Scrap The BCS

[H2o]

I'm not saying scrap all of the "Bowl" games, but this dumbness has got to end. I'd say that Ohio St. is the clear #1 right now, but the rest is all jumbled. USC vs. ND this weekend will help a little and so will the SEC Championship game when that takes place. It's still a flawed system. I think that there should be all of the regular bowl games with an 8 team playoff going over a 3 week period. A "4-2-1" game system.

 

It would be GREAT for college football. Can you imagine the hype and revenue(being that's one of the main reasons they created the BCS bowls) it would generate? 8 teams fighting it out to be called the National Champion. It would take the flaw out of the system as to who gets to play for the title. We can talk about OU getting in a few years ago when they didn't deserve it, an undefeated Auburn team that caught the shaft, and the couple more that will get it this year. That's why NCAA basketball is so great come March, because 65 teams have a shot at hoisting the trophy when it's all said and done. What do you guys think?

[smokinandjokin]

I think it's clear and everyone would agree that a playoff is the best way. I'm on board with the eight team scenario.

 

I also don't mind the current system, and I do have some nostalgia for the old-school bowl games. I was at the USC-Michigan Rose Bowl in January 2004 and it was an amazing event.

 

I would just like to hear one (just one) legitimate reason from the conference and university presidents as to why a playoff is not possible. They are so blinded by all of the money rolling in from the current BCS setup that they can't seem to see there's even more money to be made. I think they're just nervous about splitting the revenues up amongst the 'lesser' conferences.

 

They say a playoff is not possible because of class and finals, and yet players that actually HAVE to go to school in 1-AA, DII, and DIII manage to work it out. Also, it's clear that school is priority #1 when these conferences schedule games on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday nights to bring in more TV money. No contradiction there.

 

There are plenty of things to work out if the current system is adapted into a playoff system, but none of the issues appear to be an impossible obstacle. Actually, I take that back. Compromise and less greed from university and conference presidents may be asking too much.

[bartshan-83]

I think it's clear and everyone would agree that a playoff is the best way.  I'm on board with the eight team scenario.

 

I also don't mind the current system, and I do have some nostalgia for the old-school bowl games.  I was at the USC-Michigan Rose Bowl in January 2004 and it was an amazing event.

 

I would just like to hear one (just one) legitimate reason from the conference and university presidents as to why a playoff is not possible.  They are so blinded by all of the money rolling in from the current BCS setup that they can't seem to see there's even more money to be made.  I think they're just nervous about splitting the revenues up amongst the 'lesser' conferences.

 

They say a playoff is not possible because of class and finals, and yet players that actually HAVE to go to school in 1-AA, DII, and DIII manage to work it out.  Also, it's clear that school is priority #1 when these conferences schedule games on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday nights to bring in more TV money.  No contradiction there.

 

There are plenty of things to work out if the current system is adapted into a playoff system, but none of the issues appear to be an impossible obstacle.  Actually, I take that back.  Compromise and less greed from university and conference presidents may be asking too much.

843503[/snapback]

Bingo.

 

The simplest way I could see having a playoff (and possibly even generating more TV revenue) would be to keep everyting the way it is except make the 5 BCS bowls the playoff games. Rotate which bowl got the National Title game (just like now). Check it, it is too easy:

 

2006 NCAA Division IA Playoffs

 

Jan 1. 5pm - Rose Bowl - Seed #3 v. #6

Jan 1. 8pm - Fiesta Bowl - Seed #4 v. #5

Jan 2. 8pm - Orange Bowl - Seed #2 v. winner of 3/6

Jan 3. 8pm - Sugar Bowl - Seed #1 v. winner of 4/5

Jan 8. 8pm - BCS Champ - Winner of Orange v. Sugar

 

Then in 2007, rotate it so that every Bowl (and more imporantly, every SPONSOR) gets to be the title game. The only hitch is that we move the first round back to Christmas Day so that there is a week in between each game.

 

5 Bowls

6 Teams

No lost sponsorship money

1 undisputed National Champion

[H2o]

Bingo.

