BCS haters: The NCAA tournament has been **** on in both tourneys

[Sutterkane]

The ultimate argument every year for a playoff in college football is usually the NCAA tournament. It allegedly brings together the best teams and puts them in a tournament format that is supposed to bring about the national champion, instead of having a committee and statistics to choose 2 teams that have had outstanding regular seasons to play for a title.

I give you the potential national champs in men's and women's ball this year:

Mens: Butler - UConn?

Womens: Notre Dame - Texas A&M?

Tell me these teams were considered the best in their sports.

 

[o_riverdawg]

The whole college football season everyone bitches about the BCS and how we need a playoff because it is the only fair way to decide a champion. Now that some Cinderella's have made it to the Final Four people are saying a tournament really doesn't decide a true champion and maybe the BCS is better. I guess people just like to ***** for the sake of bitching. How about we just relax and enjoy the games?

 

[FQDawg]

Those teams were one of 68 or 64 overall that had a chance and they earned their shot at the national title on the court. For me, and I think for many, the NCAA Tournament isn't about finding the "best" team because you can never possibly know that. Your idea of "best" is probably different from my idea of "best" especially in a sport where there are hundreds of teams. The NCAA Tournament is about finding the national champion and whoever wins tomorrow (and Tuesday) has earned the right to be the national champions.

In football, the problem is that you only have a sample size of two to choose from, which leaves several worthy teams out of consideration. In my mind, it's not so much the BCS rankings that are the problem - they are just an arbitrary selection process, much like a committee is an arbitrary selection process - it's that only two teams get a chance to win on the field. If the BCS standings were used to select an 8, 10, 12 or 16-team playoff, I don't think you'd hear as many arguments about it.

For me, give me the playoff... Give me David with a chance to knock-off Goliath (if you can't tell, I'm pulling for Butler tomorrow). I get tired of seeing the same old teams every year, especially in football. I like when Boise State or TCU or Utah makes noise and I wouldn't complain if they got a chance to win it all.

 

[FlabLoser]

...players going from HS to the NBA, players leaving after 1 year to go to the NBA, etc.

Smaller teams with SLIGHTLY less high profile recruits have better continuity from season to season and it shows in the tournament.

 

[o_riverdawg]

With the expansion of television coverage plus the one and done rule, more quality players are branching out and going to smaller schools, and staying there a few years. George Mason, VCU, Butler and Gonzagahave proven you don't have to be in a major conference to show off your talents on a national stage, and players take note of that. Don't be surprised if a so-called mid-major advancing to the Final Four doesn't become a once every couple years occurrance.

 

[QuaoarsKing]

The ultimate argument should be Auburn 2004. Essentially, the field size of 2 is (in most years, at least) not big enough to cover every team who deserves a chance to play for the title. It would be preferable to sometimes have a team that doesn't really deserve a shot make the field (they're probably going to be eliminated quickly anyway) than to be leaving deserving teams out every year.

 

[jakldawg]

only involving 16 teams, Butler wouldn't even be in, and UConn would have played a 2 seed (SDSU, if everything stayed the same) in their opening game. Also, there's a good chance that UConn wouldn't be a 3 seed since the Big East "Tournament" they barnstormed through would be reduced to Pitt vs. Notre Dame. Similarly, there would be no SEC tourney for UK to run through, since it would just be Bama vs. Florida for the SEC's spot. I've yet to see a football playoff system where the Sun Belt and MAC champs (i.e. a 68-team playoff) gets a crack at the Championship.

 

[dawgs.sixpack]

basically you have 12 (for some 13) games to decide which 2 teams out of 120 teams are the best there is a lot of inherent disparity making it difficult to gauge team from different bcs conferences. <div>
</div><div>most sec fans will say the sec champ is the best team, even if they are 10-3 or 11-2 at the end of the season because they won the sec and played X number of ranked teams, etc etc etc. but under the current system, a 10-3 or 11-2 sec champ needs a perfect storm to overcome 2 undefeated bcs conf champs or even an 11-1 bcs conf champ (wvu losing to awful pitt on the last weekend to let lsu slip in qualifies as a "perfect storm"). yet we all know that 90% of the sec fans would be out there hollering that the sec team is the best, blah blah blah. so why no agree to some kinda playoff so that a 11-2 sec team can prove that 11-2 in the sec is better than 13-0 in the acc or the big 10, etc etc etc?</div>

 

[RebelBruiser]

With the talent spread over 11 positions on the field instead of 5, and with good plays requiring all 11 to do at least a decent job at their position, not just 1 man typically taking over a game, it's much less likely you see monumental upsets.

Single elimination works much better for football than for basketball or baseball, because the better team wins a higher percentage of the time in football than other sports.

 

[dawgs.sixpack]

I've yet to see a football playoff system where the Sun Belt and MAC champs (i.e. a 68-team playoff) gets a crack at the Championship.

there's been several 16 team formats proposed where all 11 FBS conf champs get an auto bid, and the bracket is filled out with 5 at-large bids determined by a BCS like formula. seed the 16 teams and let them duke it out. the undefeated teams would get the benefit of a home opening round game against arkansas st or north texas or san jose st or someone, while the teams that lost a few games would be playing other BCS conf schools. <div>
</div><div>i think someone on cbs touts this format, and maybe the wetzel plan on yahoo follows this format?</div>

 

[TXDawg.sixpack]

The biggest issue I have with the BCS is that pre-season rankings still play too big of a role in determining who the top 2 teams are. Sure, they don't publish the first BCS Standings until 2 - 3 weeks into the season now, but you still have pre-season Top 25 Polls and the reality is, if you're not pre-season top 10 (maybe 15), you have almost no shot of cracking the top 5 of the BCS.

95% of the field shouldn't be eliminated before the season even starts.

 

[cps36]

Then the cream shall rise. Top seeds get rewarded for excellent regular seasons, and Cinderellas have a chance to advance.

However, by playing a series, there is a greater chance of the eventual champion being the best team, because (according to the NBA standard) a series is a better measure of comparing the strength of teams than one single game.

Final Four = 5 game series

The finals could perhaps be a 5 or 7 game series.

 

[dawgs.sixpack]

The biggest issue I have with the BCS is that pre-season rankings still play too big of a role in determining who the top 2 teams are. Sure, they don't publish the first BCS Standings until 2 - 3 weeks into the season now, but you still have pre-season Top 25 Polls and the reality is, if you're not pre-season top 10 (maybe 15), you have almost no shot of cracking the top 5 of the BCS.

95% of the field shouldn't be eliminated before the season even starts.

this.<div>
</div><div>even the harris poll is basically the carbon copy of the ap/espn polls, which a few minor tweaks here and there.</div><div>
</div><div>problem is that you'd still have people voting on what they expect out of ohio st or texas later in the season even if they don't beat anyone of substance before the polls come out.

</div>

 

[jakldawg]

Even so: Miami-OH vs. LSU in Death Valley and MTSU vs. Ohio State in the Horseshoe is miles away from being Richmond vs. Vandy in Tampa (or wherever) in terms of <span style="text-decoration: line-through;">even-keeled mediocrity</span> parity.

 

[dawgs.sixpack]

just saying that the idea has been floated and would give a CFB playoff a true "cinderella" feel. how often would miami(oh) win? basically never. if they did pull off the upset, then would i feel bad that lsu or ohio st went 13-0 and then lost to miami(oh) in a playoff in their home stadium? not at all. that would just show that (1) they weren't worthy of being champs and (2) that maybe their conference wasn't as tough as perceived by the media and fans.<div>
</div><div>i would like to see an 8 team playoff. 6 BCS conference champs + 2 at-large. the 2 at-large would give the boise's/tcu's a shot, the independents a shot, and the 11-1 teams that lost a tie breaker for their conference titles and what not. </div><div>
</div><div>my tweak would be that the 6 BCS conference champs would not be guaranteed a spot. for the conference champ to get a spot, at least 1 conference team must be ranked in the top 15 of a BCS type ranking. this doesn't mean the conference champ has to be ranked in the top 15, just someone in the conference. this would prevent the 2010 big east from claiming with no team better than 8-4, but would also let a team like south carolina in if they happen to win the sec by beating auburn in the 2010 sec cg because the sec would have teams in the top 15 of the BCS rankings.</div><div>
</div><div>teams like auburn wouldn't be inclined to throw a sec cg game because with a home game on the line, they can't afford to toss a game, and with only 2 at-large spots, if they toss a conf cg, there isn't a guarantee they would be able to land an at-large many years. so spare me the whole "CFB will start looking like the NFL" crap.</div>

 

[patdog]

<div>i would like to see an 8 team playoff. 6 BCS conference champs + 2 at-large. the 2 at-large would give the boise's/tcu's a shot, the independents a shot, and the 11-1 teams that lost a tie breaker for their conference titles and what not. </div>

Except I would guarantee one of the "at large" spots to the highest ranked non-BCS conference champion. Basically, 7 conference champions and 1 at-large. If you don't win your conference, you'd better be ranked real high. And Notre Dame (and now BYU), since you're not in a conference, you'd better be ranked real high (or join a conference). And no bitching about no special exceptions being made for you. Just decide if you want to play or not. But either way, STFU.

 

[dawgs.sixpack]

i like your twist too. makes it even tougher for something to fabricate some hypo where CFB teams would be tossing games imo.

 

[kired]

No reason to have more than 8 teams in a football playoff. Basically guarantee the 6 BCS conference champs a spot (but have a rule like you proposed in case one of the conferences is having a down year). Let the conferences determine their own champs however they want, and that's who they send. Then the 2 at large spots go to the highest ranked schools based on something similar to the BCS standings. You could imagine a few different variations on what to do with those 2 spots... maybe they are first offered to the highest ranked non-BCS schools in the top 10, and if none are ranked that high it opens up to the highest ranked BCS schools that are not conf champs.

Anything would be better than limiting the national championship to the two highest ranked teams. Tournaments aren't aboutdetermining the "best" team... they are about crowning a champion. Any team that can beat 3 other top 10 teams (assuming 8-team playoff) after a 12 game season is deserving of that title.