Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
InboxChat RoomChat Room (0 fans in chatroom)

What if they'd had a four-team BCS?

Posted: 6/1/2014 1:13 PM

What if they'd had a four-team BCS? 


That's the question Lindy's asks in it's 2014 football preview mag. So put together the pairings that might have existed, assuming the selection committee would reach the same top 4 as the BCS formula (yes, it's a simplifying assumption, but it's no worse than anything more speculative, so let's just bear with them a moment). Altogether there were 64 possible slots to fill. Here's how many times teams would have filled one of them in this scenario:

6 - Alabama
5 - Ohio State, Oklahoma
4 - LSU, Texas, USC, Florida State
3 - Auburn, Florida, Oregon, Miami
2 - Michigan, Nebraska, TCU, Stanford, Virginia Tech
1 - Michigan State, Penn State, Georgia, Tennessee, Kansas State, Colorado, Oklahoma State, Washington, Cincinnati, Notre Dame


Only 7 teams would have filled half (32) of the slots, and 11 more than two-thirds (44). I think it's fair to say that the emergence of a new four-team playoff likely won't widen the range of schools winning the NC beyond what the pre-BCS polls and BCS did. Mostly, it's going to be the same schools year after year. That will add to the financial pressure to expand to 8 and then 12 and then 16, so that more schools can boast about making the field. But the Final Four participants usually will be the schools in the first four or five lines above for decades to come, as they have for decades gone by. The more things change...

NOTE: Wisconsin wouldn't have made the field even once.
These ARE the Good Old Days.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/1/2014 2:44 PM

Re: What if they'd had a four-team BCS? 


I sure hope they don't expand beyond 4. Hopefully, the powers that be can block that as long as possible.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/1/2014 3:08 PM

Re: What if they'd had a four-team BCS? 


Stay at 4. It is hard enough to beat great teams two times in a row, let aloe having to beat a great team 3 times in a row right after you already played in a conference title game.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/1/2014 5:46 PM

Re: What if they'd had a four-team BCS? 


It will be interesting to see how the POS [PlayOff System]  matches up to the BCS over the years. I assume the BCS will track things just as a FYI sort of thing.

I wasn't born in Wisconsin, but I got here as soon as I could.

Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/1/2014 5:54 PM

Re: What if they'd had a four-team BCS? 



Ph3431 wrote: I sure hope they don't expand beyond 4. Hopefully, the powers that be can block that as long as possible.
Yeah, going with more than 4 teams really has ruined the NFL. confused

Engage the good posters, ignore the bad, report as inappropriate the problems. Message board rules. Thanks.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/1/2014 6:06 PM

Re: What if they'd had a four-team BCS? 


Colorado and CincY?
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/1/2014 11:46 PM

Re: What if they'd had a four-team BCS? 



bigmac1973 wrote: Colorado and CincY?
In 2001, Colorado was 10-2 which may have been good enough I guess? Cincinnati went undefeated a few years back but got massacred by Florida in a non-championship BCS game
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/2/2014 11:28 AM

Re: What if they'd had a four-team BCS? 



OlBadger wrote: That's the question Lindy's asks in it's 2014 football preview mag. So put together the pairings that might have existed, assuming the selection committee would reach the same top 4 as the BCS formula (yes, it's a simplifying assumption, but it's no worse than anything more speculative, so let's just bear with them a moment). Altogether there were 64 possible slots to fill. Here's how many times teams would have filled one of them in this scenario:

6 - Alabama
5 - Ohio State, Oklahoma
4 - LSU, Texas, USC, Florida State
3 - Auburn, Florida, Oregon, Miami
2 - Michigan, Nebraska, TCU, Stanford, Virginia Tech
1 - Michigan State, Penn State, Georgia, Tennessee, Kansas State, Colorado, Oklahoma State, Washington, Cincinnati, Notre Dame

 But the Final Four participants usually will be the schools in the first four or five lines above for decades to come, as they have for decades gone by. The more things change...

NOTE: Wisconsin wouldn't have made the field even once.
Pre-1990 you \wouldn't have seen LSU, Auburn, Florida, Oregon, TCU, Stanford, Virginia Tech, Kansas State, Cincinnati on such a list.  It's not quite as static over the decades as you might think.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/2/2014 3:14 PM

Re: What if they'd had a four-team BCS? 


"Pre-1990 you \wouldn't have seen LSU, Auburn, Florida, Oregon, TCU, Stanford, Virginia Tech, Kansas State, Cincinnati on such a list.  It's not quite as static over the decades as you might think."