 

The simplest way I could see having a playoff (and possibly even generating more TV revenue) would be to keep everyting the way it is except make the 5 BCS bowls the playoff games.  Rotate which bowl got the National Title game (just like now). Check it, it is too easy:

 

2006 NCAA Division IA Playoffs

 

Jan 1. 5pm - Rose Bowl    - Seed #3 v. #6

Jan 1. 8pm - Fiesta Bowl  - Seed #4 v. #5

Jan 2. 8pm - Orange Bowl - Seed #2 v. winner of 3/6

Jan 3. 8pm - Sugar Bowl  - Seed #1 v. winner of 4/5

Jan 8. 8pm - BCS Champ  - Winner of Orange v. Sugar

 

Then in 2007, rotate it so that every Bowl (and more imporantly, every SPONSOR) gets to be the title game. The only hitch is that we move the first round back to Christmas Day so that there is a week in between each game.

 

5 Bowls

6 Teams

No lost sponsorship money

1 undisputed National Champion

843531[/snapback]

 

Heck, I could live with that. Anything to where teams with legitimate arguements aren't getting screwed over for the "sake" of the BSC.

[Chilly]

The question is, why don't the University Presidents want a playoff system like this to occur?

 

It could be done in a way that:

 

A.) Still provides a ton of money, tv exposure, etc. to all the schools

B.) Doesn't cause athletes to miss more class time.

 

So, why exactly are they holding this up?

[erynthered]

 

 

 

2006 NCAA Division IA Playoffs

 

Jan 1. 5pm - Rose Bowl    - Seed #3 v. #6

Jan 1. 8pm - Fiesta Bowl  - Seed #4 v. #5

Jan 2. 8pm - Orange Bowl - Seed #2 v. winner of 3/6

Jan 3. 8pm - Sugar Bowl  - Seed #1 v. winner of 4/5

Jan 8. 8pm - BCS Champ  - Winner of Orange v. Sugar

 

 

843531[/snapback]

 

 

I like your idea. However, you may want to spread the games out a little bit more than one day. Back to back games might be a little tough.

[KD in CA]

B.) Doesn't cause athletes to miss more class time.

 

 

 

That one always cracks me up when they trot it out. People involved in this billion dollar business really care about missed classroom time.

[bartshan-83]

I like your idea. However, you may want to spread the games out a little bit more than one day. Back to back games might be a little tough.

843846[/snapback]

The only hitch is that we move the first round back to Christmas Day so that there is a week in between each game.

843531[/snapback]

[bartshan-83]

   

That one always cracks me up when they trot it out.  People involved in this billion dollar business really care about missed classroom time.

843867[/snapback]

Yeah, and like Smokin said above, I guess the compassionate, student-first NCAA forgets that there are classes on Friday when they schedule a Thursday night game every week.

 

[JimBob2232]

Been sayin it for years. Dont understand why they dont do it. I would give each current BCS conference an autobid.

 

Big 10, ACC, SEC, Big East, Pac 10, Big 12 Each send 1 team. They can decide it however they want, but they get 1 auto bid.

 

Then have 4 at large Bids. These at large bids go to any undefeated team who played at least 11 games vs. D1A opponents and 2 wins over a BCS confernce team, and the top ranked teams in the coaches poll to fill out the spots

 

This might also force Notre Dame to join a damn conference.

 

For the record, my BCS would look like this:

 

Big East - West Virginia

Big 10 - Ohio State

Big 12 - Texas

ACC - Georgia Tech

SEC - Florida

Pac10 - USC

At Large #1 - Michigan

At Large #2 - Notre Dame

At Large #3 - Arkansas

At Large #4 - Boise St

 

Week 1: Michigan vs Boise State (Wildcard Game)

Arkansas vs. Notre Dame (Wildcard Game)

 

Re-Rank 1-8 (Assume Notre Dame and Michigan win) (My guesses)

 

1. Ohio State

2. USC

3. Michigan

4. Florida

5. Notre Dame

6. Arkansas

7. Texas

8. Georgia Tech

 

