And undefeated Alabama would still have a shot at the le. Not to say they're going to win out, it'll be tough. But if they do, I think they deserve a shot and under the BCS they have no shot whatsoever.
Playoff > "Old Days" > BCS
You continue to overlook the fact that an undefeated Alabama team still has a shot at the AP le. The AP has awarded them a grand total of zero first place votes thus far... but I'm sure you are going to tell me that they'd be getting plenty of consideration if not for the BCS.
You're catching on. Alabama has no shot at the AP le if USC and Texas win out, precisely because of the BCS. No matter how deserving they may look or how well they may play from here on out, they have no shot. They started too far behind. You don't really expect voters to put a #3 'Bama team ahead of a #1 USC team that beats a #2 Texas team or ahead of a #2 Texas team that beat a #1 USC team do you?
The simple fact is, the BCS works in years when there are two and only two undefeated teams. That's probably going to happen this year, but it doesn't happen very often. And every time it doesn't happen (the majority of the time) somebody gets screwed. Teams getting screwed in the BCS happens way more often than split les ever did.
Too bad you aren't catching on. Bama would have no shot at the AP le even if the BCS were never invented - because it's obvious the top 2 teams are USC and UT. No one in America thinks Alabama is ahead of either of those teams. The old way would do nothing to solve it, other than we'd have a split le between USC and Texas.You're catching on. Alabama has no shot at the AP le if USC and Texas win out, precisely because of the BCS. No matter how deserving they may look or how well they may play from here on out, they have no shot. They started too far behind. You don't really expect voters to put a #3 'Bama team ahead of a #1 USC team that beats a #2 Texas team or ahead of a #2 Texas team that beat a #1 USC team do you?
Or when there are two clear cut teams at the top.The simple fact is, the BCS works in years when there are two and only two undefeated teams.
Quick, give me the number of times there has been more than 2 undefeated major conference schools under the BCS system... I can count a grand total of one.That's probably going to happen this year, but it doesn't happen very often. And every time it doesn't happen (the majority of the time) somebody gets screwed. Teams getting screwed in the BCS happens way more often than split les ever did.
On the other hand, there were 7 split national championships between 1970 and 1998. That's one out of every 4 years.
Last edited by scott; 11-07-2005 at 07:15 PM.
Which is why I have a problem with it. A playoff would give 'Bama their shot. You are right though...SC and UT win out..its over.You're catching on. Alabama has no shot at the AP le if USC and Texas win out, precisely because of the BCS. No matter how deserving they may look or how well they may play from here on out, they have no shot. They started too far behind.
I think college football should have a playoff, don't get me wrong. I think there are merits to the old system, but a playoff would be more equitable. I just don't think college football will go for it anytime in the forseeable future. And it has to be done right. If you're going to have a playoff, it needs to be more than four teams.
Bama would have a shot at the le if both USC and Texas lost their bowl games. At least it gives them something to play for. I just hate telling an undefeated team from the SEC, arguably the best conference in football, that their le hopes are over in early December. And who says both USC and Texas win their bowl games? There's nothing guaranteeing a split le in there.
Clear cut according to whom? Oklahoma was supposedly one of the clear cut teams at the top last year and they got spanked. Obviously we're not so good at deciding who's good and who's not (the point could be made here that this supports a playoff). That's too hard a call to make and even less likely than the probability of having two and only two undefeated teams.
There have only been ten split les total. Of course, when you look at a smaller data set it looks worse. But is one split le even every four years that bad? At least the team getting "screwed" gets half a le. How often has the BCS "failed"?
Granted there have only been more than two undefeated teams once in the seven years of the BCS. But, give me the number of times there has been one undefeated team and multiple one loss teams. Give me the number of times there have been no undefeated teams and more than two one loss teams. The BCS has worked twice in the seven years of its existence (2000 and 2002). Every other year, someone got screwed. That's a success rate of 28.57%. I'll take a split le every now and then over that. I can understand you arguing for a playoff system, but the BCS?
agreed.I think college football should have a playoff, don't get me wrong. I think there are merits to the old system, but a playoff would be more equitable. I just don't think college football will go for it anytime in the forseeable future. And it has to be done right. If you're going to have a playoff, it needs to be more than four teams.
So your argument is that we should schedule the top 2 teams in the country against lesser compe ion so that there is the CHANCE they both lose, giving the #3 a chance to win the le? Um... okay.Bama would have a shot at the le if both USC and Texas lost their bowl games. At least it gives them something to play for. I just hate telling an undefeated team from the SEC, arguably the best conference in football, that their le hopes are over in early December. And who says both USC and Texas win their bowl games? There's nothing guaranteeing a split le in there.
It's pretty obvious that no one thinks Alabama isn't one of the top two teams in the nation. With or without the BCS, they'd have little to no chance at a national le this year granted that UT and USC win out. In the BCS, only 1 team will win out, the old days both probably would.Clear cut according to whom? Oklahoma was supposedly one of the clear cut teams at the top last year and they got spanked. Obviously we're not so good at deciding who's good and who's not (the point could be made here that this supports a playoff). That's too hard a call to make and even less likely than the probability of having two and only two undefeated teams.
Not really sure what data you are looking at - because there have been 52 split les since there was a recognized NCAA le in 1880. There were five alone in the 60's, which brings the 1960-98 total up to 12. The data set I picked actually makes the numbers look BETTER.There have only been ten split les total. Of course, when you look at a smaller data set it looks worse. But is one split le even every four years that bad? At least the team getting "screwed" gets half a le. How often has the BCS "failed"?
But hey, how great - we get people sharing les. Everyone gets a gold star, no one gets a "C", and everyone is happy. Yaaaaaaaaaaaay!
Someone will always about someone getting screwed. Teams every year about getting screwed about not getting the #65 seed in the NCAA tourny. The BCS is a playoff... it's a two team playoff. So there is a #3 team getting screwed, I'd rather have that than the #2 team getting screwed or having endless split championships when the two splitting easily could have just played each other.
Why not just make it 117 teams, we don't anyone to feel like they are getting screwed afterall.If you're going to have a playoff, it needs to be more than four teams.
The idea is to include enough teams that you get everyone who has a reasonable shot at winning it. If the #4 team has a good chance, the #5 team probably does too. I'd say the #8 team doesn't have much of a chance, so excluding the #9 team wouldn't be a big deal. So that would settle us on an eight team playoff. Someone else might feel a sixteen team playoff would be better, but I think most people would agree four isn't really fair. Of course that's all conjecture, feel free to disagree with it. I won't scream at you and get all pissed off, I'm just trying to have a reasonable discussion about football. Calm down.
And in response to your previous post, there were a billion split les before the polls consolidated down to the two major ones, sometime around 1930-1940ish. Since then, there have been ten split les, again with a large number occuring recently. That's where I got the number from, but I didn't bookmark the source and don't feel like searching for it again. Sorry. If you know something different, feel free to post a link.
I don't want to reward everyone, but do you really feel like Alabama deserves nothing if they win out? They'd be an undefeated team in the best conference in football. Like I said, I'd rather give them a shot. And I don't feel we know the top two teams well enough (ever, although this year we'd be closer than most) to just pit them against each other. Having the #1 and #2 teams end up playing other Top 10 teams doesn't necessarily mean they're playing inferior compe ion. And yes, that would give an undefeated #3 team a shot. I don't see what's so horrible about that. It's not perfect, it's not even as good as a playoff, but it's better than the BCS. But like I said, that's my opinion. Feel free to disagree, but don't take it so personally.
Here's a list of pre-BCS National Champions.
http://www.hickoksports.com/history/cfchamps.shtml
Ok, if you want to use four thousand different polls, I guess there have been a lot of split les. Traditionally, people just refer to the writer's poll (AP) and the coaches' poll (UP/UPI -> AFCA -> USA/CNN -> USA/ESPN). And no one really counts anything from back when they played with leather helmets. Since 1952 (the closest I can tell from your website that the two major polls began), there have been 11 split les counting the one under the BCS ('54, '57, '65, '70, '73, '74, '78, '90, '91, '97, and 2003). So, ten split les in forty-six years under the traditional poll structure. My mistake. Most people tend to consider only really recent history and since I was born, there have only been three split les (four if you count 2003).
Just for fun, check this out: NCAA Listing of National Champions
EDIT: The AP poll began in the early '30s, but the coaches' poll started in '52.
I actually saw an interesting idea on another forum awhile back, but I'd be hard-pressed to see it ever come to fruition. I don't remember the exact details, but basically here's how it went:
1. Dissolve all current Div. I-A conferences (this would be next to impossible already).
2. Create new conferences based on geographic region. Each conference would have two divisions, comprised of the same number of teams. Each conference would have the same total number of teams (sorry, Notre Dame, you'll HAVE to join a conference now). There would need to be 2^n number of conferences in order to produce balanced playoff pairings.
3. Teams play the majority of their games against conference opponents, but also play teams from other conferences to boost their ranking (note: this would need to be a subjective calculation based on opponent strength as powerhouses could schedule creampuffs to take advantage).
4. At the end of the regular season, division leaders in each conference would play one another for the conference championship. Winner takes all. Team and fan travel will be small since the conference is geographically located.
5. Conferences winners would then meet in a playoff system. First round opponents could be in geographies located adjacent to one another in order to limit travel time again. Or, the playoffs could ins ute a subjective ranking and use the #1/#16, #2, #15, or whatever pairings.
6. Semi-final games could use bowl nomenclatures (e.g., Fiesta Bowl would be the Southwest Regional playoff name), if that will appease people.
7.. The national championship would be held at a predefined location each year.
Again, I thought it was far-fetched, but definately a good stab at a hot topic.
I like that...you were right...it won't happen. It is a good idea though.
Me either. I can't remember the last time a Div I-AA moved up to I-A or vice-versa, but doing that one thing would cause nationwide reverberations. Plus, I don't think the number of Div I-A schools now would create a perfectly balanced situation across all conferences.
USF did it a couple years ago. I think there are actually two provisional teams right now. Moving I-AA teams up wouldn't cause nearly as much of a ruckus as tearing apart traditional conference structures. Decent idea, but like you said: It'll never happen.
A pared down and condensed version of what I sent to Vince Dooley and Grant Teaff of the NCAA committee in 1997. I was prompted to do so personally because of the "SPLIT" NC between Nebraska-Michigan that year. I still think Nebraska would have killed them.
Until there is a decisive season where the teams play 10 games in their own conferences (No sallies/gimmees), 32 teams picked for a four region 1 vs 8 series...all the way to # 1, the DIV 1 sux.
PLAN:
Teams play 10 regular season games in their OWN CONFERENCES. No outside games or sallies. No Conference championship games. Teams are rated during the season by BCS and the top 32 get in. They are seeded 1-8 in one of four regions (N/S/E/W).
POST SEASON: (ratings based on BCS systems in place now)
1st week Region 1st round
North/South/East/West- 1v8; 2v7; 3v6; 4v5 Top seed gets home field each region
2nd week: Region semifinals
N/S/E/W winner 1v8 vs 4v5 Winner 2v7 vs 3v6 Top seed = home field each region
3rd week:
Region Finals
N/S/E/W championships Neutral site (bowl game)
4th week:
N champ vs W Champ (BIG BOWL)
S champ vs E Champ (BIG BOWL)
5th week (Games played the "off week" between the AFC/NFC Playoff Championships and Super Bowl)
Game 1 winner vs Game 2 winner (NC Game)
Game 1 Loser vs Game 2 Loser (BIG BOWL)
Remember, in college, BIG BOWLS = RECRUITING! Four BIG BOWLS still in play...ROSE/ORANGE/SUGAR/FIESTA
The eventual teams that meet in the NC game and Consolation game play in their 15th games...
This is a rough and very pared down version of what I sent to the NCAA in 1997. I had it broken into conferences as well. I think that team #33 would have a difficult time complaining about not getting in, since they would likely be with a sub .500 record).
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote