What if the NFL adopted a system like the BCS?
zef204
Posts: 4,742 ✭✭
in Sports Talk
This is a current article on ESPN.com, but I thought it was interesting. And incase you didn't see it, I thought I'd post it for posterity and maybe a little discussion.
Super Bowl Championship Series StandingsBy Brad Edwards
ESPN.com
For the Super Bowl Championship Series standings, the formula is almost identical to that of the BCS Standings. We used two polls (ESPN.com's power rankings and Pro Football Weekly rankings) and six computer ratings (Sagarin, Massey, Greenfield, Moore, Gabrielle and Coffey). Just as in the BCS, the high and low computer ranking are thrown out, and the other four are averaged. Unlike the BCS, five of the six computer programs are considering margin of victory (only Massey is not).
Because we don't have the actual voting points for the polls, we are taking each team's average between the two polls and making that number count as two-thirds of the SBCS average. Normally, each poll would separately count as one-third of the formula. Points for the polls and computers are assigned by giving 32 points for each No. 1 ranking, 31 points for each No. 2 ranking and so on ... all the way down to one point for being ranked last (as the Lions virtually are across the board). The averages shown on the standings table are a reflection of that team's percentage of a perfect score.
0
Comments
Take that logic to NCAA Basketball. No tourney? Let's just let the 1-2 ranked teams play for the championship! Utterly ridiculous.
Everybody makes the arguement that it would make the regular season irrelevent. Bull! It would make it more relevent because more teams would be fighting for a spot in an 8 team playoff.
Shane
I like it
Like frankhardy said - look at how great the NCAA tournament is every March. College football could have something like that (maybe not 64 teams, but the top 12 or so) - and probably pick up a lot more fans in the process.
<< <i>The BCS sucks. Plain and simple. When college football adopts a playoff system, then fans like myself will care about it. Until then, people will always talk about controversy in BCS rankings, this team deserves a bowl bid versus that team, and so on. Let them play on the field, and prove who the national champion really is.
Like frankhardy said - look at how great the NCAA tournament is every March. College football could have something like that (maybe not 64 teams, but the top 12 or so) - and probably pick up a lot more fans in the process. >>
True enough, but the NCAA sold it's soul for March Madness. Who cares about regular season NCAA hoops (save a few quirky exceptions like N.Carolina/Duke)? Also, college football is frustrating to the extent that you need to be satisfied by a post-season tournament to enjoy the sport.
The BCS sucks only if you think it was designed to ensure that the top two teams squared off against each other every January. I don't think this was ever the intent of the BCS, even if they choose to say otherwise. Instead, the BCS was designed to make sure that if there were two teams that had clearly superior regular seasons to the rest of the field, then those two teams would play for the title. It's not supposed to make sure the top two teams play each other every year, because you can't determine who the top two teams ARE every year. It's intention is to prevent debacles like 1997 (Michigan-Nebraska) and 1990 (Ga. Tech-Colorado), and to this end it has succeeded.
<< <i>The Texans are ranked ahead of some notable teams.
I like it >>
I'd hope so, with year after year of top 10 draft picks!
The BCS seems to me like a system that struggles with keeping the tradition of bowl games alive, combined with trying to appease people who want a "playoff" structure. I think you can't have both, and while I'm not much of a college FB fan, I would probably get interested in a national title game played between two teams that played through a tournament to get there. Not just two teams that got the most BCS votes.
<< <i>Boopotts, fair points - but I disagree with one thing especially. A lot of people care about regular season NCAA basketball games, you need to win in order to even be considered for the tournament, and strength of schedule is a factor in determining seeding - so teams are encouraged to schedule quality opponents (so their wins "count" more). Here in UConn country, try and get a ticket for a regular season Husky game at Gampel - they are always sold out. Same I would imagine in Duke, NC, and a bunch of other places.
The BCS seems to me like a system that struggles with keeping the tradition of bowl games alive, combined with trying to appease people who want a "playoff" structure. I think you can't have both, and while I'm not much of a college FB fan, I would probably get interested in a national title game played between two teams that played through a tournament to get there. Not just two teams that got the most BCS votes. >>
I competely agree that a playoff would be more fan friendly. FWIW I personally would actually prefer a playoff system as well.
Hooray! We actually agreed on something!!
(Whispering - Pujols still should have won the MVP!)
Shane