Week 2: Ohio State vs. Georgia Tech(Rose Bowl)

USC vs. Texas (Cotton Bowl)

Michigan vs Arkansas (Sugar Bowl)

Florida vs. Notre Dame (Fiesta Bowl)

 

Week 3: Ohio State/GT vs. Florida/ND

USC/Texas vs. Michigan/Arkansas

 

Week 4: OSU/GT/FLA/ND vs. USC/TEX/MICH/ARK

 

 

Peice of Cake. You ADD 4 big time nationally covered games. Championship game will be bigger than the superbowl. Notre Dame might join a conferene because a) they will always need to play in the wildcard game if they make the playoffs and b) They might get left out of the dance entirely even if ranked in the top 10.

[smokinandjokin]

Been sayin it for years. Dont understand why they dont do it. I would give each current BCS conference an autobid.

 

Big 10, ACC, SEC, Big East, Pac 10, Big 12 Each send 1 team. They can decide it however they want, but they get 1 auto bid.

 

Then have 4 at large Bids. These at large bids go to any undefeated team who played at least 11 games vs. D1A opponents and 2 wins over a BCS confernce team, and the top ranked teams in the coaches poll to fill out the spots

844110[/snapback]

 

I like the idea but I think maybe polls should be avoided. Coaches rank teams and have no idea who that team's quarterback is. Many coaches have freely admitted they don't watch any other games but their own on the weekend, and often pass the duty off to an assistant coach to submit. Possibly a tournament committee modeled after NCAA hoops could decide the at large teams, and the seedings.

 

There might be a better way to work the four major bowls to, so that they are the semifinal, 3rd place, and title game on a rotating basis, rather than the quarterfinals. I'd play the round of 8 at the higher seeds' homefield. Seems like something the top 4 teams in the nation have earned.

 

Overall I like the ideas. Even if it's all hypothetical, these threads are so much better than "Get rid of the BCS because it sucks" and then offer no suggestions.

[Mikie2times]

I'm not a proponent of the BCS but I’ll play devils advocate. In what is supposed to be one of the most screwed up years in BCS history each team had complete control of its destiny. All these potential two's could have locked up a spot by taking care of things on the field. Isn't that what the BCS is ultimately trying to accomplish? Furthermore what makes people think it is the NCAA's wish to have such a clean playoff system? The controversy the BCS has caused has created some of the most intense debate college football has seen in years. That in turn increases college football's popularity. It's not as if people are saying I hate the BCS so much I'm just not going to watch anymore. They're saying I hate the BCS, and I'm going to follow each game obsessively to find out who Ohio State plays.

[JimBob2232]

I dont watch college football, hardly at all. I watched a couple games the last few weeks when they had national championship implications...frankly, I probably wont watch another game until the BCS championship game. I might watch a bowl game on new years day, because its the thing to do, but I dont much care.

 

Funny how the NFL can get me to watch Cleveland playing Oakland, yet I have no interest in a Notre Dame/Michigan game. Its not the game I hate. Its the NCAA and the way its run that I cant stand.

 

Until an 11-0 boise state team gets a CHANCE to play for the title, I want nothing to do with it.

[smokinandjokin]

I dont watch college football, hardly at all.  I watched a couple games the last few weeks when they had national championship implications...frankly, I probably wont watch another game until the BCS championship game.  I might watch a bowl game on new years day, because its the thing to do, but I dont much care.

 

Funny how the NFL can get me to watch Cleveland playing Oakland, yet I have no interest in a Notre Dame/Michigan game.  Its not the game I hate.  Its the NCAA and the way its run that I cant stand.

 

Until an 11-0 boise state team gets a CHANCE to play for the title, I want nothing to do with it.

844668[/snapback]

 

I've been just the opposite lately. The NFL has been REALLY hard to take. Parity is good, but you can't figure the league out. I've been feeling this way for three or four years now. Sullivan actually summed it up fairly nicely in today's Buffalo News.

 

Some of the highlights:

 

So I woke up here Monday morning, groggy and disoriented, wondering if I had only dreamed that Peerless Price made a big play, and asking myself, "What the heck are we to make of this Bills team, 10 games into the season?"

