How Should the National Championship Be Decided

[RedStar]

There's been a lot of playoff talk on the board lately, and I'm sure many of you know exactly where I stand on the issue. In the past year or so I've flipped sides, and it got me thinking, how many other people have changed their view of the current system? Here is a link to an old thread from 2006 with the same poll. I'm curious to see how much has changed in 3 years. I'd encourage you not to look at the old poll until you've voted in this one.

Let lengthy discussion ensue. . .

 

[TideFan in AU]

The plus one system would be the only way I can think of that doesn't ruin the importance of the regular season IMO. The fact that every game matters is what separates college football from every other sport and I feel like changing that ruins the game.
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[TRich3]

Don't think they are ever going to change it, because no matter what you can't please everyone. A playoff would be exciting and fun but it favors the smaller schools and the BCS system favors the larger schools. But the smaller schools continue to make pushes, it won't be long untill they are getting seriously discussed in NC talk. Actually this year if Texas loses TCU could be in the NC game. A playoff would be cool IMO but some teams would end up playing 14-15 games a year.

 

[CrimsonJag]

When the "smaller schools" start playing schedules comparable to, ohhhh, the SEC, then their complaints might not fall on deaf ears.

As long as they continue to play the Idaho's, San Jose States, etc., no one wants to hear about it.

 

[time_4_the_TIDE]

 

[TRUTIDE]

When the "smaller schools" start playing schedules comparable to, ohhhh, the SEC, then their complaints might not fall on deaf ears.

As long as they continue to play the Idaho's, San Jose States, etc., no one wants to hear about it.

I agree.

I'm more against a playoff system because of the way they normally weed the SEC out in basketball and baseball. It would be great the first few years when we might have multiple SEC teams in the top 10 but would nosedive quickly when they started pairing SEC teams up against each other in the early rounds.

There is no perfect way. Even with the BCS, the SEC usually beats up on each other in league play. At least the winner of the SECCG will usually have a chance to play for it all.

I think a +1 system would favor the SEC the most.

 

[dWarriors88]

I like the BCS

 

[KrAzY3]

I worked out a +1 trigger but the problem is I could only find one point in which it would have triggered (prior to bowl games the #3 team would have to have a record equal or greater [wins-losses] to the 1 and 2 teams, otherwise the assumption is the best team is in the game). Auburn is the only team that would have had a +1 trigger, so that's a pretty good success rate. I'm not inclined to start arguing for any +1 since A: I don't think playoff advocates would go along with my trigger and B: It shows that the current system works just fine.

People keep forgetting we're not trying to crown a post season champ, we are trying to prove who is the best team for that year. If the #1 team is clearly in the BCS game, there is no need to play more. Another interesting note is that my formula backs up the BCS choices in 2003 since USC had less wins than both USC and OU.

Finally, I can only find two instances (2003 and 2004) in which a +1 would have potentially cleared up controversy. Is that worth the cost of mandating teams play a extra game every single year? Because a couple times a decade it might settle a argument? For that we'd try to make a Alabama or a Florida go 15-0? What if either team lost in the +1? Do we say a 14 win SEC champ isn't the best team out there? I think we'd be tossing out one type of controversy for another.

Anyway, long story longer, I voted for BCS because SEC championship game wasn't a option...

 

[TRUTIDE]

I worked out a +1 trigger but the problem is I could only find one point in which it would have triggered (prior to bowl games the #3 team would have to have a record equal or greater [wins-losses] to the 1 and 2 teams, otherwise the assumption is the best team is in the game). Auburn is the only team that would have had a +1 trigger, so that's a pretty good success rate. I'm not inclined to start arguing for any +1 since A: I don't think playoff advocates would go along with my trigger and B: It shows that the current system works just fine.

People keep forgetting we're not trying to crown a post season champ, we are trying to prove who is the best team for that year. If the #1 team is clearly in the BCS game, there is no need to play more. Another interesting note is that my formula backs up the BCS choices in 2003 since USC had less wins than both USC and OU.

Finally, I can only find two instances (2003 and 2004) in which a +1 would have potentially cleared up controversy. Is that worth the cost of mandating teams play a extra game every single year? Because a couple times a decade it might settle a argument? For that we'd try to make a Alabama or a Florida go 15-0? What if either team lost in the +1? Do we say a 14 win SEC champ isn't the best team out there? I think we'd be tossing out one type of controversy for another.

Anyway, long story longer, I voted for BCS because SEC championship game wasn't a option...

While I understand your reasoning, I can see no scenerio where it would be justified for a 11-0 TCU team to play for a NC over a 1 loss SEC team. It seems that this is the direction the BCS is headed. There have been too many close calls in the past 10 or so years. Regardless of how one feels about the barners, what happened to them was a crime against the SEC.

There is always going to be some Boise State, Cincinatti, or Utah team that will make it through a weak schedule to end up undefeated. Conference champions will not always tell the tale either when we just had two middle of the road SEC teams beat the two teams playing for the ACC championship. The whole month off before crowning a BCSNC is kinda gives the old system some merit as well.

There is no perfect system but I think BCS is much better than a playoff system ever could be. Adding a +1 system to the BCS would play out better for the SEC.

 

[KrAzY3]

Adding a +1 system to the BCS would play out better for the SEC.

Let's see... the BCS put Saban in the championship and allowed him to get a championship and it kept a Auburn team with no out of conference difficulty out of the BCS. I'll take those results...

A +1 is basically saying we redo the SEC championship on years like this. What's the point of playing it if they both go into a +1? The BCS has worked out quite well for the SEC and had consistently given the SEC a opportunity to win championships (and they have taken advantage of every one of those opportunities). The BCS has only had 11 championships, the SEC has 5 of those. Of the previous 11 championships (even counting splits by major organizations) the SEC had two.

I'm liking the system that worked best for the SEC and I'm not seeing the logic or the standings to indicate the SEC wins more championships with a different system. The BCS works tremendously well for the SEC and this year and last year both gave Alabama a clear path to a championship.

Edit:

I can see no scenerio where it would be justified for a 11-0 TCU team to play for a NC over a 1 loss SEC team.

How on earth could a playoff or a +1 exclude that possibility? It increases that possibility because it puts teams like that in for sure. Also, if you want to talk about close calls, well a extra game is a extra chance for a close call to be the difference. I'm failing to see the logic in arguing that including TCU for sure will somehow prevent TCU from playing for a championship. Your scenario just makes that more likely on any given year...

 

[mjstide]

I used to like the idea of a playoff before i actually began thinking about it....

Do we want a boring nearly meaningless regular season like NCAA basketball?

Do we want to give teams even less of a reason to schedule even decent out of confrence games? (think about it, you have to try and pad your schedule now to fit into 2 spots and people still refuse to even schedule 1 other BCS school imagine if you only had to make it into the top 8 or 16)

Look at the teams that are currently 7th and 8th... 2 loss Oregon and Ohio State, do we really need to reward their mediocrity with a chance at a championship???

The facts are that a playoff works in the NFL because the talent is more even spread so the scheduling pretty much weeds out the best team. A playoff in college football would not prove who the best team was the whole season it would just prove who was hot at the right time. The BCS makes every week a semi-playoff atmosphere because you have to win. Yes there is controversy... but who cares? There will always be controversy whats to say that team #8 is so much better than team #9? So if you want a regular season where teams lose games and say "O well we can afford a few losses and we will still get in the playoffs", you wanna watch every major confrence team play FCS and bottom lvl FBS teams out of confrence, and you want to reward a generally mediocre season with a shot at a championship then go ahead scream for a playoff....

 

[time_4_the_TIDE]

While I understand your reasoning, I can see no scenerio where it would be justified for a 11-0 TCU team to play for a NC over a 1 loss SEC team. It seems that this is the direction the BCS is headed. There have been too many close calls in the past 10 or so years. Regardless of how one feels about the barners, what happened to them was a crime against the SEC.

There is always going to be some Boise State, Cincinatti, or Utah team that will make it through a weak schedule to end up undefeated. Conference champions will not always tell the tale either when we just had two middle of the road SEC teams beat the two teams playing for the ACC championship. The whole month off before crowning a BCSNC is kinda gives the old system some merit as well.

There is no perfect system but I think BCS is much better than a playoff system ever could be. Adding a +1 system to the BCS would play out better for the SEC.

While that may be so, them not going in 2004 was directly related to their performance against USC in the regular season of 2003. If they would have played a better game and not been blown out at home then they may have gotten to the NCG. While I don't think it is fair to judge a team on their past season, there is without a doubt a DIRECT connection to AU not getting the nod with their poor performance the previous yr. The voters didn't want another repeat performance between AU and USC, yet what they got was even worse as USC destroyed OU. They may have done the same thing to AU but we will never know. Although I think the only miss by the BCS being this game was a direct result of the AU football teams play the previous yr ultimately putting the majority of the blame firmly on the shoulders of the AU FB program and not the BCS.

 

[time_4_the_TIDE]

Fact of the matter is there is way too much $$$ involved for it to ever go to a playoff unless the gov't gets involved which IMO, they have no business doing. Country is slowly going socialist and allowing them to control our sports is just another way for the man to tighten his grip and a huge mistake. They are bailing out the rich and making the common pay for it, they spent millions of tax dollars if not more on the steroid debacle in MLB that the common man is having to pay for, it is all complete idiocy. Not my fault the heads of these banks screwed up, not my fault MLB players used steroids and other enhancing drugs, so how is my responsibility to pay for it???? Classic taxation without representation just in the modern era....we have already ruined a bunch of really good tea for this once in Boston and we are headed that way again.......OK I got into politics there but anyway the only way I see a play-off coming in, is if it is forced upon us by the gov't.

 

[SouthHSV]

A playoff would benefit other conferences a lot more than it would the SEC. We play a tough enough conference schedule as it is, and it bothers me when people want to argue for a tougher OOC line-up. It's hard enough already.

 

[2003TIDE]

Problem with playoff is it turns college into the NFL. Currently all games matter. If you go to a playoff teams could lose a couple get hot and win it all. I don't like this. Right now teams must win every game in order to win the NC. Plus with a playoff you are always going to have a complainer on the outside looking in. If you go to a 4 team playoff #5 complains. 8 team playoff #9 complains etc.

IMO the playoff system isn't a better option.

I personally think you force everyone into a conference with a championship game. You have to win your conference championship to win the national championship. You preserve the bowl system and do a plus one with the top 4 teams.

 

[Nick4Bama]

I personally think you force everyone into a conference with a championship game. You have to win your conference championship to win the national championship. You preserve the bowl system and do a plus one with the top 4 teams.

That's the key. I believe the pac and big 11 do not play a conference chamionship game now because they can get into the BCS championship game without it. Why take a chance of a one loss team beating a undefeated ohio state or usc, and as a result knock them out of the BCS Championship game. A conference championship game would be a money maker for both conferences. Because of this I truly believe they like having the advantage of not having to play a conference championship game.

Look at the Rose Bowl tie in those 2 conferences have had for 40 years. It was the biggest money bowl for 50 years, and no one else was allowed to go.

I have an idea. Why not have the SEC, Big 12, and ACC have a playoff. We can stick it to the pac and big 11, and enjoy the payout, like they did the rest of the country till they get in line and implement a conference championship game.

 

[GrayTide]

If every team (ND included) is in a conference with a championship game and only the conference winners get to a BCS bowl then I am in favor of a playoff, if not then a +1 is better than what we currently have.

 

[RT3413]

Three things....

1. It's funny how when we're in a position to play our way into the BCS game vs being a one-loss team and needing "help" to get in how the preference changes.

2. For those that talk about a playoff turning the season into "meaningless" like college basketball I think you're missing the point. In college basketball nearly 20% of all teams make the post season (65 of 347), even more if you include the NIT. A playoff in college football would be - at most - 8 teams, meaning 6.7%. For those that talk about the NFL, the percentage is 37%. I actually think the best pick would be 6 (5%) - two have byes and the other 4 play in.

3. A plus one just doesn't seem to get us much in the end. Look at this year... even in the best scenario two of the three "smaller" undefeateds could finish the season that way (assuming Boise and TCU meet in the Fiesta) and would have a legitimate argument that they should play us... but which one?

I really think a 6-team, 5 game playoff works well. You could even keep the current bowl structure intact... Rose, Sugar, Fiesta, Orange and the BCS game. In fact, I think it would only serve to STRENGTHEN those bowls in the long run.

 

[2003TIDE]

I really think a 6-team, 5 game playoff works well. You could even keep the current bowl structure intact... Rose, Sugar, Fiesta, Orange and the BCS game. In fact, I think it would only serve to STRENGTHEN those bowls in the long run.

It works well until #7 is undefeated and then you are back where you started.

 

[2003TIDE]

playoff isn't a fix all. I think in the end it will end up being worse.