Beginning of the end for the BCS?

[8timechamps]

Looks like the MWC has organized a posse. Now that a conference has taken a public stand (including university presidents), more will follow.

I really do think this is the beginning of the end of the BCS as we know it.

Click me to see the story (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3952542)

[ictsooner7]

The BCS will NOT go away until the Big Ten decides it can no longer consistently get two teams into BCS games a year and USC will not be the opponent EVERY YEAR. The BCS will remain as long as the Rose Bowl can take even a weak a$$ second place team when the weak a$$ first place team goes to the BCS game.

[8timechamps]

The BCS will NOT go away until the Big Ten decides it can no longer consistently get two teams into BCS games a year and USC will not be the opponent EVERY YEAR. The BCS will remain as long as the Rose Bowl can take even a weak a$$ second place team when the weak a$$ first place team goes to the BCS game.

I agree that the Big Teneleven will go a long way in determining the fate of the BCS (isn't the president of Michigan the head man with the BCS?).

However, if more conferences join the MWC and make a big enough stink, the BCS will change. There's no doubt it's going to take more than the MWC though.

[Leroy Lizard]

One of the reasons commissioners from the Big East, Big 12, Pac-10 and Big Ten gave for being against the so-called plus-one model Slive presented was a fear that any playoff system would inevitably expand.

Gee, ya' think??

[starclassic tama]

why can't we have a 4 team playoff? you could still use the BCS to decide the top 4, and everyone else could still play their bowls. is this what the plus one model is? then you can't whine about making the season too long...

[Leroy Lizard]

why can't we have a 4 team playoff? you could still use the BCS to decide the top 4, and everyone else could still play their bowls.

Would Utah have played in a 4-team playoff? No. So a four-team playoff would not have solved "the problem."

[RedstickSooner]

In other news, Libya, Lichtenstein, Portugal and Tuvalu have formed an alliance demanding the disbanding of the Security Council in the United Nations. Said their spokesman, "It's not fair that permanent security council members like France and Russia can veto any proposal brought before the council, and have their status in perpetuity, simply because they were world powers at the time the council was formed. All nations should have equal voice upon the world stage. I mean, c'mon. France? Seriously?"

[JLEW1818]

Make every conference have a conference championship game, that is step 1. I don't give a **** how many teams are in your conference.

[rainiersooner]

Would Utah have played in a 4-team playoff? No. So a four-team playoff would not have solved "the problem."

I view that as a "problem" with the polls, not the BCS. The voters (specifically the coaches) simply didn't respect their schedule or conference enough to vote them into the top four.

[soonerfan28]

I see an 8 team playoff soon..... or at least before I'm dead.

[badger]

I agree that the Big Teneleven will go a long way in determining the fate of the BCS (isn't the president of Michigan the head man with the BCS?).

The head of the BCS used to be actually be someone from Oklahoma... but I am not sure if that is still the case.

The saving fate of the BCS is that there's a very limited schedule as-is and not a lot of wiggle room, because the school leaders don't want to play after the first few weeks of January.

The other possibility is that the break after conference championship games could be eliminated to make room for playoffs... which would irk a lot of coaches who use that time to heal up their teams and allow the kids to focus on final exams.

In any event, there are a few teams that have no reason to complain about the BCS, and OU is one of them (Ohio State is the other). The BCS has done nothing but work in our favor since the beginning. OU has never been screwed out of a top tier game, nor has it been left out of the national title game when it was one of the deserving teams.

Thus... shouldn't we be one of the advocates for keeping it?

[TMcGee86]

Gee, ya' think??

Is there any other reason you have against a playoff? Or is it just the fact that it would inevitably expand to one that was too big? I mean, if for some strange reason you could ensure a six team playoff for 100 years, would you be for it? And if not, why.

[soonerfan28]

I think it is the only way you have a legit champ. I know badger made the point that OU's never been screwed by the BCS and that's a good point but I would like there to be no argument when we win our next one. There will continue to be contovery until they have a playoff.

[snp]

Make every conference have a conference championship game, that is step 1. I don't give a **** how many teams are in your conference.

A CCG is not the answer when all the teams within a conference play each other; it's totally unnecessary.

