The BCS: 2 seperate discussions

[Bisonfan1234]

Everyone says the BCS needs to go, but which part?

One part is the BCS as a ranking system, the other part is the BCS as a post-season system.

On the post season end, i would prefer a playoff because, like it has been said before here, you won't know who would win for sure between 2 teams unless they play.

On the ranking end however, i think the BCS is a perfectly fair way to rank teams. The AP polls tried to screw over Oklahoma by ranking USC #1, but the BCS (which takes into account AP polls) still ranked UO #1 and rightly so, they were still the best team (at least as far as rankings can tell, if we had a playoff we'd know for sure).

Lastly, USC is not "half winners of the national championship". They got the AP's #1 ranking in a poll, so what?! The BCS takes those polls into account and STILL they were ranked #3. USC doesn't deserve s&!t until they can prove that they could beat either LSU or UO. Oklahoma or LSU is going to be the UNDISPUTED national champion.

What do you guys think?

[redwing77]

Of course, I'll disagree. Oklahoma is a great team but something's missing that USC has: Conference championship. USC won the PAC 10 conference. Oklahoma got whooped by KSTATE! Yeah, KState is a pretty good team, one of the best UNRANKED teams out there. However, I think USC and Oklahoma should get to play each other, or at the very least, USC vs the winner of the Sugar Bowl (LSU/UO). So I'll disagree and say that USC does indeed get a share of the NC.

As for what will change with BCS. I heard that the contract is up in 2 years and this is what I believe will happen. Unless DRASTIC changes are made to the /bowl system/ (not necessarily the ranking system), PAC 10 will be the first to get the hell out of the BCS. They nearly did it a few years ago and now I don't see a reason short of major changes that would prevent them from opting out of the BCS system when it is up for renewal. They will get together with some of the smaller conferences (whatever conference hosts Marshall, NIU, etc.) and try to woo other not so major conferences like the ACC and SEC into their own system which will most likely be a playoff system.

Of course, this is all guesswork. No idea what will happen but I'm fairly confident that, as it stands now, you won't see any PAC 10 team in a BCS bowl in 3 years.

[Diggler]

USC doesn't deserve s&!t until they can prove that they could beat either LSU or UO. Oklahoma or LSU is going to be the UNDISPUTED national champion.

Which isn't possible because the DIA football is so screwed up. The BCS ranking system is fine, the problem is the post season-system. It will forever be a problem until their is a playoff. That is all there is to it.

So retarded. It is getting to the point where it is like following the Vikings. It is hopeless. If you just give up, you'll be happier because you won't get angry and dissappointed every year.

[Smoggy]

I'm a big playoff supporter, but I did realize one thing while watching the bowls. The whole pagentry and fan support (for some teams) will be lacking during a playoff due to time. Each playoff game is week to week, where fans get a month to prepare for a bowl game. Imagine if UND got even two weeks until the national championship. I'd bet a lot more fans would've gone. Still a playoff is the only way. I will agree that the whole double poll thing is ridiculous, but it's the way it's been for a long time and that's why the AP gets to award a national champion. I don't like USC, but I'm glad they won.

As for Pac-10 leaving, I don't think so. Too much money involved. Each year they are garuanteed a BCS bid and I believe the lowest payout is like 10 mill. It would only change if the Rose Bowl pulled out and the Big Ten came along.

Interesting side note. The NCAA allows no gifts to players at any point in their career UNLESS they make it to a bowl game. Each bowl is REQUIRED to supply gifts to the players in total value up to $300. My cousin does camera work for ASU and last year at the Holiday Bowl he got a CD player, ring, Fossil watch, Oakleys and clothes and shoes.

[CoteauRinkRat]

I'm a big playoff supporter, but I did realize one thing while watching the bowls. The whole pagentry and fan support (for some teams) will be lacking during a playoff due to time. Each playoff game is week to week, where fans get a month to prepare for a bowl game. Imagine if UND got even two weeks until the national championship. I'd bet a lot more fans would've gone.

I agree with you, but also like the playoff system. It is really tough to decide between the two.

[Bisonfan1234]

I think that whole thing about winning the conference championship is complete BS. It's simply another thing humans perceive and can use as a bias. It would be the same thing to put extra emphasis on if a team won their homecoming.

The fact that USC lost to UC-Berkeley is reason enough to have them be 3rd ranked. IMO overall schedual is far more important than artificially "more important" games.

[Smoggy]

The conference championships are what teams play for along with a national title. When so many teams are in a conference that you don't play everyone, it's the only way to determine what team wins the conference. I don't see how this could be meaningless. Many conference title games have knocked teams out of the national title game. You can't lose in college fb whether it's a conference championship or a homecoming game.

Computers can't factor in everything. USC lost in triple overtime. Ovetimes are nothing like the regular game. It's like having a shootout in hockey or soccer. Computers don't take that into account. What about injuries? Sure they are a part of the game, but when a team gets a very good player back the computers can't factor that in. Take Kstate for instance. Roberson was injured when they lost their games (at least against Marshall), but he comes back and they win everything except for the Fiesta Bowl. Even beating Oklahoma during that run.

I do believe human polls get biased and rank the same teams over and over. Their shouldn't even be teams ranked until after a few weeks, but computers aren't the answer. Playing the game is.

Here's an interesting scenario that won't happen because the BCS isn't redone. Let's say LSU beat Oklahoma. Since Ohio State beat K state, Oklahoma's SOS drops (due to losing to Kstate) along with LSU's. Now USC beat Michigan which beat Ohio State and therefore USC's SOS would increase and they could finish in the revised BCS rankings ahead of LSU. If you want computers to do it, they should redo it after this supposed national title game.

[Bisonfan1234]

The conference championships are what teams play for along with a national title. When so many teams are in a conference that you don't play everyone, it's the only way to determine what team wins the conference. I don't see how this could be meaningless. Many conference title games have knocked teams out of the national title game. You can't lose in college fb whether it's a conference championship or a homecoming game.

Computers can't factor in everything. USC lost in triple overtime. Ovetimes are nothing like the regular game. It's like having a shootout in hockey or soccer. Computers don't take that into account. What about injuries? Sure they are a part of the game, but when a team gets a very good player back the computers can't factor that in. Take Kstate for instance. Roberson was injured when they lost their games (at least against Marshall), but he comes back and they win everything except for the Fiesta Bowl. Even beating Oklahoma during that run.

I do believe human polls get biased and rank the same teams over and over. Their shouldn't even be teams ranked until after a few weeks, but computers aren't the answer. Playing the game is.

Here's an interesting scenario that won't happen because the BCS isn't redone. Let's say LSU beat Oklahoma. Since Ohio State beat K state, Oklahoma's SOS drops (due to losing to Kstate) along with LSU's. Now USC beat Michigan which beat Ohio State and therefore USC's SOS would increase and they could finish in the revised BCS rankings ahead of LSU. If you want computers to do it, they should redo it after this supposed national title game.

The obvious answer is a playoff...but how can you guaranty that it will make as much money as the BCS?

Also how many teams? is 32 too many? I think 32 could be good.

[Smoggy]

The obvious answer is a playoff...but how can you guaranty that it will make as much money as the BCS?

Also how many teams? is 32 too many? I think 32 could be good.

32 would probably be too big. I think the more teams the better (ala March Madness), but that would be five more games for the teams that make the championship. Though I think the season could do with one less nonconference game and if there is a playoff, without (won't happen) the conference champion.

I think they'd make money. The games could still have all the stupid sponsers and TV should go way up, because of how much meaning is on each game. I don't think the bowls do the greatest on TV ratings, because who cares who wins unless you love that team or bet on them. It would probably have to be done regionally, but the big schools have fans all over the country.

I am amazed at how hard some players play for a meaningless bowl game like the San Francisco Bowl.

[Fighting Sioux Fan]

The less teams the better! No more then four teams, and if there are only two teams with one or no losses, then they can only play for the title. If there are three teams like this year, make the best team play the worst. March Madness works for basketball, but not for football...

[Diggler]

I'm not going to argue with you about this FSF because I have just given up on major college football ever doing things right. But why does it work in all the other divisions for football but it won't work for DIA?

[Bisonfan1234]

One other thing about conference championship games: USC didn't play one. This can mean that all conferences have to choose their champion based only on record, in which case Oklahoma would've won, or they have to play a championship game in which case USC would have had to be co-champs with Wazzou since they were the second best.

[CoteauRinkRat]

One other thing about conference championship games: USC didn't play one. This can mean that all conferences have to choose their champion based only on record, in which case Oklahoma would've won, or they have to play a championship game in which case USC would have had to be co-champs with Wazzou since they were the second best.

I agree with you. The argument of winning the conference championship game is moot when not all the conferences play one.

[Smoggy]

I've changed my mind. The more I think about this, the more I realize that the less teams the better. However, the one thing I want to see is some great 'small' teams play the big boys. I feel the a team like Miami of Ohio could have done some damage to someone in the biggie conferences.

College football wants to keep the regular season stressful. So what if the tournament is between the BCS conference champions no matter what. Leaving it up to conference how they want to award a champion, though I'd rather see the team with the best record. I believe that would be five teams. Then have three at large go to the best of non BCS conferences. That way the top 3 from the BCS conference play the smaller (supposedly crappier) teams.

[NDSU grad]

There's six BCS conferences: Big East, Big 12, Big 10, SEC, Pac-10, and ACC. I like the idea though. Six conference champions, two at-large, and play it out. Get rid of the conference championship games, start the playoffs immediately after the regular season. The semifinals would be the following week, and the championship game would be around the 1st of the year. Keep all the meaningless bowls, and rotate the championship game among the 4 sites that now get BCS bowl games.

[Bisonfan1234]

I think it's safe to say the winners of the MAC and MWC should get the 2 at large unless there is an outstanding team from the WAC or CUSA.

[NDSU grad]

In my perfect world there would be no automatic bids, just use the BCS to pick the best eight. The only reason I included the automatic bids is I was trying to be somewhat realistic in reasoning that the BCS conferences would never agree to a scenario in which their conferences didnt' get an autobid.

[Smoggy]

I like the auto bids over BCS, because it gives a smaller school that doesn't play in a tough conference a chance against the big boys. Especially since the big boys will rarely play a tough mid-level school during the nonconference season.

When I said 5 BCS leagues, I completely forgot about the ACC. Maybe it's because they aren't that good at football and I'd like to think Florida State doesn't exist.

[Hansel]

I like the auto bids over BCS, because it gives a smaller school that doesn't play in a tough conference a chance against the big boys. Especially since the big boys will rarely play a tough mid-level school during the nonconference season.

When I said 5 BCS leagues, I completely forgot about the ACC. Maybe it's because they aren't that good at football and I'd like to think Florida State doesn't exist.

Soon you can forget about the Big East after Miami, Virginia Tech, and Boston College leave for the ACC maybe the Big East will lose its BCS autobid (probably not as the Big East Commish also is the BCS commish. Call me crazy... I like the BCS (for IA only) it creates a buzz before and after the bowls and it is not like the any non-BCS schools would be in these bowls if the BCS didn't exist.. i don't a have a link handy (and I am lazy) but if you go back over the last 20 years or so.. you would be hard-pressed to find more than a few non-BCS teams in current BCS bowls.

[bigmrg74]

what about talk that the PAC-10 might pull out of the BCS and get together with the other non-BCS confrances, the MAC, C-USA, MWC, WAC and the Sun Belt to set up their own playoff system. rumor has it that the PAC might even get the Rose Bowl to be that system's national championship game. would be herculean effort to pull it off, and the first year or two might have some pretty bad playoff games played. but i think the demand will be there once they get the ball rolling and other confrances will join in pretty fast.

[redwing77]

what about talk that the PAC-10 might pull out of the BCS and get together with the other non-BCS confrances, the MAC, C-USA, MWC, WAC and the Sun Belt to set up their own playoff system. rumor has it that the PAC might even get the Rose Bowl to be that system's national championship game. would be herculean effort to pull it off, and the first year or two might have some pretty bad playoff games played. but i think the demand will be there once they get the ball rolling and other confrances will join in pretty fast.

I don't see this happening until the BCS goes up for resigning in 2 years. Why? Because if the PAC 10 could have done that, they would have already after the Oregon debacle. They are going to stick with this until it goes up for recontracting and then, depending upon what changes are made, they'll make the decision then.

[The Sicatoka]

Not to be blunt, but here's how it will shake out:

The BCS schools will do exactly what will keep the most money in their pockets.

Do I know what that is? It's anyone's guess.

[Smoggy]

I heard Skip O'something or other on the radio, and he said that the NCAA makes 93% of it's operating costs off the NCAA bball tourney. Mainly from the TV Deal. He then said that the only self sustaining sports are men's ice hockey, baseball, men's bball. He thought wrestling might have been as well. The guy seemed very knowledgeable, but I haven't gone and checked any figures. The hold up in football is the big schools won't share with the little schools, where bball supports all NCAA sports.