Idea to help with BCS controversy

[aufan59]

Whenever there is a controversy between two teams on who should go to the BCS Title Game, there can be a simple solution:

Send the team from the conference that has the highest winning percentage in BCS Title Games.

If a conference usually sends winners to the BCS Title Game, chances are they will send another one that year. If a conference usually sends losers to the BCS Title Game, such as the Big 12, the BCS can prevent sending another potential loser by passing them over.

This method could be used when #2 and #3 in the BCS have the same amount of losses and are separated by X amount of points in the final BCS poll.

[CJHawkeyes]

Whenever there is a controversy between two teams on who should go to the BCS Title Game, there can be a simple solution:

Send the team from the conference that has the highest winning percentage in BCS Title Games.

If a conference usually sends winners to the BCS Title Game, chances are they will send another one that year. If a conference usually sends losers to the BCS Title Game, such as the Big 12, the BCS can prevent sending another potential loser by passing them over.

This method could be used when #2 and #3 in the BCS have the same amount of losses and are separated by X amount of points in the final BCS poll.

Wouldn't a simpler solution be to adopt transparent objective rules which would separate teams on their own merits rather than reward and punish teams for what different teams did in different years that are only tied to yours by conference affiliation? It sucks that Auburn missed out in 2004 and different rules might have favored the Tigers, but what sense does it make to reward them because of what Tennessee and LSU did previously? Furthermore, why should a conference be rewarded for "rolling over" for one member just because that member wins the title game?

[Blue Hen]

LoL......no send the conference champs from the conferences that have the highest winning percentage in all games vs other BCS leagues. Such a larger sample tells you more than a few select games.

[Don]

LoL......no send the conference champs from the conferences that have the highest winning percentage in all games vs other BCS leagues. Such a larger sample tells you more than a few select games.

Looking at conference OOC BCS winning percentage only assume that the different conference played comparable ooc BCS schedules. Just as looking at winning percentage of teams alone is not a good way to determine the best team. There MUST be some sort of strength of schedule included. Without it you might as well pull names from a hat to determine the NC.

[GatorGrad]

I'm sold on CJ's objective rules idea. I mean seriously...what a concept. How hard would it be to have a simple system/formula based mostly on winning % with a SOS factor? I guess the trick is how the SOS would be computed. But as long as it was well thought out and everyone agreed ahead of time, at least there would be a reason for the "rankings" other than opinions. The polls have got to go.

[Blue Hen]

Best idea :
Bury the BCS !!!!!!!! Put CF's post season and national championship in the hands of the NCAA !!!

[Hubbs]

LoL......no send the conference champs from the conferences that have the highest winning percentage in all games vs other BCS leagues. Such a larger sample tells you more than a few select games.

I have said that since 2004. Every conference plays every team in its conference and thats it. Then when boring december gets here play the conference champs and by the time the bowls get here in January you got a legit Superbowl of college football. No more conference championship games since everyone played the same competition anyway. Then all of your arguments would hold more water than .586 winning percentages and what not. JMO

[Blue Hen]

I was just mocking AU's ridiculous suggestion with my suggestion.

There shouldn't be any two team controversy to start with. No other NCAA football championship or any other NCAA sport has two team controversies. We've got 11 annual , non voted, non opinionated, non mythical, non pretend etc. etc., champions from the regular season. Throw 'em in a playoff, let 'em play and eliminate themselves.........last team left is the champ....a 'real' champ. ...something that big time CF has never had. Simple as that.

[GatorGrad]

I was just mocking AU's ridiculous suggestion with my suggestion.

There shouldn't be any two team controversy to start with. No other NCAA football championship or any other NCAA sport has two team controversies. We've got 11 annual , non voted, non opinionated, non mythical, non pretend etc. etc., champions from the regular season. Throw 'em in a playoff, let 'em play and eliminate themselves.........last team left is the champ....a 'real' champ. ...something that big time CF has never had. Simple as that.

Actually, we can have more than 11 annual conference champs, unfortunately. The Big Ten, PAC 10, Big East, etc can produce 2-3 "conference champs." And the Big Ten could produce two 8-0 teams that don't even play each other! They really need to get that fixed...

[CJHawkeyes]

Actually, we can have more than 11 annual conference champs, unfortunately. The Big Ten, PAC 10, Big East, etc can produce 2-3 "conference champs." And the Big Ten could produce two 8-0 teams that don't even play each other! They really need to get that fixed...

The Pac-10 and BE play round robin schedules. Therefore, they can determine one champion just like the SEC determines one champion for each division.

[Blue Hen]

yep, good point

[GatorGrad]

The Pac-10 and BE play round robin schedules. Therefore, they can determine one champion just like the SEC determines one champion for each division.

Not really true. If two teams finish tied for first place at 8-1 in the PAC 10, they are co-champs. Same for if three teams finish tied for first place. Same deal in the Big East. You would think that they would go to head to head followed by other tiebreakers to break such ties and name ONE champ, just like the SEC does for their division championships, but they do not. They DO have tiebreakers in place for who gets the conference's BCS Autobid however. But both teams go into the record books as conference champs, and each school claims the title. It's bad enough that we have to deal with co-champs at the National Championship level. I see no reason why we should have to deal with co-champs at the CONFERENCE level when there are no more than 12 teams and plenty of games to use to determine one true champ. Oh well...that's college football for ya.

[CJHawkeyes]

Not really true. If two teams finish tied for first place at 8-1 in the PAC 10, they are co-champs. Same for if three teams finish tied for first place. Same deal in the Big East. You would think that they would go to head to head followed by other tiebreakers to break such ties and name ONE champ, just like the SEC does for their division championships, but they do not. They DO have tiebreakers in place for who gets the conference's BCS Autobid however. But both teams go into the record books as conference champs, and each school claims the title. It's bad enough that we have to deal with co-champs at the National Championship level. I see no reason why we should have to deal with co-champs at the CONFERENCE level when there are no more than 12 teams and plenty of games to use to determine one true champ. Oh well...that's college football for ya.

Well, if Blue Hen's playoff suggestion were implemented, the team winning the tiebreaker would have the share of the title that matters most. The fact that all tied teams go down as co-champs now and perhaps under the hypothetical is not really important.

[AJBuckeye]

How about look at head to head bowl competition in the BCS era. For example if it was between Iowa and Georgia we should look at how the 2 conferences have competed in the BCS era. Since the Big 10 has won more head to head games against the SEC in the BCS era then Iowa should be selected.

[Don]

How about look at head to head bowl competition in the BCS era. For example if it was between Iowa and Georgia we should look at how the 2 conferences have competed in the BCS era. Since the Big 10 has won more head to head games against the SEC in the BCS era then Iowa should be selected.

If you are looking at conference head-to-head games why limit it to bowl games? As if I can't guess ;) !!

[GatorGrad]

How about look at head to head bowl competition in the BCS era. For example if it was between Iowa and Georgia we should look at how the 2 conferences have competed in the BCS era. Since the Big 10 has won more head to head games against the SEC in the BCS era then Iowa should be selected.

How about we look at head to head records in BCS Championship Games? :)

[CJHawkeyes]

I still think the rules I devised should be used.:D

[Trojangles]

The interest and revenue in college football has never been higher since the BCS format was adopted. End of story.

[Blue Hen]

right !.......Paris Hilton and the BCS........ very high public interest. That's way more important than integrity in Sport.

[AJBuckeye]

Now isn't that hitting below the belt:) I was just trying to keep pace with the logic of this thread.