Post-season Play-offs

[colorado_loves_football]

If you were one of the 8 best candidates for 8 jobs with the same company, you were at least as qualified as seven others and better then the rest, would it be fair to you not to get it on the basis that that company had already hired someone that lives on the same side of town that you do? Should it go to a candidate who may not be as qualified (at least in terms of resume) as you are, simply because that person lives on the other side of town? Even if all things are fairly equal shouldn't past experience of excellence be given preference over the guy who, may be as good, but really hasn't proven it against the best and brightest?Shouldn't the lesser qualified candate have to prove himself before being hired of the more qualified candidate?

Spence, I don't necessarily disagree with you that the BCS should invite those teams with the best marketable 'image' assuming that's what you mean, when with your corporate analogy. And yes, I do agree that for fairness in play, only the 'best' teams should be represented.
But consider, for a moment, how the BCS is constructed:
Why do they discriminate at all? They could simply use the BCS Poll, to select a ten-field team, every year, if that were their agenda.
So, obviously they represent more than just asking the 'best' teams, they obviously also represent a 'mission' of sorts, promoting several conferences, while also keeping the competition selective, which is ok, too, all's fair in love & war.
But, I believe if they are going to do that, then they should offer the same 'benefit' package to every conference. My understanding, partly due to how Pittsburgh played in 2004, is that the Big East represenative needs to be ranked sufficiently-high, top-12 I believe, every year. What they did, was use Louisville as a basis for comparision, last year, and this year, W. Virginia ranked #11, so they are ok. They keep their bid.
Now, what I propose is give every conference the same opportunity, but not to the same degree of proficiency, since they won't be occupying one of the 6 'coveted' positions. Top-25 would be 'fair' in my opinion, but if they want to make it 'exclusive' then I suppose top-15 would apply.
That way, for every year TCU finished ranked sufficiently-high, like they did this year, they will be 'assured' a bid to the BCS. Similarly, any other team would also have the same opportunity, for years they are qualified.
Tulsa, for example, finished outside the top-25 this year, but in the event they 'crack' the top-25 they ought to be represented, in some fashion.
I think that's fair, myself, but like I said, you have a right to your opinion.

[Yeofoot]

As long as TCU get's a chance to play for the National Championship when they are undefeated, I'm for it.

[mountainman]

I don't know what undefeated has to do with it, but if they are one of the top two teams in the final BCS ranking I'll be cheering them on.

That is under all but one circumstance.

[colorado_loves_football]

I made a mistake with Big Sky. Sunbelt would have been a better example.
This is all I am saying. Teams like TCU should have to prove they belong by beating good teams, either several in one year or over a period of several years. I don't mean to imply that TCU, Utah, or any other mid major doesn't deserve consideration, just that they shouldn't be given preference over someone who has proved they are good consistantly and by all accounts is still a good team.

Spence, it shouldn't matter if it's Sun-Belt, WAC, MAC, or MWC, or C-USA for that matter, and that's the crux of my argument. If a team demonstrates they are good enough to win their conference, and play competitive football, it shouldnt' matter if they played a Big Ten schedule, that will bear itself out in the BCS, and it will be a 'fair' way to select a BCS 'championship' pairing of teams, also, Mountainman.
You say, undefeated shouldn't matter, but that's what was necessary, for TCU to be admitted, this year. Next year, they will likely 'earn' a BCS bid if they win the MWC, outright, as they did last year.
I think you all need to review my proposal to fully appreciate it.
Past years have proven that a TCU, Army, Navy, Air Force or whatever team you want to mention, were BCS 'worthy' , if winning a major bowl, is any kind of indication how good a team is, competitively speaking.
Some of those teams werent' even ranked, so a BCS 'grouping' of teams doesn't necessarily have to include ranked teams, but I will concur that would be a better arrangement, than if it didn't.
Someone referred to the NCAA tourney. Villanova over Georgetown.
Now imagine if the BCS were the 'hosts' that not only wouldn't have happened, it's likely only Georgetown would have been represented, and if I"m not mistaken they both are from the same conference.
So, there is some weight to what you are saying, Spence.
A 'playoff' would be better if it allowed for both equal representation, combined with 'quality' in terms of selection.
But I still maintain, that short of 32, 64, or whatever-sized 'field' of teams, this is the best alternative, for competitive reasons.

[mountainman]

also, Mountainman.
You say, undefeated shouldn't matter[/quote]

No, no,no, colorado. I didn't say "undefeated shouldn't matter". What I said was, "I don't know what undefeated has to do with it".

What I mean by that is that in order to qualify for a BCS game the qualification standards mention nothing about being undefeated. They do say things like finishing ranked #1 or #2 in the final bcs poll and being champion of a bcs-conference and finishing in the top 6 in the final rankings for an automatic bin and finishing in the top 12 of the final rankings to make the pool of eligible teams.

No mention of undefeated seasons that I have seen.

[Spence]

Spence, it shouldn't matter if it's Sun-Belt, WAC, MAC, or MWC, or C-USA for that matter, and that's the crux of my argument. If a team demonstrates they are good enough to win their conference, and play competitive football, it shouldnt' matter if they played a Big Ten schedule, that will bear itself out in the BCS, and it will be a 'fair' way to select a BCS 'championship' pairing of teams

It should matter. A teams schedule ranking should be taken into account. Not necessarily their conference, but the strength of the teams played should absolutely be a consideration. If a team plays 4 ranked opponents and finishes 10-1 and a team plays 1 ranked opponent and goes undefeated, the 10-1 team should get preference.

I believe the top 8 teams should play in the BCS bowl games regardless of conference, but that will never happen because of $$$.

[mountainman]

Not me. I think that would be a step backwards. The polls have not shown me that they are good, or maybe accurate is a better word, enough to determine who the best 8 or 10 teams are.

[Spence]

MM has a good point. The polls tend to over-rate some teams while under-rating some others. That is why the "big six" have a conference tie in for their champion. These are typically the conferences who play the strongest schedules, that is why they have a tie in. In a perfect world the top 8 or 10 should play, but the system isn't perfect. If one conference would start getting 3 or 4 teams in the BCS and one or two got shut out for a few years in would shift the balance of power. Recruiting would suffer. It is the same reason playoffs would be bad.

[colorado_loves_football]

Not me. I think that would be a step backwards. The polls have not shown me that they are good, or maybe accurate is a better word, enough to determine who the best 8 or 10 teams are.

Mountainman, we are getting closer to being in agreement in that respect, that a conference champion deserves 'priority' over an 'at large' team, and with good reason.
But why limit that to six conferences, when there is sufficient space avaliable for every major conference, should the MWC-WAC reconcile their differences, and reunite for old-times' sake.
I believe this would raise the competitive bar, not lower it, as is your point of contention. Consider 2004, when there were 3 teams knocking on the BCS's door, Utah being the sole representative. My proposal would have given one team, Utah or Boise St, a bid, through competitive play, and the other, Louisville would have earned theirs, similarly.
In fact, had the 9-win provision been in place, Pittsburgh would have been denied a bid, so that would have allowed two 'at large' teams to be selected. Those could have been awarded based on BCS rank, something I feel should be given a role in selecting 'at large' teams, where appropriate, but priority would still go to conference champions, or in this case MAC champion Toledo, and Sun Belt champion N.Texas.
Since neither meet the 9-win requirement, those bids are then awarded to deserving 'at large' candidates.
This would be a 'fair' way to select a field of teams. You can't punish a team for where it plays, in fact you need to give them a place to showcase their talent on a national level when they are qualified.
They've worked all season long to accomplish their goal, and deserve a place of distinction along with the other BCS confernence respresentatives.

[Spence]

I don't work for the BCS, but it would seem 'fair' to me to require a team to win 9 games, since that's what Notre Dame had to do.
That, combined with a confernece championship would be a fair way to give every team a legitimate chance to play in the BCS.

You still have to consider strength of schedule or it wouldn't be fair. The reason the "big six" have bowl tie-ins in BCS games is because the generally play the strongest schedules. If they start to lose their SOS, they would be dropped by the BCS. They just didn't decide that these conferences were "special" when they set this up. They did it for a reason.

[colorado_loves_football]

You still have to consider strength of schedule or it wouldn't be fair. The reason the "big six" have bowl tie-ins in BCS games is because the generally play the strongest schedules. If they start to lose their SOS, they would be dropped by the BCS. They just didn't decide that these conferences were "special" when they set this up. They did it for a reason.

I think SOS is an antiquated way to size up a football team, and is subjective in any respect. No, a team in the Sun Belt isn't going to have a strong SOS, but you can't punish a team for where it plays. And you also can't punish a team for not playing a strong OOC schedule, either. So much of that is circumstantial. Even this year, when Texas played Louisiana-Lafayette, that was not expected to help Texas' SOS, but it did! Andn Louisiana-Lafayette played as well, or better than Kansas did, so that maybe says something about how the Sun Belt has improved, this year, overall.
A BCS assortment of 'championship' teams would need to include the best the NCAA has to offer. I believe a conference championship assortment would be fair and would also give the BCS some leverage in pairing teams together. Competition would determine which teams are represented, and as in the case of the Big East this year, it would give the upper-hand to the team 'most' qualified, from each conference.
Nothing could be fairer, and in fact, it would honor bowl tradition, if say the Liberty Bowl were included (C-USA vs. MWC). The California Raisin Bowl used to pair the MAC vs. Big West representative together. Utilize an existing bowl for that purpose, but modified to include the Sun Belt, and we're in business.

[Spence]

How is strength of schedule subjective? It is based on your opponents record and their opponents record. There is nothing subjective about that. It is all black and white. It is the only thing in any poll that is not subjective.

I can tell you how a conference such as the MWC can get into a title game and get a good SOS rating. If most MWC schools scheduled a team or couple of teams from the "big six" conferences, good teams (example Ohio State, Michigan, USC, Oregon, Texas , Oklahoma, Alabama, Georgia, West Virginia, LSU, Nebraska, Penn State or the like) and they win those OOC games, they would have the SOS rating necessary to get to the title game. TCU beat Oklahoma, if more teams from the MWC scheduled and beat teams like that, they would be treated more "fairly" in the BCS. It is all relevent. You can't expect to play the #58 strongest schedule in the country and be given the same respect as a team who played the #10 strongest schedule in the country and won. Being treated "fairly" or getting national respect is earned.

That doesn't mean there is a huge difference between the conferences, or that a MWC team can't be good enough to win a NC. It just means they have to earn their way to the table, much the same way as the conferences that are already there did.

[colorado_loves_football]

How is strength of schedule subjective? It is based on your opponents record and their opponents record. There is nothing subjective about that. It is all black and white. It is the only thing in any poll that is not subjective.

I can tell you how a conference such as the MWC can get into a title game and get a good SOS rating. If most MWC schools scheduled a team or couple of teams from the "big six" conferences, good teams (example Ohio State, Michigan, USC, Oregon, Texas , Oklahoma, Alabama, Georgia, West Virginia, LSU, Nebraska, Penn State or the like) and they win those OOC games, they would have the SOS rating necessary to get to the title game. TCU beat Oklahoma, if more teams from the MWC scheduled and beat teams like that, they would be treated more "fairly" in the BCS. It is all relevent. You can't expect to play the #58 strongest schedule in the country and be given the same respect as a team who played the #10 strongest schedule in the country and won. Being treated "fairly" or getting national respect is earned.

That doesn't mean there is a huge difference between the conferences, or that a MWC team can't be good enough to win a NC. It just means they have to earn their way to the table, much the same way as the conferences that are already there did.

Spence, I don't disagree with you that there needs to be a 'fair' way to assure the BCS of a 'quality' field of teams. That being said, you aren't going to convince me that TCU wasn't as deserving as OSU, if not more, according to the rules. TCU didn't play a Big Ten schedule, but you can't punish them for that, they played the schedule they were dealt, and played it fairly well, if 10-1 is any indication.
SOS could be used for 'tie-breaking' purposes, in the event two, or more teams 'tie' for an 'at large' bid, which would have given OSU an 'edge' over both Notre Dame and Oregon, this year.
But TCU was 10-1, overall, better than all three of those teams, in my mind making them more qualified than any 9-2 team, including Notre Dame. I dont' make the rules, and they obviously favored OSU, this year, but I don't think it was because of SOS, unless I'm mistaken.
Even if it does apply, it's to a much lesser degree than in previous years, as I specifically remember it kept Colorado out of the national championship game in 2002, in favor of Nebraska, so they 'tweaked' it so that it wouldn't have as large an effect.
Anyway, Spence, you can make whatever argument you want in OSU's favor, that's your right as a person, but I still believe what matters most is what happens on the football field.
I say, let TCU and Boise St, play for a BCS bid, the same way most conferences do, and let that team 'play' for the opportunity to win a national championship, similar to how Texas did, 'earning' the right to be represented, through competitive parings. Nobody handed the national championship to Texas, they fought for, and earned that, probaby more so than any other team in recent memory.
I'm simply expanding that principle to give every team in the NCAA same opportunity, and doing it through a 'fair' selection process.
Show me a better way, and I'll consider it, but no, I don't think SOS is a 'fair' way to select a BCS 'field' of teams. Too exclusive for one thing.

[Spence]

What would TCU's record have been had they played the same schedule as Ohio State last year? Be honest. Then tell me SOS doesn't matter.

The problem TCU had isn't that the beat Oklahoma. It is that the teams they beat didn't beat enough strong teams to raise their SOS. This is in no way subjective.

[mountainman]

Well, this may be the first time you have agreed with something I've said, but this would not be the first time I've agreed with something you have said.

To me, the biggest difference you and I have are how the words "fair" and "equal" are defined and used.

If I understand your position correctly, your position is that it would be fair if every D-1 conference champion received a BCS bid. I agree with the notion that that would be fair, but only from a narrow perspective. Since I do not believe that all the conferences are equal, from a competitive or a broader college football perspective, I do not believe it would be fair to either the BCS conferences or the non-BCS conferences or to college football. At this point in time in college football I believe it would promote mediocrity.

That's the reason I support the BCS 'system'.