Boise State vs. Wyoming

[RazorHawk]

But it isn't impossible, the problem is the haves do not want it to happen.

I think it is impossible. There have been years when the BCS appears to have selected the best two teams, but that does not mean they did. The perception may have been that, but that does not necessarily make it so.

I also agree that a playoff does not guarantee the best team winning, but it does settle it on the field.

My guess is this year will be the year that Boise State will get their chance. If they do go unbeaten and wind up beating Alabama, Ohio St, Florida, Texas or Nebraska, they will probably be in the National Title game most every year in the current BCS setup. If they lose convincingly, then the non BCS teams will probably never get another chance at the title.

With a playoff, the current Boise State and TCU programs would probably have an opportunity to play for the championship most years. Without it, we may never see it. I hear folks here saying all they want is a chance and to be treated fairly and equally, and this cannot happen in the current format.

[Grayghost]

Depending on what you want...

The best two teams based on rankings, or...

A playoff system...

The only way you are really going to get around this argument is this...

Dissolve the conferences. Take scheduling out of the hands of the schools. Based on pre-season rankings (all perception based, I know), each school gets scheduled four teams from the top 40, 4 teams from 41-80, and the last 4 from the bottom 40. Within those groups each school would play 1 top 10 team, one team from 11-20, one from 21-30 and so on. Will there be teams ranked in each group that possibly should not be there...yes. But most will be in the groups they should be in, or rather close.

Now, nobody will want to do this...tradition, rivalries, and so forth. But, it is the only way to end this argument once and for all. No one would be able to say (not that some still woule) That team A's schedule was dramatically weaker or stronger than team B's.

I dont expect anyone to agree with this. Hell, it may even irk some folks. But the problem being discussed in this thread cannont be solved in the current system.

[Spence]

Having the toughest schedule may not have anything to do with the strength of the team...BUT WINNING WITH A TOUGH SCHEDULE DOES.

Winning with a weak schedule actually also may not have anything to do with the strength of a team.

And that is the crux of the problem.

And that is my point. We agree completely on this.

[Spence]

Depending on what you want...

The best two teams based on rankings, or...

A playoff system...

The only way you are really going to get around this argument is this...

Dissolve the conferences. Take scheduling out of the hands of the schools. Based on pre-season rankings (all perception based, I know), each school gets scheduled four teams from the top 40, 4 teams from 41-80, and the last 4 from the bottom 40. Within those groups each school would play 1 top 10 team, one team from 11-20, one from 21-30 and so on. Will there be teams ranked in each group that possibly should not be there...yes. But most will be in the groups they should be in, or rather close.

Now, nobody will want to do this...tradition, rivalries, and so forth. But, it is the only way to end this argument once and for all. No one would be able to say (not that some still woule) That team A's schedule was dramatically weaker or stronger than team B's.

I dont expect anyone to agree with this. Hell, it may even irk some folks. But the problem being discussed in this thread cannont be solved in the current system.

Now you are thinking. Only I don't think you have to dissolve the conferences to do it. If you schedule the four OOC games nationally it works. If you finished first in your conference you play your peers ( that finished first..second..whatever) in other conferences. 2 major 2 mid major - 1 each home and away. You mix up which conferences play ones, twos, and so forth so you get a good mix of every conference against every other conference. Now you have a legitimate way to compare all teams. Then you don't need human polls because the computers would have enough info to make an accurate ranking.

[Spence]

But it isn't impossible, the problem is the haves do not want it to happen.

I think it is impossible. There have been years when the BCS appears to have selected the best two teams, but that does not mean they did. The perception may have been that, but that does not necessarily make it so.

I also agree that a playoff does not guarantee the best team winning, but it does settle it on the field.

My guess is this year will be the year that Boise State will get their chance. If they do go unbeaten and wind up beating Alabama, Ohio St, Florida, Texas or Nebraska, they will probably be in the National Title game most every year in the current BCS setup. If they lose convincingly, then the non BCS teams will probably never get another chance at the title.

With a playoff, the current Boise State and TCU programs would probably have an opportunity to play for the championship most years. Without it, we may never see it. I hear folks here saying all they want is a chance and to be treated fairly and equally, and this cannot happen in the current format.