I know; I've been following CFB since around 1950. However, LSU, AU, and UF would have been on such a list prior to 1990, though in UF's case only beginning in the 1980s (UF, FSU, and Miami all rose to the top during that decade, as Florida's HS population/recruiting base exploded). Oregon and VT rose to prominence during the 1990s, really for the first time, while UW came back from decades below par and Stanford always has been up and down. TCU (not a power since the 1930s) and Cincinnati (especially) are on this list only because of the eccentricities of the BCS ranking algorithm.

These ARE the Good Old Days.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/3/2014 2:55 PM

Re: What if they'd had a four-team BCS? 


It's different....but is it better? Seems like a hard argument to prove.

The NFL playoffs are great....March Madness is great....but both lack the importance of each regular season game that CF has. Personally, I'd hate to see that change.

I rarely watch the college hoops regular season...catch the NFL regular season when it's convenient....but schedule around college football.

Schedule tough and win your games if you want to control your own fate. I love that one slip up can cost you a shot at the title.

---------------------------------------------
--- multimed wrote:


Ph3431 wrote: I sure hope they don't expand beyond 4. Hopefully, the powers that be can block that as long as possible.
Yeah, going with more than 4 teams really has ruined the NFL. confused

---------------------------------------------

Last edited 6/3/2014 2:57 PM by Ph3431

Reply | Quote
  • Bmoken
  • Sophomore
  • 2439 posts this site

Posted: 6/3/2014 4:33 PM

Re: What if they'd had a four-team BCS? 


16 teams, if they could work it out, would be ideal.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/3/2014 5:01 PM

Re: What if they'd had a four-team BCS? 


I would disagree. You'd have 3-loss teams in every year (and likely multiple teams in most years) and it would reduce the importance of the regular season.

That's what makes CF great to me....and this would be a horrible change IMO.

---------------------------------------------
--- Bmoken wrote:

16 teams, if they could work it out, would be ideal.

---------------------------------------------

Last edited 6/3/2014 5:31 PM by Ph3431

Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/3/2014 6:56 PM

Re: What if they'd had a four-team BCS? 


I have no idea why so many think that college football should be more like the NFL. It has the NFL beat on many fronts. Every game matters. It commands a bigger audience. It produces more money. As for the new play-off system, this is one of the few things I agree with Olbadger on: we are going to quickly find that it is just the BCS all over again. It is marketing. It is the BCS equivalent of the Big Ten adding Rutgers and Maryland: great for TV inventory, not so much for quality of product.

Last edited 6/3/2014 6:57 PM by TheNewRed

Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/3/2014 7:03 PM

Re: What if they'd had a four-team BCS? 



TheNewRed wrote:

this is one of the few things I agree with Olbadger on:


I knew there'd be something. cool
These ARE the Good Old Days.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/3/2014 9:54 PM

Re: What if they'd had a four-team BCS? 


I actually think the quality of product does improve with a 4-team playoff because you get two more meaningful games to end the season...while still maintaining the foundation that makes college football so great (every week matters).

Embrace CF for the differences that make it so great...instead of trying to cookie-cutter the NFL model (or march madness, etc...).


---------------------------------------------
--- TheNewRed wrote:

I have no idea why so many think that college football should be more like the NFL. It has the NFL beat on many fronts. Every game matters. It commands a bigger audience. It produces more money. As for the new play-off system, this is one of the few things I agree with Olbadger on: we are going to quickly find that it is just the BCS all over again. It is marketing. It is the BCS equivalent of the Big Ten adding Rutgers and Maryland: great for TV inventory, not so much for quality of product.

---------------------------------------------
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/3/2014 10:47 PM

Re: What if they'd had a four-team BCS? 


I guess I just don't see college football regular season as really being all that different from NFL regular season. I think more than that, it's just a matter of taste that's really dictating a viewing preference. Yes each game is a little less critical - but if that is enough to push you from watching the games vs not, it's most likely true that you're just a bigger college football fan than NFL fan in the first place. 

To the degree that regular season games matter less in the NFL, the bigger factors are really more games played and a more level playing field that make more losses survivable.

Engage the good posters, ignore the bad, report as inappropriate the problems. Message board rules. Thanks.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/4/2014 1:36 AM

Re: What if they'd had a four-team BCS? 



Ph3431 wrote: ...while still maintaining the foundation that makes college football so great (every week matters).

---------------------------------------------
I'd say not every week matters in CFL.  Those 56-0 games, and there are plenty of them, do nothing for the game.


Again let me remind you Jeet Kune Do is just a name used, a boat to get one across, and once across it is to be discarded and not to be carried on one's back - Bruce Lee.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/4/2014 5:45 AM

Re: What if they'd had a four-team BCS? 


