Mark Cuban to try to fund/create BCS alternative

[SpongeWorthy]

I don't see how the 14th best team, or whatever, is less deserving of a shot at the title than basically any other marginal team in every sport that uses a playoff system (basically all of them).

 

If Boise or whatever ran the table in a playoff system and won it all who would have a problem with it? Besides goony

[Formerly Snayke]

I don't see how the 14th best team, or whatever, is less deserving of a shot at the title than basically any other marginal team in every sport that uses a playoff system (basically all of them).

 

If Boise or whatever ran the table in a playoff system and won it all who would have a problem with it? Besides goony

 

I'd have a problem with it, mostly because I hate seeing good story lines in sports. I cried when Butler reached the title game.

 

But seriously, the argument that the tournament would somehow be diluted if a higher seed got in, that doesn't even hold water since everything about how college sports is ranked is completely arbitrary.

[rawaction]

I don't see how the 14th best team, or whatever, is less deserving of a shot at the title than basically any other marginal team in every sport that uses a playoff system (basically all of them).

 

If Boise or whatever ran the table in a playoff system and won it all who would have a problem with it? Besides goony

 

The only real issues with marginal teams in the playoffs are from the NBA and NHL. The NFL has had a weak NFC West for a few years now, but 1 of those teams went to and nearly won the Superbowl. Plus, you're still talking about only 12 of 32 teams getting in the playoffs, and most teams earn their way by winning either 10 games or beating other contenders head-to-head. MLB only allows 4 teams from each league of 30, no complaints there. NBA and NHL have over 1/2 the teams getting in which is [expletive]. But at least in the NHL, it has been proven that anything can happen in the playoffs, and you often have lower seeds doing very well. So, that leaves the NBA as the only legit complaint.

 

And I think the real problem isn't a team like Boise running the table in the tourney. It's a team like Alabama or LSU who has had chances to beat heavyweights and have failed 2-3 times. They are probably still good enough to do some damage in the tournament, but their inability to beat those tops teams shouldn't get rewarded with a chance at a national title. A team with 1 slip-up like Boise is one thing, whether it's against a mediocre team or not. But a team that starts the year ranked high but loses 2 or 3 tough games is another.

 

Alabama starting the season #1 pretty much guarantees them a shot at the national championship, because unless they lose 4 times they are going to finish ranked high enough to get in the tourney.

[shnsajax]

I don't see how the 14th best team, or whatever, is less deserving of a shot at the title than basically any other marginal team in every sport that uses a playoff system (basically all of them).

 

If Boise or whatever ran the table in a playoff system and won it all who would have a problem with it? Besides goony

 

The only real issues with marginal teams in the playoffs are from the NBA and NHL. The NFL has had a weak NFC West for a few years now, but 1 of those teams went to and nearly won the Superbowl. Plus, you're still talking about only 12 of 32 teams getting in the playoffs, and most teams earn their way by winning either 10 games or beating other contenders head-to-head. MLB only allows 4 teams from each league of 30, no complaints there. NBA and NHL have over 1/2 the teams getting in which is [expletive]. But at least in the NHL, it has been proven that anything can happen in the playoffs, and you often have lower seeds doing very well. So, that leaves the NBA as the only legit complaint.

 

And I think the real problem isn't a team like Boise running the table in the tourney. It's a team like Alabama or LSU who has had chances to beat heavyweights and have failed 2-3 times. They are probably still good enough to do some damage in the tournament, but their inability to beat those tops teams shouldn't get rewarded with a chance at a national title. A team with 1 slip-up like Boise is one thing, whether it's against a mediocre team or not. But a team that starts the year ranked high but loses 2 or 3 tough games is another.

 

Alabama starting the season #1 pretty much guarantees them a shot at the national championship, because unless they lose 4 times they are going to finish ranked high enough to get in the tourney.

 

Exactly the regular season still needs to hold a whole lot of weight, that value drops a lot just going from 8 to 16 teams.

[Banedon]

I don't see how the 14th best team, or whatever, is less deserving of a shot at the title than basically any other marginal team in every sport that uses a playoff system (basically all of them).

 

If Boise or whatever ran the table in a playoff system and won it all who would have a problem with it? Besides goony

 

The only real issues with marginal teams in the playoffs are from the NBA and NHL. The NFL has had a weak NFC West for a few years now, but 1 of those teams went to and nearly won the Superbowl. Plus, you're still talking about only 12 of 32 teams getting in the playoffs, and most teams earn their way by winning either 10 games or beating other contenders head-to-head. MLB only allows 4 teams from each league of 30, no complaints there. NBA and NHL have over 1/2 the teams getting in which is [expletive]. But at least in the NHL, it has been proven that anything can happen in the playoffs, and you often have lower seeds doing very well. So, that leaves the NBA as the only legit complaint.

