PITTSBURGH CLEMSON
1980 PITTSBURGH NEBRASKA GEORGIA OKLAHOMA
1979 USC #5 Houston ALABAMA #3 Oklahoma
1978 USC #6 Clemson ALABAMA OKLAHOMA
1977 #5 Penn St. NOTRE DAME ALABAMA ARKANSAS
1976 USC #5 Oklahoma #4 Houston PITTSBURGH
1975 #5 UCLA ARIZONA ST. ALABAMA OKLAHOMA
*1974 USC #7 Penn St. #9 Nebraska #6 Notre Dame
*1973 OHIO ST. #7 Nebraska NOTRE DAME #5 Penn St.
1972 USC #3 Texas #2 Oklahoma #4 Nebraska
1971 #3 Colorado #5 Penn St. #2 Oklahoma NEBRASKA
1970 #8 Stanford ARIZONA ST./NOTRE DAME #4 Tennessee NEBRASKA
*1969 #3 USC TEXAS #8 Mississippi PENN ST.
1968 OHIO ST. TEXAS #6 Arkansas #2 Penn St.
*1967 USC texas a&m lsu OKLAHOMA
*1966 #7 Purdue #4 Georgia ALABAMA #11 Florida
1965 #4 UCLA #8 LSU #6 Missouri ALABAMA
*1964 MICHIGAN ARKANSAS #7 LSU #5 Texas
1963 #3 Illinois TEXAS #8 Alabama #6 Nebraska
1962 USC LSU MISSISSIPPI ALABAMA
*1961 #6 Minnesota #3 Texas ALABAMA #4 LSU
*1960 WASHINGTON #9 Alabama/#10 Duke MISSISSIPPI MISSOURI
1959 #8 Washington SYRACUSE MISSISSIPPI #5 Georgia
1958 IOWA #6 Air Force/#10 TCU LSU #5 Oklahoma
*1957 OHIO ST. #5 Navy #7 Mississippi OKLAHOMA
*1956 IOWA #14 TCU #11 Baylor GEORGIA TECH
1955 MICHIGAN ST.#10 Mississippi #7 Georgia Tech OKLAHOMA
*1954 OHIO ST. georgia tech #5 Navy #14 Duke
*1953 #3 Michigan St. #6 Rice #8 Georgia Tech OKLAHOMA
*1952 #5 USC #10 Texas GEORGIA TECH #9 Alabama
*1951 Illinois #15 Kentucky TENNESSEE GEORGIA TECH
*1950 #9 Michigan TENNESSEE KENTUCKY #10 Clemson
*1949 #6 Ohio St. #15 Rice OKLAHOMA #14 Maryland
*1948 #7 Northwestern #10 SMU #5 Oklahoma #11 Clemson
*1947 MICHIGAN #4 Penn St. #5 Texas #10 Georgia Tech
*1946 #5 Illinois #6 Arkansas GEORGIA #10 Rice
*1945 ALABAMA #10 Texas #5 Oklahoma St. miami, fl
*1944 #7 USC oklahoma st. #11 Duke tulsa
*1943 usc randolph field, tx #13 Georgia Tech lsu
*1942 GEORGIA #11 Texas #7 Tennessee #10 Alabama
*1941 #12 Oregon St.ALABAMA #6 Fordham (NY) #14 Georgia
*1940 STANFORD#6 Texas A&M #5 Boston College #9 Mississippi St.
*1939 USC #12 Clemson TEXAS A&M #16 Georgia Tech
*1938 #7 USC st. mary's TCU TENNESSEE
*1937 CALIFORNIA Rice Santa Clara (Ca) Auburn
*1936 PITTSBURGH TCU Santa Clara (Ca) n/a
1935 Stanford n/a TCU n/a
*1934 ALABAMA n/a Tulane n/a
*1933 Columbia n/a n/a n/a
* Years in which a national champion was slected without having play in a bowl.
1993 AUBURN
1984 FLORIDA
1981 SMU
1974 OKLAHOMA
1973 MICHIGAN, OKLAHOMA
1969 OHIO ST.
1967 NOTRE DAME
1966 MICHIGAN ST., NOTRE DAME
1964 NOTRE DAME
1961 OHIO ST.
1960 IOWA
1957 AUBURN, MICHIGAN ST.
1956 OKLAHOMA
1954 UCLA
1953 NOTRE DAME
1952 MICHIGAN ST.
1951 MICHIGAN ST.
1950 PRINCETON
1949 NOTRE DAME
1948 MICHIGAN
1947 NOTRE DAME
1946 ARMY, NOTRE DAME
1945 ARMY
1944 ARMY, OHIO ST.
1943 NOTRE DAME
1942 OHIO ST, WISCONSIN
1941 TEXAS, MINNESOTA
1940 MINNESOTA
1939 CORNELL
1938 NOTRE DAME
1937 PITTSBURGH
1936 MINNESOTA
1934 MINNESOTA
1933 MICHIGAN, OHIO ST, PRINCETON, USC
-
Spence
- Administrator
- Posts: 21255
- Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:52 pm
- Location: Chillicothe, Ohio (Ohio's First Capital)
- Contact:
Their are 2 problems with your senerio. 1. TCU wasn't a mid major in the years you discribe. They were part of the SWC, which was a major conference at the time. 2. Ohio State has been a conference champion over 30 times in the B-10. That means 30 play-off berths under your play-off senerio. I couldn't tell you Ohio State would have one more or less national championships because it didn't happen, but there would certainally be more opportunity in a play-off situation. More opportunity usually means more wins.