I agree that a playoff would settle it on the field. I just would rather keep the bowls and the extra teams in post season games. But I concede a playoff is going to happen. Sooner rather then later, now that Delany has trashed the B-10 with his idiocy. So soon we will find out exactly how a playoff system works in CFB and how it affects the teams not invited to play in it. It won't hurt Ohio State as they will go as often as they did when the B-10 sent only one team to the bowl games, but it is really going to hurt some of the others.

[donovan]

I will send an immediate telegram to Boise...not sure they have internet there, yet...and tell them to just start sharpening their harrows, Spring will come soon enough.

Hoo boy! I love you western guys and the way you stick to traditions. Telegram?

I know...Mr. Morse and telegrams replaced the Pony Express. But, really, a telegram in the 21st century? That's being a hard core neo-luddite.

.. / .-- --- ..- .-.. -.. / .... .- ...- . / ... . -. - / - .... .. ... / -... -.-- / .--. --- -. -.-- / . -..- .--. .-. . ... ... / -... ..- - / .. / .-- .- -. - . -.. / - --- / -... . / -.- .. -. -.. / - --- / - .... . / .--. --- -. -.-- .-.-.- / -... .. .-.. .-.. -.-- -... ..- -.. --..-- / -.-- --- ..- / --- .-.. -.. / -.-. ..- .-. -- ..- -.. --. . --- -. --..-- / .- .-. . / -.-- --- ..- / .--- ..- ... - / -... .- ... -.- .. -. --. / .. -. / - .... . / ... ..- -. / ... - .. .-. .-. .. -. --. / ..- .--. / - .-. --- ..- -... .-.. . ..--.. [url]http://morsecode.scphillips.com/jtranslator.html
[/url]

[Grayghost]

Now you are thinking. Only I don't think you have to dissolve the conferences to do it. If you schedule the four OOC games nationally it works. If you finished first in your conference you play your peers ( that finished first..second..whatever) in other conferences. 2 major 2 mid major - 1 each home and away. You mix up which conferences play ones, twos, and so forth so you get a good mix of every conference against every other conference. Now you have a legitimate way to compare all teams. Then you don't need human polls because the computers would have enough info to make an accurate ranking.

That would solve some of the problem. But then you will be dealing with the argument (which has already come up in the thread), that conferance A is dramatically stronger than conference B. This is the argument for taking a 1 loss SEC team over an unbeaten Boise, or TCU, or "insert mid-major here".

Now, Boise could go out and schedule 4 tough OOC foes, but they would still have to play 8 teams that everyone considers weaker competition. So, lets say Boise went and scheduled, VT and Oregon St, as they have done, and replace Wyoming and Toledo with say...Michigan St, and Nebraska. People might say that this is a tough enough schedule to outweigh there conference weaknesses. But If VT flops the rest of the year, the Beavs go 7-5, Mich St. goes 6-6, and Nebraska wins the North with a 9-3 record and loses it's confernce championship, you will get the arguments you are getting now because VT lost to James Madison.

Where as Florida can play Miami Oh, S. Florida, App st., and Florida St., but becasue they play in the SEC, if they go undefeated, eveyone goes "ooooh, aaaahh, look what they did", when they also play, Kentucky, Miss st, Vandy, and a down Tenn. Which leaves them with Bama, LSU, Georgia, and S. Carolina. 4 good teams, and maybe a fifth depending on what Florida St. does the rest of the year. But because the SEC is percieved as the toughest conference, Florida gets the nod.

I do think that the conferences would have to go. There is to much bias towards certain conferences.

[Spence]

Conference strength wouldn't matter as long as you had a legit way to compare teams. Now, under this system you may very well see a two loss team in the national championship along with a one loss team, while an undefeated stays home. But as long as there is a legit comparison and that undefeated isn't as good, then it doesn't matter. People want a fair shake. If Boise State is one of the top 2 teams, they should play. If two loss USC is one of the best teams, they should play. This is a legitimate way to compare every single team in 1A. That is all most want - a fair shake.

[Grayghost]

Conference strength wouldn't matter as long as you had a legit way to compare teams. Now, under this system you may very well see a two loss team in the national championship along with a one loss team, while an undefeated stays home. But as long as there is a legit comparison and that undefeated isn't as good, then it doesn't matter. People want a fair shake. If Boise State is one of the top 2 teams, they should play. If two loss USC is one of the best teams, they should play. This is a legitimate way to compare every single team in 1A. That is all most want - a fair shake.

