BCS Alternative

Discussion in 'The Tiger's Den' started by TC, Oct 8, 2007.

  1. TC

    TC Le Big Mac

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2005
    Messages:
    663
    Likes Received:
    77
    I was tempted to sign the petition, till I read their rules.

    http://nobcs.net/plan.php

    By their calculations, the final four last year would have been #1 Ohio St. vs. #4 Boise St. and #2 Florida vs. #3 Louisville?

    The "You must be a conference champion" rule throws everything for a loop. Simply because some conferences are much tougher than others.

    I say do a plus one just by taking the top 4 BCS teams. (And make Notre Dame ineligible for anything until they join the Big 10.) Last year it would have been #1 Ohio St. vs. #4 LSU and #2 Florida vs. #3 Michigan.

    This way LSU and Florida would have played for the national title last year because they were the two best teams.

    Just as they are this year. :helmet:
     
  2. lsu-i-like

    lsu-i-like Playoff advocate

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2004
    Messages:
    17,186
    Likes Received:
    8,494
    If I get started on a playoff discussion I'll end up saying a lot more than people want to hear, I reckon. :cool:

    LSU was good enough to play for a NC last year, but I wouldn't have had them going. A small playoff has to be very efficient, but somewhat inclusive and diverse. We weren't undefeated and we weren't conference champions, so we didn't deserve to play for a NC.
     
  3. Robidoux87

    Robidoux87 You call that a double?

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2005
    Messages:
    1,617
    Likes Received:
    1,485
    LSU was fortunate to make it to the Sugar Bowl after two losses and not even participating in the SECCG.
     
  4. K_Jay

    K_Jay Founding Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    Messages:
    254
    Likes Received:
    31
    A 4 team playoff would be the way to go, but it shouldn't be "inclusive and diverse". You could just take the top 4 teams using the original BCS formula before they started f ing with it to benefit certain teams that pollsters felt should have been in the BCS CG. The original formula weighted the computers as much as human polls(which are obivously biased). But the way the computers are now are basically useless because that took out all the factors that computers are good at computing, like margin of victory (up to 21 points) and strength of schedule. Put that back in and chances are you'll get the 4 most deserving teams. For example, the Sagarin computer poll that uses margin of victory (his 'predicator' ranking) has florida ranked #5 right now, which in reality is probably where they should be if you base it purely on how good a team is and not just straight up off there record. While the Sagarin computer ranking taking out margin of victory, which is the one used for the BCS has Florida ranked #21 which is purely ridiculous.
     
  5. BrettStah

    BrettStah Tiger Fan

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2003
    Messages:
    1,007
    Likes Received:
    69
    Playing devil's advocate (because I would support just about any 4-16 team playoff system over what we have now), if a team had to win their conference, that would add even more excitement to the conference games.
     
  6. lsu-i-like

    lsu-i-like Playoff advocate

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2004
    Messages:
    17,186
    Likes Received:
    8,494
    I believe well designed computer rankings are the better standard, but some of the computer rankings are completely off. The BCS seems to use more of this type of computer ranking for some reason.

    Just taking the top 4 teams isn't the best way to do it. A diverse playoff would spread the wealth and eliminate ranking errors caused by teams being in the same conference (one team's high ranking can falsely cause other teams around it to rise). By bringing in a diverse group of schools (multiple conferences) you ensure that the final champion is more likely the true champion (not to mention it gets a wider spread of people involved).

    An inclusive playoff would give nonBCS teams a chance, and I think it is becoming more and more apparent that nonBCS teams deserve that chance. There is an inherent bias against nonBCS teams included in ranking teams. That doesn't mean they should have a cake walk, but they deserve a fair shot.

    It is also possible (though unlikely) that 4 teams would not be enough. I believe a flexible playoff is the way to go (though more than 6 teams will probably never be needed).
     

Share This Page