 

And I think the real problem isn't a team like Boise running the table in the tourney. It's a team like Alabama or LSU who has had chances to beat heavyweights and have failed 2-3 times. They are probably still good enough to do some damage in the tournament, but their inability to beat those tops teams shouldn't get rewarded with a chance at a national title. A team with 1 slip-up like Boise is one thing, whether it's against a mediocre team or not. But a team that starts the year ranked high but loses 2 or 3 tough games is another.

 

Alabama starting the season #1 pretty much guarantees them a shot at the national championship, because unless they lose 4 times they are going to finish ranked high enough to get in the tourney.

 

Nobody says that tourney selection has to be based on the polls though. Establish a committee to determine participants and seeding, like the basketball tourney does.

[SpongeWorthy]

I don't see how the 14th best team, or whatever, is less deserving of a shot at the title than basically any other marginal team in every sport that uses a playoff system (basically all of them).

 

If Boise or whatever ran the table in a playoff system and won it all who would have a problem with it? Besides goony

 

The only real issues with marginal teams in the playoffs are from the NBA and NHL. The NFL has had a weak NFC West for a few years now, but 1 of those teams went to and nearly won the Superbowl. Plus, you're still talking about only 12 of 32 teams getting in the playoffs, and most teams earn their way by winning either 10 games or beating other contenders head-to-head. MLB only allows 4 teams from each league of 30, no complaints there. NBA and NHL have over 1/2 the teams getting in which is [expletive]. But at least in the NHL, it has been proven that anything can happen in the playoffs, and you often have lower seeds doing very well. So, that leaves the NBA as the only legit complaint.

 

And I think the real problem isn't a team like Boise running the table in the tourney. It's a team like Alabama or LSU who has had chances to beat heavyweights and have failed 2-3 times. They are probably still good enough to do some damage in the tournament, but their inability to beat those tops teams shouldn't get rewarded with a chance at a national title. A team with 1 slip-up like Boise is one thing, whether it's against a mediocre team or not. But a team that starts the year ranked high but loses 2 or 3 tough games is another.

 

Alabama starting the season #1 pretty much guarantees them a shot at the national championship, because unless they lose 4 times they are going to finish ranked high enough to get in the tourney.

 

These are fair points. I would get rid of polls for at least the first 6 weeks of the season or so. You'd still have a bias towards powerhouse programs but there'd be less anchoring effects going on in the rankings.

[Warpticon]

conference championship games will be a farce. In the past, a team like Auburn would suffer if they lost the SEC championship, not in a 16 team tourny. 4 and 5 loss teams will get in with regularity. Teams that would finish 2-10 in a real conference will get in.

 

This year there is 1 team with more than 2 losses in the Top 16 of the BCS, and it's Alabama.

 

It won't just be top 16 BCS teams.

And 2 losses is too many.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_LSU_Tigers_football_team

[erik316wttn]

If/when it happens I just hope to hell it's not something stupid like 16 teams or all conference champs are invited. 4 is plenty, but if you need 6 or 8 it's marginally acceptable.

 

Why would something like "all conference champs are invited" be a bad thing? 11 conference champions and 5 WC teams sounds fair to me. And if they're so bad they won't make it past the first round, now will they?

[jersey cubs fan]

If/when it happens I just hope to hell it's not something stupid like 16 teams or all conference champs are invited. 4 is plenty, but if you need 6 or 8 it's marginally acceptable.

 

Why would something like "all conference champs are invited" be a bad thing? 11 conference champions and 5 WC teams sounds fair to me. And if they're so bad they won't make it past the first round, now will they?

 

 

so they shouldn't be there.

[rawaction]

If/when it happens I just hope to hell it's not something stupid like 16 teams or all conference champs are invited. 4 is plenty, but if you need 6 or 8 it's marginally acceptable.

 

Why would something like "all conference champs are invited" be a bad thing? 11 conference champions and 5 WC teams sounds fair to me. And if they're so bad they won't make it past the first round, now will they?

 

Yeah, but you'd still have to waste your time watching bad teams getting beat badly in the first round. I don't need to see Auburn beat the dogcrap out of Miami (OH) or Oregon vs. Troy.

 

I'm actually in full support of all the BCS conference winners getting in, even with the Big East being so bad. But you're stretching it to put the MAC and Sun Belt in there.

[bukie]

If/when it happens I just hope to hell it's not something stupid like 16 teams or all conference champs are invited. 4 is plenty, but if you need 6 or 8 it's marginally acceptable.

 

Why would something like "all conference champs are invited" be a bad thing? 11 conference champions and 5 WC teams sounds fair to me. And if they're so bad they won't make it past the first round, now will they?

 

Yeah, but you'd still have to waste your time watching bad teams getting beat badly in the first round. I don't need to see Auburn beat the dogcrap out of Miami (OH) or Oregon vs. Troy.

 

I'm actually in full support of all the BCS conference winners getting in, even with the Big East being so bad. But you're stretching it to put the MAC and Sun Belt in there.

I'd just prefer a rule that your conference champ has to be in the BCS top 25 to get invited. That way it protects conference champs a little bit while avoiding complete cupcake games in the first round.

[Banedon]

If/when it happens I just hope to hell it's not something stupid like 16 teams or all conference champs are invited. 4 is plenty, but if you need 6 or 8 it's marginally acceptable.

 

Why would something like "all conference champs are invited" be a bad thing? 11 conference champions and 5 WC teams sounds fair to me. And if they're so bad they won't make it past the first round, now will they?

 

Yeah, but you'd still have to waste your time watching bad teams getting beat badly in the first round. I don't need to see Auburn beat the dogcrap out of Miami (OH) or Oregon vs. Troy.

 

I'm actually in full support of all the BCS conference winners getting in, even with the Big East being so bad. But you're stretching it to put the MAC and Sun Belt in there.

 

lol...I love the idea that your time is being wasted watching football games. Yeah, if only we weren't subjected to James Madison vs Virginia Tech. Or Appalachian State vs Michigan.

 

There's "waste your time" games every year...and sometimes, there's upsets. And if there isn't...fine...what's lost?

 

It's not like every bowl is drawing a huge audience.

[rawaction]

If/when it happens I just hope to hell it's not something stupid like 16 teams or all conference champs are invited. 4 is plenty, but if you need 6 or 8 it's marginally acceptable.

 

Why would something like "all conference champs are invited" be a bad thing? 11 conference champions and 5 WC teams sounds fair to me. And if they're so bad they won't make it past the first round, now will they?

 

Yeah, but you'd still have to waste your time watching bad teams getting beat badly in the first round. I don't need to see Auburn beat the dogcrap out of Miami (OH) or Oregon vs. Troy.

 

I'm actually in full support of all the BCS conference winners getting in, even with the Big East being so bad. But you're stretching it to put the MAC and Sun Belt in there.

 

lol...I love the idea that your time is being wasted watching football games. Yeah, if only we weren't subjected to James Madison vs Virginia Tech. Or Appalachian State vs Michigan.

 

There's "waste your time" games every year...and sometimes, there's upsets. And if there isn't...fine...what's lost?

 

It's not like every bowl is drawing a huge audience.

 

No, there aren't upsets "sometimes". There are upsets "once in a blue moon." And those waste of time games are played week 1 and week 2 of the season, not in a postseason tournament to determine the national champion. What's lost is time and putting a team in a game they have no business being in. There's also a chance for injuries to a team playing a game they shouldn't have to. Auburn going undefeated in the SEC shouldn't have to risk injury playing a 1st round game against a team having no business on the field with them.

 

This isn't NCAA basketball, where a 16 from a small conference can give major 1 a run for it's money for 30-35 minutes.

[Banedon]

If/when it happens I just hope to hell it's not something stupid like 16 teams or all conference champs are invited. 4 is plenty, but if you need 6 or 8 it's marginally acceptable.

 

Why would something like "all conference champs are invited" be a bad thing? 11 conference champions and 5 WC teams sounds fair to me. And if they're so bad they won't make it past the first round, now will they?

 

Yeah, but you'd still have to waste your time watching bad teams getting beat badly in the first round. I don't need to see Auburn beat the dogcrap out of Miami (OH) or Oregon vs. Troy.

 

I'm actually in full support of all the BCS conference winners getting in, even with the Big East being so bad. But you're stretching it to put the MAC and Sun Belt in there.

 

lol...I love the idea that your time is being wasted watching football games. Yeah, if only we weren't subjected to James Madison vs Virginia Tech. Or Appalachian State vs Michigan.

 

There's "waste your time" games every year...and sometimes, there's upsets. And if there isn't...fine...what's lost?

 

It's not like every bowl is drawing a huge audience.

 

No, there aren't upsets "sometimes". There are upsets "once in a blue moon." And those waste of time games are played week 1 and week 2 of the season, not in a postseason tournament to determine the national champion. What's lost is time and putting a team in a game they have no business being in. There's also a chance for injuries to a team playing a game they shouldn't have to. Auburn going undefeated in the SEC shouldn't have to risk injury playing a 1st round game against a team having no business on the field with them.

 

This isn't NCAA basketball, where a 16 from a small conference can give major 1 a run for it's money for 30-35 minutes.

 

I'll concede that maybe allowing each conference champ a spot in a playoff with no other consideration might be overreaching. I think allowing any conference champ that is in the top 25 a spot in the playoff would be reasonable though.

[SouthSideRyan]

I'd be pretty [expletive] pissed if I was the 6th at-large BCS ranked team left out for some awful 7-5 FIU team.

[Soul]

I'd just go with the existing rankings, and put the top 16 in.

 

I think most of the strong arguments come from a team not making a BCS game, or not making the national championship game. But those are all going to be top ranked teams. It gets harder for me to justify being upset when we're talking about a #17 being left out, vs. a #5 or something like that.

 

It's never going to be perfect.

[Banedon]

I'd be pretty [expletive] pissed if I was the 6th at-large BCS ranked team left out for some awful 7-5 FIU team.

 

Isn't that just an exaggerated version of UConn getting in the Fiesta Bowl?

[bukie]

To start out, a four-team playoff might be acceptable, but I have a feeling the big six conferences won't accept it unless there are spots for each of their conferences. Especially if there are two teams from the same conference in the top 4 of the BCS standings.

 

For example, this year, if you do a 4-team playoff, do you just take the top 4, and let Stanford be part of it despite not winning their conference? Or do you limit it to conference winners only, so the four teams would be Auburn-Oregon-TCU-Wisconsin?

[Derwood]

If/when it happens I just hope to hell it's not something stupid like 16 teams or all conference champs are invited. 4 is plenty, but if you need 6 or 8 it's marginally acceptable.

 

Why would something like "all conference champs are invited" be a bad thing? 11 conference champions and 5 WC teams sounds fair to me. And if they're so bad they won't make it past the first round, now will they?

 

 

so they shouldn't be there.

 

then why are they even division 1-A?

[SouthSideRyan]

I'd be pretty [expletive] pissed if I was the 6th at-large BCS ranked team left out for some awful 7-5 FIU team.

 

Isn't that just an exaggerated version of UConn getting in the Fiesta Bowl?

 

It's a much worse version. And FIU went 6-6 this year, not 7-5, my mistake. UConn isn't getting a chance to play for a national title either.

[Derwood]

I'd be pretty [expletive] pissed if I was the 6th at-large BCS ranked team left out for some awful 7-5 FIU team.

 

Isn't that just an exaggerated version of UConn getting in the Fiesta Bowl?

 

It's a much worse version. And FIU went 6-6 this year, not 7-5, my mistake. UConn isn't getting a chance to play for a national title either.

 

WHAT NEXT? A LOSING RECORD GETTING AN NFL PLAYOFF BERTH?

[Banedon]

I'd be pretty [expletive] pissed if I was the 6th at-large BCS ranked team left out for some awful 7-5 FIU team.

 

Isn't that just an exaggerated version of UConn getting in the Fiesta Bowl?

 

It's a much worse version. And FIU went 6-6 this year, not 7-5, my mistake. UConn isn't getting a chance to play for a national title either.

 

I thought the concern was boring postseason football games wasting people's time.

[rawaction]

To start out, a four-team playoff might be acceptable, but I have a feeling the big six conferences won't accept it unless there are spots for each of their conferences. Especially if there are two teams from the same conference in the top 4 of the BCS standings.

 

If it's ever going to happen, this is how it's going to happen. The big 6 aren't going to want to be left out. They also aren't going to want their conference championship games to be cheapened by a 16-team tourney.

[Guest]

I'd be all for a four-team playoff with the top-four in the BCS. If there's another undefeated team outside of the top-four (such as last year), let them in and have play-in games of sorts at home sites. If you're not in the top-four and you have a loss, tough [expletive].

 

I wouldn't mind an eight-team playoff as long as they didn't give auto-bids to each BCS conference. If you win a BCS conference and you're not in the top-15, sorry, you lose your spot. This is incredibly unlikely since the BCS conferences would never agree to it.

 

No thanks on a 16-team playoff because you either get auto-bids for the Sun Belt and MAC or you get a few three-loss BCS teams in the playoff.

[Guest]

conference championship games will be a farce. In the past, a team like Auburn would suffer if they lost the SEC championship, not in a 16 team tourny. 4 and 5 loss teams will get in with regularity. Teams that would finish 2-10 in a real conference will get in.

 

This year there is 1 team with more than 2 losses in the Top 16 of the BCS, and it's Alabama.

 

That's an aberration. Last year there were four, in 2008 there were three and in 2007 there were five (one of which was 9-4 Tennessee).