I wouldn't say that each week matters in college football under the old system. Mainly because after the first loss, every week, for every team becomes completely meaningless (except in the SEC where there was still a chance to play for the title).
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/4/2014 6:35 AM

Re: What if they'd had a four-team BCS? 


1 game can cost you a chance at the championship in college football. The same is not true in the NFL. You can lose, what, 4 games and still are guaranteed to make the playoffs? And often you could still get into the 'second season' with 5 or 6 losses.

A dreary Thursday night in Corvallis in Week 4 can cost you a chance at the championship. It's great drama. That significance drives my interest and viewing habits.

The NFL is great, specifically the playoffs, but a single regular season game/week doesn't have the same significance.

As I stated earlier, in the end, it's just a preference thing. I don't think one system is inherently better than the other...just different.

---------------------------------------------
--- multimed wrote:

I guess I just don't see college football regular season as really being all that different from NFL regular season. I think more than that, it's just a matter of taste that's really dictating a viewing preference. Yes each game is a little less critical - but if that is enough to push you from watching the games vs not, it's most likely true that you're just a bigger college football fan than NFL fan in the first place. 

To the degree that regular season games matter less in the NFL, the bigger factors are really more games played and a more level playing field that make more losses survivable.

---------------------------------------------

Last edited 6/4/2014 6:51 AM by Ph3431

Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/4/2014 6:36 AM

Re: What if they'd had a four-team BCS? 


The outcome matters if you want to win a championship. 1 game can cost you a shot at the title. That's unlike any other sport I can think of.


---------------------------------------------
--- UWRX95 wrote:


Ph3431 wrote: ...while still maintaining the foundation that makes college football so great (every week matters).

---------------------------------------------
I'd say not every week matters in CFL.  Those 56-0 games, and there are plenty of them, do nothing for the game.

---------------------------------------------
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/4/2014 6:38 AM

Re: What if they'd had a four-team BCS? 


Of course every week doesn't 'matter' for every team. The teams are paired down as the season progresses.

But several 1-loss teams (and not just the SEC) have played for a championship.

---------------------------------------------
--- TerraceChair wrote:

I wouldn't say that each week matters in college football under the old system. Mainly because after the first loss, every week, for every team becomes completely meaningless (except in the SEC where there was still a chance to play for the title).

---------------------------------------------
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/5/2014 8:58 AM

Re: What if they'd had a four-team BCS? 


So, classes, cold weather and injuries are no factor?

How many times do you want to risk these kids in one season?
Reply | Quote
  • kowitzc
  • Senior
  • 7429 posts this site

Posted: 6/5/2014 6:06 PM

Re: What if they'd had a four-team BCS? 



Ph3431 wrote: 1 game can cost you a chance at the championship in college football. The same is not true in the NFL. You can lose, what, 4 games and still are guaranteed to make the playoffs? And often you could still get into the 'second season' with 5 or 6 losses.
Seattle proved in 2010 that you can lose more than half your games and still make the playoffs.
SRS80 wrote: Arizona outclassing Wisconsin. Better athletes. Bo is losing his cool and so is the team. Zona should be up 10 at least. They will win by a comfortable margin though.

Said during Elite Eight Game UW won 64-63.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/5/2014 6:13 PM

Re: What if they'd had a four-team BCS? 


Yes, though rare, it's possible. Arizona had an extremely mediocre regular season the year they made the Super Bowl....but they got hot at the 'right time' and had a great playoff run.

There is no 'right time,' in college football....you need to stay hot the entire season.


---------------------------------------------
--- kowitzc wrote:


Ph3431 wrote: 1 game can cost you a chance at the championship in college football. The same is not true in the NFL. You can lose, what, 4 games and still are guaranteed to make the playoffs? And often you could still get into the 'second season' with 5 or 6 losses.
Seattle proved in 2010 that you can lose more than half your games and still make the playoffs.

---------------------------------------------
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/12/2014 7:53 AM

Re: What if they'd had a four-team BCS? 



Bmoken wrote: 16 teams, if they could work it out, would be ideal.

You know - I always thought a 16 team playoff would be OK, but I just thought of what that means.

First of all - the SEC would demand 4 teams be in it.  The B1G would want at least two. Either way, that makes conference championship games meaningless since both teams would get in for all the major conferences. 

You would get the top two from the big five conferences - that's 10.  Then the SEC takes two more - that's 12.  Then you take conference champions from 2 more - that's 14.  Then you pick a non-qualifying team, and of course Notre Dame gets in if they have a winning record - 16.

Therefore - 8 is the maximum number any true fan would ever want.  QED.
Reply | Quote