[Jason White's Third Knee]

In other news, Libya, Lichtenstein, Portugal and Tuvalu have formed an alliance demanding the disbanding of the Security Council in the United Nations. Said their spokesman, "It's not fair that permanent security council members like France and Russia can veto any proposal brought before the council, and have their status in perpetuity, simply because they were world powers at the time the council was formed. All nations should have equal voice upon the world stage. I mean, c'mon. France? Seriously?"


Lichtenstein? You are so full of ****.

[starclassic tama]

Would Utah have played in a 4-team playoff? No. So a four-team playoff would not have solved "the problem."

sure it would have. if you can't finish in the top 4 of the polls, you have no argument that you should be national champions. sorry utah, but i don't think anyone with half a brain would give them much of a chance this past year against florida OU or SC in a championship setting. i know they beat bama, but bama was clearly not great and their success was largely in part to a down SEC this year.

[Statalyzer]

I realize that the transitive property of sports has tons of holes in it, but I don't think it was a total fluke that Utah looked more dominant against Alabama than Florida did.


A CCG is not the answer when all the teams within a conference play each other; it's totally unnecessary.

No matter how many teams you play, it's still a big advantage to get an off week while the other top teams are getting an extra game against what is usually a dangerous opponent.


In any event, there are a few teams that have no reason to complain about the BCS, and OU is one of them (Ohio State is the other). The BCS has done nothing but work in our favor since the beginning. OU has never been screwed out of a top tier game, nor has it been left out of the national title game when it was one of the deserving teams.

Thus... shouldn't we be one of the advocates for keeping it?

Just because it has helped you in the past doesn't mean it's the best system. It also doesn't mean it'll help you in the future.

In 2004 the computer polls gave Texas the edge over Cal for the Rose Bowl. An obviously correct decision in hindsight but at the time, Texas and Cal were virtually equal. Doesn't mean the computer polls are going to help Texas, in say 2008 when trying to decide who wins the Big XII South.

And even without 2008, the computers putting us on top in a 50/50 coin flip decision in 2004 doesn't mean all Longhorns should ditch objectivity and support the computer polls.

Same thing for you guys and the BCS in general. It's helped you get into a couple of games that a some people someone else deserved - but next year, the BCS might screw you out of a game that everyone else in the country knows you do deserve.

[NormanPride]

I realize that the transitive property of sports has tons of holes in it, but I don't think it was a total fluke that Utah looked more dominant against Alabama than Florida did.

I'll stop you right there with the fact that Harvin was out for Florida/Alabama. That is a HUGE difference.

[soonermix]

that was really convenient for the MWC to suggest a .400 winning percentage against the auto big conferences

it should be at least .500

or maybe .600 but only for the top half of the conference.

[Leroy Lizard]

Is there any other reason you have against a playoff? Or is it just the fact that it would inevitably expand to one that was too big? I mean, if for some strange reason you could ensure a six team playoff for 100 years, would you be for it? And if not, why.

I am against all playoffs involving more than four teams, which means I am against all playoffs, since even a four-team playoff will ultimately will turn into a 16-team playoff. That is a given.

To answer your question: No, I would not support a 6-team playoff. I would not oppose a four-team playoff if it was guaranteed to never expand, but there will never be any such guarantee.


Make every conference have a conference championship game, that is step 1.

I absolutely support this requirement. Not because it is a good idea, but because it has zero chance of ever being implemented, which would therefore guarantee that no playoff system would ever be adopted.

[Leroy Lizard]

I view that as a "problem" with the polls, not the BCS. The voters (specifically the coaches) simply didn't respect their schedule or conference enough to vote them into the top four.

If it's a problem with the polls, then it is a problem with the BCS. After all, the "problem" is that the polls are somehow not good enough to determine a true champion.

[OU_Sooners75]

16 team playoff = 4 extra games max.
8 team playoff = 3 extra games max.
4 team playoff = 2 extra games max.


Personally. The fairest way for a national champion to be determine would be 16 teams....why?

1. you would have all conference champs eligible (there are 11 conferences). If eiligible (say 9 wins) an independent team would also qualify (why limit it to just Notre Dame).
2. You would have 4-5 teams that would get invites based on a ranking system of some sort. I would say more like an RPI type ranking. These teams are the top 4-5 teams that are not auto-bids and are not chosen by a committee. If a team is on probation, then skip to the next eligible team.
3. Right now the BCS states no more than 2 from a conference is eligible. Well, raise that to 3 teams max.
4. ALL CONFERENCES must have championship or a determination that does not result in a tie or co-champions.


All I know is the current way of determining a champion is BS. We need to make it fair for all teams/conferences. Not just 4 or 5 teams!

[8timechamps]

What moves the NCAA to act on anything athletically?

Money.

Now that the MWC has a history (albeit brief) of having a decent team, one capable of playing with the big boys, they want their share of the pie. Or at least a chance.

That's been my beef all along, should the national champion be accessible by any team that can merit it on the field...or only those teams in the "club" (major conferences)?

[KingBarry]

The Chairman of the MWC board of directors said "Our goal is to find a system that is best for college football."

Let KingBarry translate. What The Chairman REALLY meant was:

"Our goal is to make the MWC a member in the ever-rich gold mine that is the BCS, and if that means we have to embarrass the current BCS members and ourselves with crocodile tears and playoff schemes that we don't really want, then so be it."

The MWC wants in the BCS. I don't think they will get in, because they don't bring TV sets with them, and hence it doesn't make sense for the real conferences to share the money (and power) with them.

A clue to the MWC's real intention is the fact that they would never/almost never get a team into a four-game (8-team) play off, so why would they be lobbying for that?

[Leroy Lizard]

That's been my beef all along, should the national champion be accessible by any team that can merit it on the field...or only those teams in the "club" (major conferences)?

The problem is that a half of the playoff schemes don't provide equal footing for teams from weaker conferences.

The other half are unfair to teams that play in tough conferences.

[JLEW1818]

suck it up and do 16 teams.....

[JLEW1818]

But I don't really mind it now.

[badger]

Our goal is to make the MWC a member in the ever-rich gold mine that is the BCS, and if that means we have to embarrass the current BCS members and ourselves with crocodile tears and playoff schemes that we don't really want, then so be it.

What REALLY needs to happen is the Pac-10 needs to become the Pac-12 (or 13/14) by taking in a few MWC teams that are in the region... like... say... Utah and BYU (or Boise State and Hawaii out of other conferences).

This way, the only reason MWC has any reason to complain about the BCS will be gone. Conference USA thought they had a stake about seven years ago too in the BCS. Then, the Big East imploded and stole C-USA teams... then, the WAC impoded some of their teams (including Tulsa) left for C-USA.

I think it's highly foreseeable that before mid-major conferences get sick of the BCS that schools themselves will get sick of the BCS and there will be some conference switcheroonis.

[snp]

As soon as hell freezes over, the PAC 10 will offer an invitation to Hawaii or Boise State to join their conference. BYU or Utah is possible but no way those other two junior colleges would meet their academic guidelines.

[JLEW1818]

who is a good fit to turn the big teneleven to 12 teams?

[badger]

who is a good fit to turn the big teneleven to 12 teams?

Notre Dame. They fit geographically as well as mentally. You know, the whole "We think we're so awesome but once we're overrated in the polls we can't stop losing in big bowl games" mentality. This has divebombed every Big 10 team from Meatchicken to Ohio State to Penn State recently.

Of course, Wisconsin is still immune from this curse :D The BADGERS can win the Rose Bowl :D

:mad: and please, no pointing out that the above mentality can be said for other teams outside the Big 10 :mad:

[Leroy Lizard]

suck it up and do 16 teams.....

If we do that, a team could lose two and in some cases three games and still end up playing in the playoffs. If that happens, kiss the regular season good-bye.

Take a look at college basketball. Even when OU loses, it's no big deal. This is why I don't bother watching the regular season in college basketball at all. It's meaningless. The same will happen to college football with a 16-team playoff.

[JLEW1818]

well at least their would be less bitching on teams getting left out. You can't compare other sports to football. Way less games.

[Leroy Lizard]

With 16 teams, a team could lose three games and still get to play for all the marbles.

See LSU for example. If we implemented rules that would have prevented TCU and Ball State from playing in the playoffs, they would have been in. With three losses.

That would totally suck. And I am surprised that no one seems to understand why.

Lose one game, so what? We'll get in.

Lose two games, so what? We will probably still get in.

Lose three games, maybe we still have a chance.

Do you not see what that would do to the regular season?