"History doesn't always repeat itself but it often rhymes." - Mark Twain
-
colorado_loves_football
Spence, with respect to Ohio State, I neither gave them preferential, or unfair 'treatment' I simply listed the results of the major bowls, as they played themselves out. If Ohio State isn't listed 30 times, it means they weren't victorious in 1/2 of the bowls they played in. More, actually.
So, of the 12 or so 'appearances', they make, that's actually a representation of how frequently they won, in years they were good, according to your standards.
I don't have the information for TCU, how many times they appeared.
They 'show-up' a total of five times. Not bad for a 'mid-major'. I didn't slant the information in any respect, or in other words, I didn't add a game where TCU beat someone simply to 'pad' their total, similar to OSU.
If you dont' like the results, talk to the bowls. It's possible OSU wins 12 national championships, not bad, but not likely either. Same with TCU.
So, of the 12 or so 'appearances', they make, that's actually a representation of how frequently they won, in years they were good, according to your standards.
I don't have the information for TCU, how many times they appeared.
They 'show-up' a total of five times. Not bad for a 'mid-major'. I didn't slant the information in any respect, or in other words, I didn't add a game where TCU beat someone simply to 'pad' their total, similar to OSU.
If you dont' like the results, talk to the bowls. It's possible OSU wins 12 national championships, not bad, but not likely either. Same with TCU.
Last edited by colorado_loves_football on Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:28 pm, edited 3 times in total.
-
Spence
- Administrator
- Posts: 21255
- Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:52 pm
- Location: Chillicothe, Ohio (Ohio's First Capital)
- Contact:
You can't really compare the SWC to the MWC. Compare big wins out of conference between the two. The SWC competed for championships every year, the MWC does not.
Your comparison supports the same kind of one game play-off that the BCS was designed to do. I think the BCS is the best system CFB has ever had, whether it supports more championships or not for Ohio State. My thinking in this matter doesn't revolve around what would give Ohio State the best chance to win. It has nothing to do with that at all. If I wanted to support the system that gives Ohio State the best chance at winning a national championship year in and year out, I would support a play-off system. Play-offs would work in Ohio State's favor.
Your comparison supports the same kind of one game play-off that the BCS was designed to do. I think the BCS is the best system CFB has ever had, whether it supports more championships or not for Ohio State. My thinking in this matter doesn't revolve around what would give Ohio State the best chance to win. It has nothing to do with that at all. If I wanted to support the system that gives Ohio State the best chance at winning a national championship year in and year out, I would support a play-off system. Play-offs would work in Ohio State's favor.
"History doesn't always repeat itself but it often rhymes." - Mark Twain
-
colorado_loves_football
What I meant to say was that for the playoff to be 'fair' every conference would need a representative. And it would be a fair qualifying process, a team would know before the season began, that a BCS bid 'hinged' on their winning a conference title.
How can you be more impartial than that? I knew you wouldn't like that, Spence, but I'm sorry that's the only fair way to do it, if every team I-A is to have a legitimate chance to win a national championship.
And, with respect to a playoff why should any team that doesn't win their conference get a second chance? I believe it would be a fair and unbiased way to select a field of teams, for competitive play.
Those conferences are already well represented, they don't need additional representation. And it would be a fair qualifying process.
I don't care if it's not popular, what I care about is impartiality. And competitive play. It would allow for both.
How can you be more impartial than that? I knew you wouldn't like that, Spence, but I'm sorry that's the only fair way to do it, if every team I-A is to have a legitimate chance to win a national championship.
And, with respect to a playoff why should any team that doesn't win their conference get a second chance? I believe it would be a fair and unbiased way to select a field of teams, for competitive play.
Those conferences are already well represented, they don't need additional representation. And it would be a fair qualifying process.
I don't care if it's not popular, what I care about is impartiality. And competitive play. It would allow for both.
Last edited by colorado_loves_football on Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Spence
- Administrator
- Posts: 21255
- Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:52 pm
- Location: Chillicothe, Ohio (Ohio's First Capital)
- Contact:
At present what the BCS is biased, and partial to the 6 'major' conferences. A playoff would allow for fair 'access' without being partial.
The BCS is biased towards the 6 major conferences. There is no question about that. What makes you think that a play-off format would not be partial to the 6 major conferences? The top half of schools in the six major conferences are made up of the most powerful schools in Div-1. Both on the field and off. They are the schools that control the money. They are the schools the television stations are paying for when they sign the television contracts. It isn't a fair system if fair means allowing equal access, but it is fair from a capitalism standpoint.
If I were college football Czar, I wouldn't reserve a spot for anyone. I would take they top 8 teams and match them up 1 vs 2, 3 fs 4, 5 fs 6, and 7 fs 8. With no preference given to any conference and no at-large berths. I know why they don't do it. It is because the none of the "big 6" want to take the chance of losing their cut of the money and because TV wants some say in creating matchups people want to watch.
In terms of how I view my team, I don't care as much about the national championship as I do about not losing any games. If they when all there games and don't win the NC, I may get mad for a while, but I know we will have played well enough to deserve it. Like Auburn a couple of years ago. Even though they never got the chance to prove it they will forever believe that they should have been champions. If they would have gotten their wish and played in the championship then maybe they get put into the same boat as Oklahoma did by playing. Then the know they weren't the best team. As a competitor you always want to prove it on the field, for the fans though, sometimes not getting to play in the game is better. They will always have the memory of being undefeated and that team will always be champions to them.
"History doesn't always repeat itself but it often rhymes." - Mark Twain
Return to “General Discussion”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests