If you call it Divison 1...

[The Walrus]

If it is called Div 1 and you have to play a Div 1 schedule to quailify, should not Hawaii be #1 and now playing for a National Championship....?

The BCS apears to be a joke, nothing more than a "POPULARITY CONTEST" for the biggest, not maybe the best college football has to offer. If the last couple of years have proven anything, anyone can beat anyone.

The great thing about the rest of college football, NAIA, Div 3, Div 2, 1AA (FCS) they all have a true National Champion!

When will we see a playoff....?

[soohockey15]

If it is called Div 1 and you have to play a Div 1 schedule to quailify, should not Hawaii be #1 and now playing for a National Championship....?

The BCS apears to be a joke, nothing more than a "POPULARITY CONTEST" for the biggest, not maybe the best college football has to offer. If the last couple of years have proven anything, anyone can beat anyone.

The great thing about the rest of college football, NAIA, Div 3, Div 2, 1AA (FCS) they all have a true National Champion!

When will we see a playoff....?

I think that there are probably 10 better teams than Hawaii in college football. What's to stop Florida or USC from moving to a weak conference, playing a weak schedule and playing in the national championship game every year? Even if there was a playoff this year, can you pick out the best 4 or 8 teams in the country? There would be just as much controversy with a playoff as there is with a BCS system.

[Cratter]

Even if there was a playoff this year, can you pick out the best 4 or 8 teams in the country? There would be just as much controversy with a playoff as there is with a BCS system.

It is a lot easier than picking out the best 2 teams in the country!!!

There would be a lot less controversy with a 8 team playoff system instead of a 2 team playoff system!!

It's pretty simple. Top 8 BCS teams go as it sits now with its current format instead of the top 2.

We all would have to watch those great games at the top 8 teams battle it out watching some great upsets along the way. The possibilities:

[andtheHomeoftheSIOUX!!]

I like the BCS. College football (the top level) has always used some form of a poll to determine the national champion. Though I do have an idea that would perhaps improve the system.

[BisonMav]

None of the above.

No Playoffs, and the BCS doesn't always have the best teams on top.

[The Sicatoka]

When will we see a playoff....?

When the college presidents see more value in that than the present bowl system, so, simply, not gonna happen unless a lot else changes first.

Or was your question rhetorical?

[sioooux]

I say keep the bcs formula and the top 8 teams at the end of the year are in. 1 plays 8, 2-7, 3-6, 4-5. Heres how i think it would play out, just my opinion.

Dec 15th

1. Ohio State 11-1 Vs. 8. Kansas 11-1

2. LSU 11-2 Vs. 7. USC 10-2

3. Virginia Tech 11-2 Vs. 6. Missouri 11-2

4. Oklahoma 11-2 Vs. 5. Georgia 10-2

Dec 22nd

Ohio State Vs. USC

Missouri Vs. Oklahoma

Jan 5th

USC vs. Oklahoma

Oklahoma wins National Championship

[soohockey15]

No WVU or Hawaii? Either way you dole it out, there will be a controversy. You can be the one to tell the Big East commissioner that they have no teams in the BCS Tournament, but the Big 12 has three.

[Cratter]

No WVU or Hawaii? Either way you dole it out, there will be a controversy. You can be the one to tell the Big East commissioner that they have no teams in the BCS Tournament, but the Big 12 has three.

Does WVU or Hawaii have a chance at a National Championship right now? No. As it sits right now nothing would change for them. Except a possibility of a greater chance to win a championship down the road.

I would gladly tell the Big East commissioner they suck. They indeed already have agreed to the system (the BCS). Like "sioooux" said same formula except top 8 teams play for a national title instead of 2.

Sure there will still be controversy. You can almost never totally eliminate controvery. The key is there will be far less controversy.

*as Sicakota saids "Show me the money" or the more boring version "follow the money" :

I think you could still have each game named some sort of "bowl game." I don't believe you would actually be losing money anywhere. The other crappy teams can still play in their useless "we won this bowl" bowlgame. The money would come from all the talk and excitement of the upsets and the possibly of more games = $$$$.

[soohockey15]

Does WVU or Hawaii have a chance at a National Championship right now? No. As it sits right now nothing would change for them. Except a possibility of a greater chance to win a championship down the road.

I would gladly tell the Big East commissioner they suck. They indeed already have agreed to the system (the BCS). Like "sioooux" said same formula except top 8 teams play for a national title instead of 2.

Sure there will still be controversy. You can almost never totally eliminate controvery. The key is there will be far less controversy.

*as Sicakota saids "Show me the money" or the more boring version "follow the money" :

I think you could still have each game named some sort of "bowl game." I don't believe you would actually be losing money anywhere. The other crappy teams can still play in their useless "we won this bowl" bowlgame. The money would come from all the talk and excitement of the upsets and the possibly of more games = $$$$.

For this to happen, all conferences would have to agree on having conference championships. Won't happen. Couldn't they just throw out conferences altogether? If one of the six major conferences conference champion doesn't get a bid, what meaning would being a conference champion have?

I see what you're saying, but if they ever go to an eight-team tournament they will need to guarantee six automatic bids.

[Cratter]

I see what you're saying, but if they ever go to an eight-team tournament they will need to guarantee six automatic bids.

I guess what I am saying is why do they have to guarantee anyone anything?

The current system doesn't guarantee anything to anyone the way it is.

Correct me if I am wrong, but in IAA (FCS) postseason play conferences championships mean little. It is the top rated teams (some sort of poll - no real autobids) that get into the playoffs?

Why does there have to be this notion of "autobids." Because like you said earlier, a strong team could just transfer to that weak "autobid" conference and make the playoffs every year. (NSIC in D2 )

I think conferences are/should be just schedule alliances which gives its top member "bragging" / title rights: Conference Champs.

[soohockey15]

I guess what I am saying is why do they have to guarantee anyone anything?

The current system doesn't guarantee anything to anyone the way it is.

Correct me if I am wrong, but in IAA (FPS) postseason play conferences championships mean little. It is the top rated teams (some sort of poll - no real autobids) that get into the playoffs?

Why does there have to be this notion of "autobids." Because like you said earlier, a strong team could just transfer to that weak "autobid" conference and make the playoffs every year. (NSIC )

I think conferences are/should be just schedule alliances which gives its top member "bragging" / title rights: Conference Champs.

The current system guarantees BCS Bowl births to each of the six conference champions.

What this really comes down to is money, and if a playoff wouldn't take any money away from anybody, I would assume they would agree to try it out.

[NDSU grad]

I guess what I am saying is why do they have to guarantee anyone anything?

The current system doesn't guarantee anything to anyone the way it is.

Correct me if I am wrong, but in IAA (FCS) postseason play conferences championships mean little. It is the top rated teams (some sort of poll - no real autobids) that get into the playoffs?

Why does there have to be this notion of "autobids." Because like you said earlier, a strong team could just transfer to that weak "autobid" conference and make the playoffs every year. (NSIC in D2 )

I think conferences are/should be just schedule alliances which gives its top member "bragging" / title rights: Conference Champs.

Actually, there are eight autobids in FCS. They go the champions of the following conferences:

Southern

Big Sky

Southland

CAA

Gateway

OVC

MEAC

Patriot

The eight at-large are selected by a committee and is supposedly based on the GPI, which (I think) is a BCS-style formula that takes into account polls and computer rankings.

[Tommiejo]

Someone ask when are we going to have a playoff? Which is a good question but the way the BCS is my guess is when hell freezes over & the devil goes ice skating. I don't remember who said this but they were right about one thing "it's all about the Benjamins."

SIOUX FAN (HOCKEY) SINCE 1973

[fightingsioux4life]

I voted for eight teams, but I have an idea for a 16 team playoff incorporating much of what already exists. But anything would be better than the Bull Crap Series.

The BCS might be better than what we had before because there is a strength of schedule component to the rankings. But the fact that a bunch of inherently biased coaches meeting in smoke-filled backrooms drinking hard liquor from old mayonaise jars (ok I am exaggerating, but you get the point) have any sort of power over who plays where and when for what makes the whole system a total joke. If this is such a great system, why doesn't any other sport at any other level use something similar? Because it sucks, pure and simple. It is absolutely outrageous that coaches can "campaign" for their teams in the press and then get what they want (and I think everyone on this forum knows what coach and team I am talking about; it happened last year).

Of course, since the BCS has zero credibility, the BCS-ites have to come up with a bunch of half-truths, speculation and empty rhetoric to defend it. I have posted it before on this forum and I do so again right here to illustrate just how stupid the Bull Crap Series really is:

1) A playoff would ruin the importance of the regular season: Bunk. In Division 2 (as most people on this forum know), if you lose more than 2 games in a season, you can kiss the playoffs goodbye. Sometimes, even one loss teams don't get in. The regular season is still very important in D2 and it would still be important in DI FBS. The only sports in which the playoffs ruins regular season significance are the NBA and NHL. But that is a topic for another time.

2) A playoff would make less money than the current system: Bunk. This is perhaps the stupidest piece of reasoning of all. How in the world could anyone think that a tournament over a period of three to four weeks involving eight to sixteen teams, nationally televised, with most (if not all) of the games in prime time would make less money than a bunch of meaningless Bowl games (except for the BCS title game) scattered over a period of two to three weeks in December and January? The TV contracts would be worth mad money. And that doesn't count the ticket sales and the merchandising. I guess it depends what side your bread is buttered on. 'Nuff said.

3) A playoff would hurt "the little guy" in college football: Bunk. The "little guy" isn't getting much out of the current system, so the BCS-ites have a lot of nerve trying to use this argument. Properly structured and thought out, a playoff system would generate tons of money that could be poured into a revenue-sharing system that would benefit all schools, even those that aren't ranked in the top 5 or 10 ever year. This cash could be used to help pay for Title IX compliance issues and other things that athletic departments have to deal with. And a playoff system could be implemented without getting rid of all the lower and medium tier Bowls. You could leave those games as they are so that teams that don't qualify for the playoff tournament can still play for something. But I do think they should get rid of some of these low-level Bowl games, there are way too many bowls right now.

4) A playoff would hurt the academics of student-athletes because of too much travel, etc: Bunk. D-III has a playoff system, but most of those schools also have strict academic standards that all students (including athletes) must comply with. And it seems to work just fine. College basketball teams travel all over the Western Hemisphere during the regular season and across the country during the postseason and everything seems to work out just fine with those athletes. A playoff could be implemented that starts early in December and is finished by January 1st. That would help mitigate these concerns so that athletes are also doing their jobs as students.

As I have said before, what is preventing a playoff system are the numerous political entanglements between the NCAA, the various schools and the various conferences. Not lack of revenue-producing potential.

End Rant.

[sioooux]

I voted for eight teams, but I have an idea for a 16 team playoff incorporating much of what already exists. But anything would be better than the Bull Crap Series.

The BCS might be better than what we had before because there is a strength of schedule component to the rankings. But the fact that a bunch of inherently biased coaches meeting in smoke-filled backrooms drinking hard liquor from old mayonaise jars (ok I am exaggerating, but you get the point) have any sort of power over who plays where and when for what makes the whole system a total joke. If this is such a great system, why doesn't any other sport at any other level use something similar? Because it sucks, pure and simple. It is absolutely outrageous that coaches can "campaign" for their teams in the press and then get what they want (and I think everyone on this forum knows what coach and team I am talking about; it happened last year).

Of course, since the BCS has zero credibility, the BCS-ites have to come up with a bunch of half-truths, speculation and empty rhetoric to defend it. I have posted it before on this forum and I do so again right here to illustrate just how stupid the Bull Crap Series really is:

1) A playoff would ruin the importance of the regular season: Bunk. In Division 2 (as most people on this forum know), if you lose more than 2 games in a season, you can kiss the playoffs goodbye. Sometimes, even one loss teams don't get in. The regular season is still very important in D2 and it would still be important in DI FBS. The only sports in which the playoffs ruins regular season significance are the NBA and NHL. But that is a topic for another time.

2) A playoff would make less money than the current system: Bunk. This is perhaps the stupidest piece of reasoning of all. How in the world could anyone think that a tournament over a period of three to four weeks involving eight to sixteen teams, nationally televised, with most (if not all) of the games in prime time would make less money than a bunch of meaningless Bowl games (except for the BCS title game) scattered over a period of two to three weeks in December and January? The TV contracts would be worth mad money. And that doesn't count the ticket sales and the merchandising. I guess it depends what side your bread is buttered on. 'Nuff said.

3) A playoff would hurt "the little guy" in college football: Bunk. The "little guy" isn't getting much out of the current system, so the BCS-ites have a lot of nerve trying to use this argument. Properly structured and thought out, a playoff system would generate tons of money that could be poured into a revenue-sharing system that would benefit all schools, even those that aren't ranked in the top 5 or 10 ever year. This cash could be used to help pay for Title IX compliance issues and other things that athletic departments have to deal with. And a playoff system could be implemented without getting rid of all the lower and medium tier Bowls. You could leave those games as they are so that teams that don't qualify for the playoff tournament can still play for something. But I do think they should get rid of some of these low-level Bowl games, there are way too many bowls right now.

4) A playoff would hurt the academics of student-athletes because of too much travel, etc: Bunk. D-III has a playoff system, but most of those schools also have strict academic standards that all students (including athletes) must comply with. And it seems to work just fine. College basketball teams travel all over the Western Hemisphere during the regular season and across the country during the postseason and everything seems to work out just fine with those athletes. A playoff could be implemented that starts early in December and is finished by January 1st. That would help mitigate these concerns so that athletes are also doing their jobs as students.

As I have said before, what is preventing a playoff system are the numerous political entanglements between the NCAA, the various schools and the various conferences. Not lack of revenue-producing potential.

End Rant.

Very well said, I love that rant...Anyways I dont care how many teams are in the playoff I just wanna see a playoff.

[The Sicatoka]

Miami, the Jets, and Buffalo are really bad, a combined 9-27.

That's a bad division. Anyone else in there has an inflated record.

If Super Bowl teams were picked like the BCS, the New England Patriots would not be allowed to play for the top prize.

[soohockey15]

Miami, the Jets, and Buffalo are really bad, a combined 9-27.

That's a bad division. Anyone else in there has an inflated record.

If Super Bowl teams were picked like the BCS, the New England Patriots would not be allowed to play for the top prize.

The Patriots beat the Cowboys and Colts, and play the Steelers and Giants. Those teams have a combined 10 losses, so I guess the Patriots probably would be in. Thanks for trying, though.

[The Sicatoka]

The Patriots beat the Cowboys and Colts, and play the Steelers and Giants. Those teams have a combined 10 losses, so I guess the Patriots probably would be in. Thanks for trying, though.

Welcome to the arguments faced by the U of Hawaii Warriors.

Thanks for making the point.

[soohockey15]

Welcome to the arguments faced by the U of Hawaii Warriors.

Thanks for making the point.

Um, no?

Who has Hawaii played that's any good? No one. Maybe Boise St., but they haven't played any strong, big conference teams. The Patriots have beat the next two best teams in the NFL on the road, and play two other very good teams to end the year. Doesn't sound anything like an easy schedule to me.