 

Then I skimmed the standings and realized that all over the league, people are asking the same question. Is this football team good, bad or average? Is it a budding contender or a maddening tease, just another inconsistent team in the jumble of mediocrity that is today's NFL?

 

After Sunday's action, there were 17 teams within a game of .500 - that is, with four to six victories. That's more than half the league. It includes the teams that played in last year's Super Bowl, Seattle and Pittsburgh. Cincinnati is 5-5. I almost fell off the chair when I saw that San Francisco is 5-5, too.

 

17 teams within 1 game of .500? That's crazy. In my opinion, every team in the NFL sucks, and the trick is figuring out who is going to suck less that Sunday. The very average Pittsburgh Steelers put four good games together and won the Super Bowl last year as the final team to qualify from their conference.

 

I know, that's why a playoff needs to take place in college, I agree. But there's something about the pagentry and excitement of all college football that I don't feel for any NFL game outside of the Bills. I find myself watching a lot more college ball than pro ball.

[IBTG81]

I've been just the opposite lately.  The NFL has been REALLY hard to take.  Parity is good, but you can't figure the league out.  I've been feeling this way for three or four years now.  Sullivan actually summed it up fairly nicely in today's Buffalo News. 

 

Some of the highlights:

 

So I woke up here Monday morning, groggy and disoriented, wondering if I had only dreamed that Peerless Price made a big play, and asking myself, "What the heck are we to make of this Bills team, 10 games into the season?"

 

Then I skimmed the standings and realized that all over the league, people are asking the same question. Is this football team good, bad or average? Is it a budding contender or a maddening tease, just another inconsistent team in the jumble of mediocrity that is today's NFL?

 

After Sunday's action, there were 17 teams within a game of .500 - that is, with four to six victories. That's more than half the league. It includes the teams that played in last year's Super Bowl, Seattle and Pittsburgh. Cincinnati is 5-5. I almost fell off the chair when I saw that San Francisco is 5-5, too.

 

17 teams within 1 game of .500?  That's crazy.  In my opinion, every team in the NFL sucks, and the trick is figuring out who is going to suck less that Sunday.  The very average Pittsburgh Steelers put four good games together and won the Super Bowl last year as the final team to qualify from their conference.

 

I know, that's why a playoff needs to take place in college, I agree.  But there's something about the pagentry and excitement of all college football that I don't feel for any NFL game outside of the Bills.  I find myself watching a lot more college ball than pro ball.

844739[/snapback]

 

I agree 100%.

[stuckincincy]

College sports are amateur...not pro. They need not provide vicarious thrills.

 

Plus, with a play-off system, who picks the clubs? I can clearly visualize "alumni" buying off, bribing, the choosers to get their "lil' darling" college into the games..

 

As well as the betting interests...

[Chilly]

College sports are amateur...not pro. They need not provide vicarious thrills.

 

Plus, with a play-off system, who picks the clubs? I can clearly visualize "alumni" buying off, bribing, the choosers to get their "lil' darling" college into the games..

 

As well as the betting interests...

844825[/snapback]

 

If its so amateur, how come so much money is changing hands and its so important to the schools?

 

The *only* thing not pro about it is the fact that players don't get paid.

 

Who picks the clubs? Well, no one person. Take the top 8 teams from the BCS standings.

[KD in CA]

Plus, with a play-off system, who picks the clubs? I can clearly visualize "alumni" buying off, bribing, the choosers to get their "lil' darling" college into the games..

 

 

As opposed to now??

 

 

It could work just like it does now; 6 conference champs plus two at larges get seeded according to the BCS formula.

[UConn James]

Lots of good suggestions here.

 

A playoff system would make college football fully 694% better.

[JimBob2232]

It doesnt matter who picks the teams in a playoff format. You make it so that ANY undefeated team is in, and the rest shakes out. If you get left off the bubble, sorry, you lost a game. You had your chance. The problem now is that its possible to do everything everyone asked of you, win every game, and not get a chance to prove you are the best at what you do.