On that at least we can agree. But as you said in an earlier post, a playoff is coming, and this will all be a moot point.

[Spence]

Unfortunately. I think most people will really hate it when they find out how it works, but it is going to be too late.

[Cane from the Bend]

I disagree that a playoff would settle things on the field, for the standard purpose that we already have; the over looming question:

Who deserves to be there?

That would continue to be argued, regardless of what happened on the field.

The biggest problem, is the assumption that a playoff would make things fair, for everybody... but come on; who are we fooling, really?

You aren't talking about a fair for everyone playoff. This is an argument for a playoff system which still touts bias all throughout the year.

Spence is saying the system is unfair to Boise, because they are not in the position to play by the same rules. So, we give them specifics as to what is expected of them... then tell them it wasn't enough, asking them to do more.

Great, I completely agree with that side of the coin... however, the other side is; the system would still be set up for those whose conferences are weaker would simply not play for the title.

You think Boise is being treat unfairly, now... what happens when the lower mid-majors start complaining?

A playoff housing 4, 8, or even 16 teams maybe easy to assemble... though, the system still leaves holes for bias; excluding the other smaller conference teams... for precisely the same reason we are omitting Boise State, currently.

The only way to make a completely fair tournament "for all conferences", would be to house a playoff that would take "all the conference champions" as an automatic qualifier.

The problem with that system; teams from lowly conferences with 7-5 records could play for a championship, whereas, teams from top tier conferences with 11-1 records who are runners up, would be left out.

Grayghost is right; and I've posted it in the past, that the only true way to have a fair season play out, would be to disperse the conferences at large, then, either re-organize them accordingly, or: do away with them altogether... and then a tournament would be needless.

Spence has a solid platform in which a good starting point toward a non-playoff system could be allocated.

Would it continue to leave holes.?. I don't feel that any structure you initiate could be flawless.

I am opposed to the playoff idealism, do to its lack of foresight; this undying need to conform college football into line with all other sports, without designing a bracket with fairness in reality... just in perception.

This concept for "fear of change" to traditionalists is nothing more than a liberalist battle cry, hoping to scare the seated fundamentalist into relenting.

And , yet...

Their hasn't once been a tournament proposition made that would be "fair" for ever team involved presently within the FBS league.

And, until there is; the only change being made, would be as to how many teams are being treated "unfairly" by the system... and "who else deserves to be in the conversation", whether or not they actually deserve it.

All of the same problems & arguments will still exist; just in a larger scope.


.


.


.

[RazorHawk]

Unfortunately. I think most people will really hate it when they find out how it works, but it is going to be too late.

If the NCAA stays with a current thinking that you have stated that all conference champions get an automatic spot, I agree that will not help anything, unless you had a 32 team tourney, which would be too many teams and games.

I would think if it is a 16 team tourney, you could only have 8 automatic qualifiers, or with an 8 team tourney 4 or 5 automatic qualifiers. My guess is that it will be a 16 team variety, when it happens. My guess would be that we are at least 6 years away from this.

[Spence]

The NCAA says any playoff must have every conference champ. That isn't on the table from what I here and that has always been the resistance to it from the majors.

[Cane from the Bend]

Right; and if you're going to have a tournament, at least 1/3 of the bowls disappear the first year... the bowls left will want the top names who didn't make the playoff... the mid-majors have another reason to scream foul... a larger bracket becomes inevitable.

Before long, we're down to a few bowls, if any... because all of the sponsors will want a piece of the playoff market.

The only way of preventing it now, is if the Big XII were to pick up two more teams... and possibly, the Big East may have to expand.

Though, I don't think there are enough quality teams available for the Big East to collect that would help them retain what status as a national power they have left... They're dwindling on the fringe as it is.

.

.

.

[Cane from the Bend]

Also; I wouldn't be opposed to chuck one into Delany's eye, and disassemble the conferences altogether.

He's shown that he has no real loyalties to anything more than royalties... hell, as I see it, nobody has shown loyalties across the board.

As a matter of fact, the only two teams with loyalty; notre dame, who, despite not being in a conference plays a sound schedule... BYU, claiming faith as their reason for leaving the MWC ( of course this means they have stayed loyal to themselves ).

Maybe we should drop the rhetoric and let the conferences implode. We could keep our rivalries intact, and the bowls games.

.

.

.