The success of the BCS

[PDXsooner]

I'm willing to defend the BCS. I don't think it's perfect, and I agree that an 8 team playoff would have its advantages. However, the BCS is a substantial upgrade over the way national championships were awarded for a century.

In addition, I would make this argument: In 14 years, the BCS has truly only failed one team: Auburn in 2004. That is because if you go undefeated in a major conference you will play in the National Championship game. Once you lose a game, you throw your fate into the hands of the system. Every team whining at the end of the year either has a loss, or plays in a bunk conference.

Articulate your specific problem with the BCS.

[KABOOKIE]

I wish college basketball would go to this system. At the end of the year #1 and #2 play for it all.

The BCS is better than the old system but its still a far cry from the way it should be. Its more of a bandaid for the failed system prior to it.

[KABOOKIE]

Oh and another team the BCS has failed. Bosie State. The year they beat us in the Fiesta Bowl. Yeah, I know many of us like to think that 9 times outta 10 OU would have won that game. I like to think that BSU caught lightning in a bottle that year and would have won it all if there was a playoff. Don't think Bosie could have pulled it off? Well, Butler was about 6 inches away from winning it all against UConn in the NCAA basketball tourney.

[MeMyself&Me]

Articulate your specific problem with the BCS.

Subjective selectors (human) blows. Other than that, I don't have a huge problem with it. There are some other things I'd like different but they are way down the list.

As far as it being better than the old way, I'm on the other side of that fence. Remember how exciting New Year's day was pre-BCS? The reason why was because going into that day, more often that not, more than 2 teams had a chance at the NC, though typically only one controlled its own destiny. Much like a regular season day that had a lot of high profile matchups but since they were the last games there was sense of finality to it. I used to have three TVs going at once with a routing interest in all the games. Now, I watch non-OU bowl games with only passive football interest. I don't mind controversy and split titles though... just a part of college football.

[PDXsooner]

Subjective selectors (human) blows. Other than that, I don't have a huge problem with it. There are some other things I'd like different but they are way down the list.

As far as it being better than the old way, I'm on the other side of that fence. Remember how exciting New Year's day was pre-BCS? The reason why was because going into that day, more often that not, more than 2 teams had a chance at the NC, though typically only one controlled its own destiny. Much like a regular season day that had a lot of high profile matchups but since they were the last games there was sense of finality to it. I used to have three TVs going at once with a routing interest in all the games. Now, I watch non-OU bowl games with only passive football interest. I don't mind controversy and split titles though... just a part of college football.

Listen, I loved college football pre-BCS. I loved the drama of Tennessee beating Miami in the '85 Sugar Bowl followed by our beatdown of Penn St giving us the '85 crown... But the BCS has given us OU-Florida St, USC-Texas, Oregon-Auburn, etc etc. These are matchups we would never have seen pre-BCS.

[PDXsooner]

Oh and another team the BCS has failed. Bosie State. The year they beat us in the Fiesta Bowl. Yeah, I know many of us like to think that 9 times outta 10 OU would have won that game. I like to think that BSU caught lightning in a bottle that year and would have won it all if there was a playoff. Don't think Bosie could have pulled it off? Well, Butler was about 6 inches away from winning it all against UConn in the NCAA basketball tourney.

My problem with Boise State is that they make no effort to compensate for their marshmallow-soft schedule. In 2009 they bragged all year about beating Oregon -- Great, but your other non-conference games were Miami of Ohio, Bowling Green, Cal-Davis and Tulsa. If you're going to argue that you should have a seat at the table at least bring an appetizer!!!!

Last year after their big Va Tech win they also played New Mexico State, Toledo, Oregon St and Wyoming.

I think Boise can hang with anyone on a given day, but in a resume-based system they make no effort to beef theirs up. "No one will give us a home and home"! They cry. Well, step up and go on the road a couple of times!!!!!

[CowboyMRW]

Boise has cancelled on 2 for 1's in the past. They are a team that is going to fade big time now that Kellen is gone

[yermom]

Listen, I loved college football pre-BCS. I loved the drama of Tennessee beating Miami in the '85 Sugar Bowl followed by our beatdown of Penn St giving us the '85 crown... But the BCS has given us OU-Florida St, USC-Texas, Oregon-Auburn, etc etc. These are matchups we would never have seen pre-BCS.

so, what you are saying is that likely USC wins in 2005 over Ohio State and Texas doesn't win the national championship?

hmm. i like where you are going...

[MeMyself&Me]

Listen, I loved college football pre-BCS. I loved the drama of Tennessee beating Miami in the '85 Sugar Bowl followed by our beatdown of Penn St giving us the '85 crown... But the BCS has given us OU-Florida St, USC-Texas, Oregon-Au
burn, etc etc. These are matchups we would never have seen pre-BCS.

Yup, great single game matchups but the rest of the post season wasn't nearly as interesting as before. And the games pre-BCS were good too, just not BCS #1 vs BCS #2. Pre-BCS, we had an exciting regular season and an exciting post season. We now have an exciting regular season and a so-so post season overall. Just sayn'. Everyone, including me, complained that the two best teams didn't play. Now that we have the two best teams playing, I think it's over-rated. The post season was more exciting before... even if a bit more messy. But like I said before, I don't mind the mess. :)

[TUSooner]

After many seconds of painstaking consideration, I conclude that the BCS is NOT an improvement over the pre-BCS days. I used to think BCS was an improvement, now I do not. Sure, the 1 vs 2 matchups are sometimes good, but it's not necessarily better than the old days when more than one bowl game often had MNC implications. Plus, the BCS ultimately provides only a stronger illusion of "one true champion"; it still depends to an extraordiunary degree on human prejudices and misjudgments. And the BCS has increased the insufferable hypoe and build-up that generally detracts from my enjoyment of sports.

If it ain't a real playoff, it's not better than the pre-BCS days. And, by the way, absent a playoff, I am happy withOUT the illusion of a true champ. Of course, if OU ever finishes #1, they will be UNDISPUTED CHAMPS, nothing illusory about it!

[PDXsooner]

Yup, great single game matchups but the rest of the post season wasn't nearly as interesting as before.

Not sure I agree. For the most part the bowls are for pride, not the National Title. But I enjoyed them before and I enjoy them now. I don't see a whole lot of difference. Yeah, maybe there was additional drama in a game or two but not that much.

[Jacie]

I thought this was one of those tongue-in-cheek threads but I guess PDX was serious . . .

[oudivesherpa]

If we can't have at least a plus one playoff, then we should limit the MNC game to teams that have won their conference.

[PDXsooner]

the BCS has increased the insufferable hypoe and build-up that generally detracts from my enjoyment of sports.



I agree with this. Remember the days when sports were a weekly occurence and outside of the occasional newspaper article you had to wait a week to experience it again? Now we're inundated with 24 hour sports drivel both locally and nationally on TV and radio, all trying to convince us that this week's "game of the century" will be better than last week's, or that we're supposed to give a flying **** about who did steroids in baseball or who drank beer in the dugout? Or which NBA player hit a "clutch" shot in January, or which NFL player is the latest to be compared to Joe Montana. Guess what? I don't give a ****!

About 5 years ago I stopped listening to sports radio (for the most part) and although I do watch ESPN on gamedays I hardly watch any of the hype during the week. During OU games I turn the TV on right at kickoff and avoid the pre game crap.

I find it so much more enjoyable to focus on the actual game.

[PDXsooner]

I thought this was one of those tongue-in-cheek threads but I guess PDX was serious . . .

I am serious. I think the BCS has been largely successful in accomplishing what is was meant to do (match the most deserving #1 vs #2). In 14 years it has failed one team (Auburn, 2004). Not a perfect system, but better than it was before.

Also, for any playoff proponents -- I'm curious how the playoff would be set up, where the games would be played, and how you would determine the top 8/16/32/64/etc...?

[soonerbub]

How did it fail auburn? What were they gonna do--have 3 teams play a game or what? The BCS did its job that year more than any other--if auburn wanted in they should have scheduled better.

It's easy to pick in years like last year & '05--the BCS is not even needed then. It is the "job" of the BCS to pick in the tough years (even tho everyone constantly bitches about it)

[LRoss]

I think the original post is spot-on and I agree almost entirely.

I would LOVE a playoff. That would be awesome. But the only failure of the BCS is that it's generated years and years of whining and crying about every frickin' aspect of it (the computers give ridiculous results after week 6! humans are too subjective! it's all too complicated to understand! this is so much worse than the hypothetical playoff system that my buddy scrawled in the glitter on the floor at the gentleman's club one night!). Part of me wants a playoff mostly so the whining will stop, and part of me doesn't want it ever to change, just so the whiners aren't rewarded. (And yes, I'm aware that I'm whining about whining.)

[PDXsooner]

How did it fail auburn? What were they gonna do--have 3 teams play a game or what? The BCS did its job that year more than any other--if auburn wanted in they should have scheduled better.

I think that it would have also failed OU and USC if they had been left out. I guess the system didn't so much "fail", but Auburn is the one exception to this golden rule about the BCS -- If you are in a major conference and you go undefeated, you will play in the BCS title game.

[PDXsooner]

It's easy to pick in years like last year & '05--the BCS is not even needed then.

Although pre-BCS, Texas and USC would never have played.

[soonergirlNeugene]

I think the original post is spot-on and I agree almost entirely.

I would LOVE a playoff. That would be awesome. But the only failure of the BCS is that it's generated years and years of whining and crying about every frickin' aspect of it (the computers give ridiculous results after week 6! humans are too subjective! it's all too complicated to understand! this is so much worse than the hypothetical playoff system that my buddy scrawled in the glitter on the floor at the gentleman's club one night!). Part of me wants a playoff mostly so the whining will stop, and part of me doesn't want it ever to change, just so the whiners aren't rewarded. (And yes, I'm aware that I'm whining about whining.)

Amen!

[8timechamps]

PDX, Please, please, PLEASE...go to your local Barnes & Nobel, or the library, and get Death to the BCS. I promise your view of the BCS will be altered. The BCS is a cartel, that is about money and money alone, working under the guise that they will determine the true national champion. As we are seeing this year, it fails yet again.

The bowls themselves aren't innocent either. The entire structure needs to be overhauled.

[JiminyChristmas]

Even though we all know that the BCS has been very good to our Sooners over the years, I still don't like it. We have to get to an 8 team playoff. With a weakening of the Big XII and the continually upward spiraling love for the SEC, the BCS may not be quite so kind to OU in the future.

In my opinion, the SEC lovefest is the most troubling part of the equation. The human element is going to continue to ratchet up for them and teams from other conferences are going to get pushed further and further down the ladder. I would bet the house that the SEC would not have won 5 National Titles in a row if there had been an 8 team playoff in place. The BCS and the SEC are becoming a self-fulfilling, media driven prophecy. Getting 2 teams in the MNC game this year is just a precursor of things to come.

Disclaimer: During the conference realignment fiasco, I was in favor of moving to the SEC over the PAC or staying in the Big XII. Might as well go where the system is going to reward you the most.

[PDXsooner]

PDX, Please, please, PLEASE...go to your local Barnes & Nobel, or the library, and get Death to the BCS. I promise your view of the BCS will be altered. The BCS is a cartel, that is about money and money alone, working under the guise that they will determine the true national champion. As we are seeing this year, it fails yet again.

The bowls themselves aren't innocent either. The entire structure needs to be overhauled.

#1 - I will Check that book out. Thanks for the tip.

#2 - I am under no illusion that the executives behind the BCS curtain Place anything over money on their list of priorities. However, the alternative is a playoff and that would be different how?

[PDXsooner]

Even though we all know that the BCS has been very good to our Sooners over the years, I still don't like it. We have to get to an 8 team playoff. With a weakening of the Big XII and the continually upward spiraling love for the SEC, the BCS may not be quite so kind to OU in the future.

In my opinion, the SEC lovefest is the most troubling part of the equation. The human element is going to continue to ratchet up for them and teams from other conferences are going to get pushed further and further down the ladder. I would bet the house that the SEC would not have won 5 National Titles in a row if there had been an 8 team playoff in place. The BCS and the SEC are becoming a self-fulfilling, media driven prophecy. Getting 2 teams in the MNC game this year is just a precursor of things to come.

Disclaimer: During the conference realignment fiasco, I was in favor of moving to the SEC over the PAC or staying in the Big XII. Might as well go where the system is going to reward you the most.

As much as I dislike the SEC and all things southern, let's give credit where it's due here. The SEC has done a lot to earn their Place at the table.

[jkjsooner]

I'm willing to defend the BCS. I don't think it's perfect, and I agree that an 8 team playoff would have its advantages. However, the BCS is a substantial upgrade over the way national championships were awarded for a century.

Absolutely. The BCS is an upgrade from the Bowl Alliance and a major upgrade from the sytem that existed before the bowl alliance



In addition, I would make this argument: In 14 years, the BCS has truly only failed one team: Auburn in 2004.

Depends, if you're using the assumption that the BCS is keeping us from having a tournament then I agree that it failed Auburn.

If you're assuming we only have a single game to determine the winner then the BCS did not fail Auburn. The assumption that the BCS is forced to work with failed Auburn.

Saying that the BCS failed Auburn is similar to saying the Bowl Coalition failed Penn State years ago. The Bowl Coalition did the best it could have done under the conditions it was given - that the PAC 10 and Big 10 would not play along,. (Luckily for all of us they paid a price and quickly changed their tune.)

[jkjsooner]

Oh and another team the BCS has failed. Bosie State. The year they beat us in the Fiesta Bowl.

I agree only because I wish every team had some opportunity to win a title. However, that was not a great OU team. I love what PT did for our program but he wasn't a top caliber QB. As he did all season, he was wildly inaccurate beyond 20 yards and missed several easy TD throws that game.

We were extremely lucky to win the Big 12 that year. Boise State was not a giant killer because we were hardly a giant that year.

[jkjsooner]

As far as it being better than the old way, I'm on the other side of that fence. Remember how exciting New Year's day was pre-BCS? The reason why was because going into that day, more often that not, more than 2 teams had a chance at the NC, though typically only one controlled its own destiny.

I can't believe not matching #1 vs #2 is better in your eyes because it creates more excitement. Using that logic we should intentionally not match up the top teams. Luckily, even back then they matched #1 and #2 when possible.

You must have considered quite a few of the bowl seasons in the '80s and early '90s boring. We were lucky enough that three independents (PSU, Miami, and ND) were well represented in those national title games so they were able to match up #1 and #2 quite often.

I didn't consider the '86/'87 bowl season boring becase only the Fiesta Bowl mattered nor did I consider the '87/'88 bowl season boring because only the Orange Bowl mattered.


And this brings up another point, those independents had the option to play anywhere they liked. If they were #1 going in, weren't willing to risk it, and thought they had a good margin in the polls they could skip the tough game and play a lesser opponent. I don't know if that happened but I remember talk about the possibilities of it happening.

Thank God we no longer have a system where the independents had theh option to phone in a national title.


Question: In 85/86 why did PSU and Miami not hook up in some bowl like they did in 86/87? Was PSU avoiding Miami knowing that OU would be tough enough to keep their #1 ranking? If they were trying to phone it in that year, they failed miserably.

[MeMyself&Me]

I can't believe not matching #1 vs #2 is better in your eyes because it creates more excitement. Using that logic we should intentionally not match up the top teams. Luckily, even back then they matched #1 and #2 when possible.

You must have considered quite a few of the bowl seasons in the '80s and early '90s boring. We were lucky enough that three independents (PSU, Miami, and ND) were well represented in those national title games so they were able to match up #1 and #2 quite often.

I didn't consider the '86/'87 bowl season boring becase only the Fiesta Bowl mattered nor did I consider the '87/'88 bowl season boring because only the Orange Bowl mattered.


And this brings up another point, those independents had the option to play anywhere they liked. If they were #1 going in, weren't willing to risk it, and thought they had a good margin in the polls they could skip the tough game and play a lesser opponent. I don't know if that happened but I remember talk about the possibilities of it happening.

Thank God we no longer have a system where the independents had theh option to phone in a national title.


Question: In 85/86 why did PSU and Miami not hook up in some bowl like they did in 86/87? Was PSU avoiding Miami knowing that OU would be tough enough to keep their #1 ranking? If they were trying to phone it in that year, they failed miserably.

I've watched CFB post season pre-BCS and during BCS, it was much more exciting before when all the major bowls played on one day and, yes, often times #1 didn't play #2. The latter part played a factor in those post seasons being more exciting because more than 2 teams had a shot at the title but there were other factors too like playing all on one day. The times where #1 played #2 were also exciting but it didn't happen every year and part of what made that exciting is that it didn't happen every year such that it added to the interest of THAT game because it didn't happen every year . What I'm saying is the chaos of it all was what made it fun and it tended to be more inclusive than the current BCS.

Now we get #1 vs #2 every year. THAT game is good. The rest, as someone said, is just for pride of the participants. I'll watch OU's bowl game this year cause I'm an OU fan. I'll watch others as I have to time for it (can't make time to see all the big bowls cause they're all on separate days now) but it will be without earnest because I don't give a rip who wins in most cases.

If your main point is matching #1 vs #2 every year then the BCS is a definite improvement. I'm just saying the post season is less interesting overall than it was pre-BCS. I preferred it when it was more interesting.

[jkjsooner]

I've watched CFB post season pre-BCS and during BCS, it was much more exciting before when all the major bowls played on one day

You hit the main reason it was better right there. If you blame the BCS for that then you have a point but I think that's a little misplaced. The fact that we spread them out has everything to do with TV. Heck, even minor bowls are now pushing their game back further and further.

[IndySooner]

I am serious. I think the BCS has been largely successful in accomplishing what is was meant to do (match the most deserving #1 vs #2). In 14 years it has failed one team (Auburn, 2004). Not a perfect system, but better than it was before.

Also, for any playoff proponents -- I'm curious how the playoff would be set up, where the games would be played, and how you would determine the top 8/16/32/64/etc...?Pretty simple answer here. Read "Death to the BCS". Dan Wetzel (Yahoo Sports) has the perfect system setup. 16 teams. 11 conference champions. 5 at-large, selected by a committee. In other words, conference champions and the rest of the top-8 to 10. Seeded by the committee, just like the NCAA tourney. Highest seeds host until the championship. Two weeks before finals/Christmas. Two weeks after Christmas. Go!

***I see I'm not the first to mention the book. It's a MUST read for any college football fan. Pretty obvious, when reading, that Wetzel's NOT a fan of the BCS. It slants that way. That said, there's a ton of info that will blow you away.

[IndySooner]

As much as I dislike the SEC and all things southern, let's give credit where it's due here. The SEC has done a lot to BUY their Place at the table.

FIFY

[MeMyself&Me]

You hit the main reason it was better right there. If you blame the BCS for that then you have a point but I think that's a little misplaced. The fact that we spread them out has everything to do with TV. Heck, even minor bowls are now pushing their game back further and further.

That was just part of it, and just part of my post. I don't put all the blame on the BCS for the games being spread out but spreading the games out did coincide with the bowls starting to work together to make the BCS. If each bowl still did their own thing, I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of the major bowls were still on New Years day.

Making the entire championship picture about one game and only one game every year is the fault of the BCS. That is also part of it.

[IndySooner]

That was just part of it, and just part of my post. I don't put all the blame on the BCS for the games being spread out but spreading the games out did coincide with the bowls starting to work together to make the BCS. If each bowl still did their own thing, I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of the major bowls were still on New Years day.

Making the entire championship picture about one game and only one game every year is the fault of the BCS. That is also part of it.

The only thing that keeps me interested in the bowls is that I run a pretty large bowl pool. That makes it interesting. Outside of that, especially this year with a re-match, I'll be interested in OU's game and potentially one or two really good matchups.

[SoonerPride]

playoffs are a seemingly simple solution which only will create more consternation.

there is no simple way to whittle 120 teams to 2, 4, 6, 8 or even 16.

no matter what system you devise, there will be whining and second guessing and arguments.

and since two teams do play for the title, it is settled on the field.

and if there is a re-match this year of bama vs. lsu and this time bama wins, was it really settled on the field? perhaps they should play a tie-breaker game too.

playoffs are for the weak minded and faint of heart.

[MI Sooner]

PDX, Please, please, PLEASE...go to your local Barnes & Nobel, or the library, and get Death to the BCS. I promise your view of the BCS will be altered. The BCS is a cartel, that is about money and money alone, working under the guise that they will determine the true national champion. As we are seeing this year, it fails yet again.

The bowls themselves aren't innocent either. The entire structure needs to be overhauled.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how this is any different from the NCAA. The NCAA tournament is a bunch of crap because NAIA teams don't get in. How unfair! They're not trying to crown a true champion, just looking out for the interests of their member institutions.

Look, conferences, the parties to the BCS agreements, the NCAA... they're all cartels, trying to agree on how to supply their goods to maximize revenue for participants in the cartel while not sharing with non-participants.

The BCS system isn't my ideal system either, but people who act like college football is especially corrupt, or that this is some unique sector of the world where people act in their self-interest, are just being naive.

What makes the NCAA the be-all end-all of sanctioning bodies? What makes single elimination tournaments like the farce that is the basketball tournament the best way to crown a "true" champion?

In my mind, the BCS champ is just that, the champion of the BCS, no more no less. And the same goes for the NCAA basketball tournament champion. That's every bit an "M"NC as a football "M"NC. They won a single-elimination tournament at the end of the year, that's put on by the NCAA, that for the last couple decades, draws the best teams in the country that aren't on probation. If press-consortium XYZ wants to vote on a their national champion, and picks a different team, then that team is the "Press consortium XYZ national champion."

Fans will grant varying degrees of importance to various national champion selectors. It's not like the NCAA basketball tournament has been the undisputed bestower of "true" national championships for time immemorial.

[jkjsooner]

playoffs are a seemingly simple solution which only will create more consternation.

there is no simple way to whittle 120 teams to 2, 4, 6, 8 or even 16.

no matter what system you devise, there will be whining and second guessing and arguments.

Of course. We hear it when bubble teams are left out of the NCAA basketball tournament.

However, the whining is a lot less. Those bubble teams aren't winning the tournament. If you have 16 teams, that #17 team is not going to win the tournament if included. If you have 8 teams, that #9 team might have had a chance but their argument is weak.


Please tell me you understand that the #3 team (who might be undefeated) has a lot stronger argument for inclusion that the #9 team.


When we have three undefeated teams or three one-loss teams people question the validity of the national championship. Nobody questions the validity of the basketball champion - even if a few bubble teams think they should have made the tournament.

[Jacie]

The argument that the BCS is superior to a playoff because it matches #1 vs #2 is a smoke screen.

The BCS forumla is made to produce a #1 and a #2, however, there is nothing in the formula, nothing anyone is allowed access to anyway, that shows in a case such as this year, that the BCS knows which team is really #2 (if by definition, the #2 team is supposed to be the second best of 110 D1 teams). The choice of a #2 in a year such as this, when there are several teams with the same record vying for the one slot, is slanted towards the team that the people who stand to make the most money, ESPN and the venue lucky enough to be hosting the championship game, want to be #2. The situation only gets worse in years when all of the top teams have at least one loss.

So yes, the BCS pits a #1 and a #2 against each other in the championship game, but don't think for a second that #2 deserves to be there anymore than #'s 3, 4 and 5 . . .

[MeMyself&Me]

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how this is any different from the NCAA. The NCAA tournament is a bunch of crap because NAIA teams don't get in. How unfair! They're not trying to crown a true champion, just looking out for the interests of their member institutions.

Look, conferences, the parties to the BCS agreements, the NCAA... they're all cartels, trying to agree on how to supply their goods to maximize revenue for participants in the cartel while not sharing with non-participants.

The BCS system isn't my ideal system either, but people who act like college football is especially corrupt, or that this is some unique sector of the world where people act in their self-interest, are just being naive.

What makes the NCAA the be-all end-all of sanctioning bodies? What makes single elimination tournaments like the farce that is the basketball tournament the best way to crown a "true" champion?

In my mind, the BCS champ is just that, the champion of the BCS, no more no less. And the same goes for the NCAA basketball tournament champion. That's every bit an "M"NC as a football "M"NC. They won a single-elimination tournament at the end of the year, that's put on by the NCAA, that for the last couple decades, draws the best teams in the country that aren't on probation. If press-consortium XYZ wants to vote on a their national champion, and picks a different team, then that team is the "Press consortium XYZ national champion."

Fans will grant varying degrees of importance to various national champion selectors. It's not like the NCAA basketball tournament has been the undisputed bestower of "true" national championships for time immemorial.

Can't argue with a word of that. In fact, it's pretty much how I see it.

[IndySooner]

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how this is any different from the NCAA. The NCAA tournament is a bunch of crap because NAIA teams don't get in. How unfair! They're not trying to crown a true champion, just looking out for the interests of their member institutions.

Look, conferences, the parties to the BCS agreements, the NCAA... they're all cartels, trying to agree on how to supply their goods to maximize revenue for participants in the cartel while not sharing with non-participants.

The BCS system isn't my ideal system either, but people who act like college football is especially corrupt, or that this is some unique sector of the world where people act in their self-interest, are just being naive.

What makes the NCAA the be-all end-all of sanctioning bodies? What makes single elimination tournaments like the farce that is the basketball tournament the best way to crown a "true" champion?

In my mind, the BCS champ is just that, the champion of the BCS, no more no less. And the same goes for the NCAA basketball tournament champion. That's every bit an "M"NC as a football "M"NC. They won a single-elimination tournament at the end of the year, that's put on by the NCAA, that for the last couple decades, draws the best teams in the country that aren't on probation. If press-consortium XYZ wants to vote on a their national champion, and picks a different team, then that team is the "Press consortium XYZ national champion."

Fans will grant varying degrees of importance to various national champion selectors. It's not like the NCAA basketball tournament has been the undisputed bestower of "true" national championships for time immemorial.Yet, I KNOW FOR A FACT that you haven't read the book, yet. Read the freaking book already!

[PDXsooner]

Highest seeds host until the championship. Two weeks before finals/Christmas. Two weeks after Christmas. Go!



So we completely eliminate the bowls? And you're ok with sweeping that tradition aside just like that?

[IndySooner]

So we completely eliminate the bowls? And you're ok with sweeping that tradition aside just like that?Nope. The only teams that don't go to bowls are the final eight. The other eight are slotted into the "BCS" bowls. The bowl games are just as meaningless as they are today, but they still exist.

[PDXsooner]

So by that format we would be in the playoffs. And losing to Tech and Baylor would only affect our seed. That is a HUGE change to the sport. We lost to Tech and Baylor and yet we would still have a great shot to win it all. Sounds great as a Sooner fan, yet it entirely alters the paradigm of what is a great sport. I don't like it.

[IndySooner]

So by that format we would be in the playoffs. And losing to Tech and Baylor would only affect our seed. That is a HUGE change to the sport. We lost to Tech and Baylor and yet we would still have a great shot to win it all. Sounds great as a Sooner fan, yet it entirely alters the paradigm of what is a great sport. I don't like it.We may or may not. Here's who would for sure:

1. LSU/Georgia winner
2. Oklahoma/Oklahoma State winner
3. Oregon/UCLA winner
4. Virginia Tech/Clemson winner
5. West Virginia/South Florida winner
6. Michigan State/Wisconsin winner
7. Houston/Southern Miss winner
8. TCU
9. Ohio/Northern Illinois winner
10. Arkansas State
11. Louisiana Tech

Five at-large bids come after that:

1) Alabama (lock)
2) Boise (lock)
3) Stanford (lock)
4) Arkansas
5) Oklahoma/Oklahoma State loser
6) South Carolina

Any upsets in those championship games (Pac 10, SEC or ACC) and we're SQUARELY on the bubble.

Also, as the WAC gets more and more watered down, and potentially the Big East, an 8-team playoff makes more sense than a 16-team playoff. Take conference champs of the Big 12, SEC, ACC, Big 10, Pac 12, then the next three ranked (or selected) schools.

[SoonerPride]

We may or may not. Here's who would for sure:

1. LSU/Georgia winner
2. Oklahoma/Oklahoma State winner
3. Oregon/UCLA winner
4. Virginia Tech/Clemson winner
5. West Virginia/South Florida winner
6. Michigan State/Wisconsin winner
7. Houston/Southern Miss winner
8. TCU
9. Ohio/Northern Illinois winner
10. Arkansas State
11. Louisiana Tech

Five at-large bids come after that:

1) Alabama (lock)
2) Boise (lock)
3) Stanford (lock)
4) Arkansas
5) Oklahoma/Oklahoma State loser
6) South Carolina

Any upsets in those championship games (Pac 10, SEC or ACC) and we're SQUARELY on the bubble.

Also, as the WAC gets more and more watered down, and potentially the Big East, an 8-team playoff makes more sense than a 16-team playoff. Take conference champs of the Big 12, SEC, ACC, Big 10, Pac 12, then the next three ranked (or selected) schools.

Yeah, no one would be upset about Arkansas State getting in over OU.

Nice system.

You trade one headache for another.

No sale.

[IndySooner]

By the way, the first round would look something like this:

16. Arkansas State @
1. LSU

9. Oklahoma State @
8. Boise State

13. TCU @
4. Virginia Tech

12. West Virginia @
5. Oregon

11. Wisconsin @
6. Oklahoma

14. Northern Illinois @
3. Stanford

10. Houston @
7. Arkansas

15. Louisiana Tech @
2. Alabama

And potential second round:

9. Oklahoma State @
1. LSU

5. Oregon @
4. Virginia Tech

6. Oklahoma @
3. Stanford

7. Arkansas @
2. Alabama

And the semi-finals:

5. Oregon @
1. LSU

3. Stanford @
2. Alabama


We may end up with Bama/LSU for the championship, or we might find out that the SEC is really weak this year. At least we'd figure it out on the field. PLUS....the excitement of a tournament like this would be unmatched. There are only three or four "snoozers" in the entire 16-game tournament. I'd watch the entire freaking thing.

[IndySooner]

Yeah, no one would be upset about Arkansas State getting in over OU.

Nice system.

You trade one headache for another.

No sale.They won their conference. They earned it. I did say that I wouldn't mind an 8-team playoff that only guaranteed the five BCS conferences a bid. I'd be good with that. That said, the 16-team tournament would be unreal excitement-wise.

[SoonerPride]

They won their conference. They earned it. I did say that I wouldn't mind an 8-team playoff that only guaranteed the five BCS conferences a bid. I'd be good with that. That said, the 16-team tournament would be unreal excitement-wise.

Why not make it 32?

It would be twice as exciting then.

Can you imagaine 64 teams!!??!!

That would AWESOME!!!

[IndySooner]

Why not make it 32?

It would be twice as exciting then.

Can you imagaine 64 teams!!??!!

That would AWESOME!!!Logistics don't allow it. Also, football has 1/3 of the eligible teams. It would be watered down.

I know your post was full of sarcasm, but there are realistic answers to those questions as to why it would never expand beyond 16. 11 conferences instead of 30. 120 teams instead of 320.

20% of the basketball teams get into the NCAA Tourney. This would only be 13% of the eligible football teams.

[SoonerPride]

Then I want OU to move to the SunBelt conference.

NOW.

[IndySooner]

Then I want OU to move to the SunBelt conference.

NOW.Right.......

[OU_Sooners75]

The BCS has been successful?

They have been successful in determining their own national champion, but not a consensus national champions or one that is without controversy.

Take 2006 as an example. The only undefeated team in the nation did not get a chance to play for a National Championship. 2007, LSU backs their way into the game thanks to OU beating Missouri. LSU lost to 2 5 loss teams that year (Kentucky and Arkansas).

Nebraska 2001 didn't even make it to the Big 12 Conference Championship Game. At least when OU lost to KSU, they made it to the CCG.

Bama wont be making their CCG either. They didn't even win their division...how can anyone in their right mind say they are worthy of a National Championship without going through a national championship playoff?

2004 there were 3 undefeated teams heading into the BCS Bowl Selection. One clearly allowed an ineligible player to play on their team and blew out the #2 team. At least a plus one would have worked that year.

Go back to 2003, OU didnt win the Big 12. USC was hot and on a roll. Why didn't USC get a chance? A plus one would have done wonder that year as well.

I guess I could have just stated, when there is a human element selecting the two teams to play for the championship, it is flawed and inexcusable and is in no way successful outside their own system.

[IndySooner]

Then I want OU to move to the SunBelt conference.

NOW.Right.......

[OU_Sooners75]

Indy, you should say it again...:biggrin:

[SoonerPride]

Right.......

If conference winners automatically get in, we move to easiest conference we can find. Why NOT? That's only smart business.

Secondly, your nonconference season is purely exhibition football and meaningless. Who cares if you play anyone good at all or win or lose the games? Only conference winners get in FOR SURE, so who cares about the rest. Concentrate on the conference and blow the rest off.

Why play starters and risk getting them injured? You like NFL pre-season games? welcome to the first 4 games of your OU season.

Again, your system is terribly flawed.

[MeMyself&Me]

Then I want OU to move to the SunBelt conference.

NOW.

And this is one of the problems with guaranteeing all conference champions. You'd have schools that just want to be in a weak conference. OU won't do that but some upstart like Boise State is more likely to sit tight in the WAC. Lesser schools in the major conferences may look to move to a weaker conference just to have a better chance. Wouldn't make for improving football's regular season for sure. Just another example of forsaking the regular season to have a neat and tidy post season.

[SoonerPride]

And this is one of the problems with guaranteeing all conference champions. You'd have schools that just want to be in a weak conference. OU won't do that but some upstart like Boise State is more likely to sit tight in the WAC. Lesser schools in the major conferences may look to move to a weaker conference just to have a better chance. Wouldn't make for improving football's regular season for sure. Just another example of forsaking the regular season to have a neat and tidy post season.

Hell, the SEC would probalby split into two conferences.

The SEC East and the SEC west and get two automatic qualifiers.

They should.

Better than Arkansas freaking State. Are you kidding me with that?

[MeMyself&Me]

I wouldn't go so far as to say it's flawed, it certainly can work. Just that it changes too much of what college football is. You like it if must have a neat and tidy post season champion but you don't like it if you don't need a neat and tidy post season champion. That's about it.

[OU_Sooners75]

If conference winners auotmatically get in, we move to eaisest conference we can find. Why NOT? That's only smart business.

Secondly, your nonconference season is purely exhibition football and meaningless. Who cares if you play anyone good at all or win or lose the games? Only conference winners get in FOR SURE, so who cares about the rest. Concentrate on the conference and blow the rest off.

Why play starters and risk getting them injured? You like NFL pre-season games? welcome to the first 4 games of your OU season.

Again, your system is terribhly flawed.

You know how you correct that terribhly (WTF, is this a word?) terribly flawed system of his?

Go to 16 teams...All conference champions are included (that makes 11 currently). Then add in the top 5 teams (that are not conference champs and are eligible for post season) by using a computerized ranking system similar to the RPI in basketball.

Seed the teams from that ranking system and go.

That computer ranking should have the following weights: Strength of Schedule, Points Differential, Average Margin of Loss, Average Margin of Win, Home Losses, Road/Neutral Wins, Wins vs. non FBS teams (this deducts from their value), Losses vs. non FBS teams, Wins vs. Top 10, Wins vs. Top 20, Wins vs. Top 40.

This would mean that the season still does mean something. That if you are in a conference like the Sun Belt and you are not the Champion, you will not make the playoffs. This also means that it is about as fair as it possibly can get...I know it isn't about fairness, but then conferences cannot bitch and moan every year for not being included.

Hell, come to think of it, I think I may make a computer ranking with all the stuff I just stated above and see what it does. (Not a math genius but ill just put some generic and basic (very basic) formula to it).

[MeMyself&Me]

Hell, the SEC would probalby split into two conferences.

The SEC East and the SEC west and get two automatic qualifiers.

They should.

Better than Arkansas freaking State. Are you kidding me with that?

That's another problem it introduces. In that setup, more smaller conferences would be preferred than lesser larger conferences. I guess the Big 12 should stay with 10. Hell, kick out OSU and KSU and now the league just got a bit easier to manage yearly for OU and Texas with 8 teams and not much competition.

[IndySooner]

I wouldn't go so far as to say it's flawed, it certainly can work. Just that it changes too much of what college football is. You like it if must have a neat and tidy post season champion but you don't like it if you don't need a neat and tidy post season champion. That's about it.Oh, there are flaws. The conference champion point is one of them. It's valid. There aren't a ton of them, though. MANY less than the current system.

Also, pointing out that the pre-conference season means nothing actually works AGAINST your argument. That would allow teams to schedule really good pre-conference match-ups without the fear of them costing them a national championship. That would be great!

[IndySooner]

You know how you correct that terribhly (WTF, is this a word?) terribly flawed system of his?

Go to 16 teams...All conference champions are included (that makes 11 currently). Then add in the top 5 teams (that are not conference champs and are eligible for post season) by using a computerized ranking system similar to the RPI in basketball.

Seed the teams from that ranking system and go.

That computer ranking should have the following weights: Strength of Schedule, Points Differential, Average Margin of Loss, Average Margin of Win, Home Losses, Road/Neutral Wins, Wins vs. non FBS teams (this deducts from their value), Losses vs. non FBS teams, Wins vs. Top 10, Wins vs. Top 20, Wins vs. Top 40.

This would mean that the season still does mean something. That if you are in a conference like the Sun Belt and you are not the Champion, you will not make the playoffs. This also means that it is about as fair as it possibly can get...I know it isn't about fairness, but then conferences cannot bitch and moan every year for not being included.

Hell, come to think of it, I think I may make a computer ranking with all the stuff I just stated above and see what it does. (Not a math genius but ill just put some generic and basic (very basic) formula to it).The ENTIRE reason Wetzel settled on this system (he doesn't necessarily like the small conference champs in it either) is because it's the ONLY way it would fly. A playoff system would have to give everyone a chance. No one can complain, they have a chance.

[MeMyself&Me]

Also, pointing out that the pre-conference season means nothing actually works AGAINST your argument. That would allow teams to schedule really good pre-conference match-ups without the fear of them costing them a national championship. That would be great!

Well first, it wasn't me that said that. Second, what would it matter to schedule tough opponents if you don't need to win those games?

[IndySooner]

Well first, it wasn't me that said that. Second, what would it matter to schedule tough opponents if you don't need to win those games?I know it wasn't. I just didn't want to start two posts.

You don't need to win them, necessarily, but tell me you wouldn't love to have Michigan come to Norman, for example.

[SoonerPride]

Well first, it wasn't me that said that. Second, what would it matter to schedule tough opponents if you don't need to win those games?I know it wasn't. I just didn't want to start two posts.

You don't need to win them, necessarily, but tell me you wouldn't love to have Michigan come to Norman, for example.

And again, just like when the Patriots play the Cowboys in August why do you only see starters for one quarter?

Because you don't risk injury before the real season starts and there is no incentive to win a meaningless game.

[MeMyself&Me]

I know it wasn't. I just didn't want to start two posts.

You don't need to win them, necessarily, but tell me you wouldn't love to have Michigan come to Norman, for example.

I would love it if both teams approached the game from start to finish like it was a 'must win'. I know the kids will play hard regardless but if the starters get pulled early to protect from injury regardless of score then meh.

I follow up by saying it's not like OU is not scheduling teams like Michigan though.

[IndySooner]

And again, just like when the Patriots play the Cowboys in August why do you only see starters for one quarter?

Because you don't risk injury before the real season starts and there is no incentive to win a meaningless game.Ridiculous. It means something because if you don't win your conference, you have to fight for one of five spots in the playoff.

Here's the bottom line:

1) More games would be meaningful.
2) There would be LESS scrutiny on who is chosen, because teams with 2 or 3 losses really don't have a beef.
3) December and January would be unreal
4) Conference championship weekend would mean something
5) Cinderella would have a chance

MUCH better than what we have.

[8timechamps]

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how this is any different from the NCAA. The NCAA tournament is a bunch of crap because NAIA teams don't get in. How unfair! They're not trying to crown a true champion, just looking out for the interests of their member institutions.

Look, conferences, the parties to the BCS agreements, the NCAA... they're all cartels, trying to agree on how to supply their goods to maximize revenue for participants in the cartel while not sharing with non-participants.

The BCS system isn't my ideal system either, but people who act like college football is especially corrupt, or that this is some unique sector of the world where people act in their self-interest, are just being naive.

What makes the NCAA the be-all end-all of sanctioning bodies? What makes single elimination tournaments like the farce that is the basketball tournament the best way to crown a "true" champion?

In my mind, the BCS champ is just that, the champion of the BCS, no more no less. And the same goes for the NCAA basketball tournament champion. That's every bit an "M"NC as a football "M"NC. They won a single-elimination tournament at the end of the year, that's put on by the NCAA, that for the last couple decades, draws the best teams in the country that aren't on probation. If press-consortium XYZ wants to vote on a their national champion, and picks a different team, then that team is the "Press consortium XYZ national champion."

Fans will grant varying degrees of importance to various national champion selectors. It's not like the NCAA basketball tournament has been the undisputed bestower of "true" national championships for time immemorial.

I'll also encourage you to read the book Death to the BCS. I'm not pretending to have a better idea, but I damn sure know the BCS is the most corrupt thing about college athletics.

I'll also disagree about the NCAA being a cartel. The NCAA is the member schools. Now, I have my fair share of complaints about the NCAA, particularly how they run investigations and hand down punishments. What makes the NCAA the "be-all-end-all of sanctioning bodies" at the collegiate level is the member institutions themselves. The NCAA is a creation of the schools for the schools. And, as people love to tell anyone that will listen, the NCAA is not a part of the BCS.

Do I think college football is squeaky clean? Of course not. Do I think that a (very) few people control the outcome of the national title each year (that also provides an unequal playing field for many of the 120 FBS institutions)? Hell yes. If you don't, it's either because you're complacent with the system as-is and just don't really care, or you are not educated on what is really happening.

I really do recommend anyone that doesn't really understand how the BCS (and the bowl system) works, to read the aforementioned book. It's not a compilation of someone's philosophy, it is backed up with facts, and many of them. It is very eyeopening, and infuriating.

[jkjsooner]

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how this is any different from the NCAA. The NCAA tournament is a bunch of crap because NAIA teams don't get in. How unfair! They're not trying to crown a true champion, just looking out for the interests of their member institutions.

NAIA teams have the option to join the NCAA. They can even move up to division 1 if they meet the minimum requirements for being in division 1.


What makes the NCAA the be-all end-all of sanctioning bodies?

It isn't the be-all and end-all. Division 1 (non-football) and FBS (football) just happens to have the best teams and is the most prestigious.

An NAIA national champion is just as much of a champion as an NCAA champion. If the NCAA officially sanctioned a national champion in FBS it would be the NCAA FBS National Champion.



What makes single elimination tournaments like the farce that is the basketball tournament the best way to crown a "true" champion?

If you don't think that some type of tournament (be it single elimination or double elimination or best of X games each round like thte NBA/MLB) is the best way to crown a champion then I suppose it's not worth arguing with you.

[8timechamps]

#1 - I will Check that book out. Thanks for the tip.

#2 - I am under no illusion that the executives behind the BCS curtain Place anything over money on their list of priorities. However, the alternative is a playoff and that would be different how?

PDX, I pretend to have a better mouse trap for the current situation, my point is more about how corrupt the current system is. My personal position is that I would like to see an 8/12 team tournament. Run by the NCAA. The money is there, and the NCAA has a proven track-record with the college basketball tourney. I haven't delved into the details of such a playoff, but that is my preference.

[IndySooner]

PDX, I pretend to have a better mouse trap for the current situation, my point is more about how corrupt the current system is. My personal position is that I would like to see an 8/12 team tournament. Run by the NCAA. The money is there, and the NCAA has a proven track-record with the college basketball tourney. I haven't delved into the details of such a playoff, but that is my preference.That's the good thing about the book, though. Wetzel talked to conference commissioners, AD's, coaches, NCAA people, etc., and figured out what would and wouldn't fly with them. His system was the only viable one he could come up with, and it's a pretty damned good system.

[jkjsooner]

If conference winners automatically get in, we move to easiest conference we can find. Why NOT? That's only smart business.

I'm not in favor of conference winners getting an automatic pass but your comment is ridiculous.

There are a ton of reasons to remain in a power conference - money, recruiting, etc.

What good would it do us to go to a weak conference, lose a ton of revenue, lose all our big time recruits, make it to the playoffs every year and get our arse kicked first round?

If that made so much sense they why are we still in the Big 12 for basketball?

[MeMyself&Me]

If you don't think that some type of tournament (be it single elimination or double elimination or best of X games each round like thte NBA/MLB) is the best way to crown a champion then I suppose it's not worth arguing with you.

And this is the crux of it. You either prefer your college football without a post season tournament or you prefer your college football with a post season tournament. Post season tournaments gives a different kind of champion... whether that's better is up to personal taste and that's about it.

I will say the NBA/MLB style tourneys are pretty good but that's not practical in football.

[8timechamps]

If conference winners automatically get in, we move to easiest conference we can find. Why NOT? That's only smart business.

Secondly, your nonconference season is purely exhibition football and meaningless. Who cares if you play anyone good at all or win or lose the games? Only conference winners get in FOR SURE, so who cares about the rest. Concentrate on the conference and blow the rest off.

Why play starters and risk getting them injured? You like NFL pre-season games? welcome to the first 4 games of your OU season.

Again, your system is terribly flawed.

Do you get upset when your favorite NFL misses the playoffs, but a team from a far weaker division gets in? How about your favorite NHL, NBA, MLB, MSL team? Here's the bottom line; every other sport in the world has a playoff to decide a true national champion except for D1 college football. Seems idiotic to me.

Someone said the winner of the NCAA basketball tourney was the winner of a single elimination tournament....I wonder if they call the Super Bowl winner the same thing? What about all the D2 (or FCS) teams that have won national titles, are they just single elimination tourney winners too?

I love tradition in college football, but lets face it, things are never going back to the way they used to be. TV and the internet have moved the sport along, and its time for the way D1 football determines their national champion to catch up. It's going to happen, it's just a matter of time.

[MeMyself&Me]

If that made so much sense they why are we still in the Big 12 for basketball?

Because we're in the Big 12 for football.

That aside, I don't think you'd see tradition rich programs making those kinds of moves but I do think you'd see others do that over time. Also makes it where there is no desire to move to a better conference if you're in a weaker one (Boise State, TCU, Utah).

As to the rest of the post, this big post season tourney should bring in enough to make up the difference lost in TV revenue right? Recruiting? Well, I would think you'd be fine there as long as you kept making it to the tourney every year. And once there, you'd be one of the healthiest teams in the tourney.

[MeMyself&Me]

Here's the bottom line; every other sport in the world has a playoff to decide a true national champion except for D1 college football. Seems idiotic to me.

College football is the best sport in the world. Seems more idiotic to try and make it like every other sport in the world to me.

[8timechamps]

The ENTIRE reason Wetzel settled on this system (he doesn't necessarily like the small conference champs in it either) is because it's the ONLY way it would fly. A playoff system would have to give everyone a chance. No one can complain, they have a chance.

That reason alone is why I can't stand the BCS. It is not a fair system, period. No matter how people spin it, it's not fair. If everyone doesn't have a legitimate chance to win the title, then it hasn't done the job. Period.

(And I've read Death to the BCS, great read....eyeopening).

[8timechamps]

College football is the best sport in the world. Seems more idiotic to try and make it like every other sport in the world to me.

I won't argue that it's not the best sport, because I believe it is too. I just don't get the pushback when it comes to crowning a real champion. Why is that so hard for people to accept?

[stoops the eternal pimp]

I'm not in agreement with anything more than a +1

[8timechamps]

I'm not in agreement with anything more than a +1

Then you're in agreement with a playoff.

[pphilfran]

I'm not in agreement with anything more than a +1

That is where I stand...

[IndySooner]

I'm okay with a +1. Anything with more teams added is better than what we have right now.

[MeMyself&Me]

I won't argue that it's not the best sport, because I believe it is too. I just don't get the pushback when it comes to crowning a real champion. Why is that so hard for people to accept?

Depends on what you mean by a real champion. Right now, our champion is for the entire season... not who is hot in the post season. I, and others like me, like the regular season being the chief determinate. That would change with a post season tourney. You have every other sport in the world to get your post season tourney fix, why is it so important to you to change that one that is different? That is why there is pushback.

[8timechamps]

Depends on what you mean by a real champion. Right now, our champion is for the entire season... not who is hot in the post season. I, and others like me, like the regular season being the chief determinate. That would change with a post season tourney. That is why there is pushback.

What about the FCS champion, are they not season champions? What about high school football, are they not season champions? NFL? Are they season champion?

I understand the concerns that are raised about the season being such a big part of the determining factor. However, I don't see there really being a fall-off in that regard. Sure it's tradition that we're talking about, and nobody really likes changes made to tradition. But, the game goes on....as much as I hated seeing Nebraska leave our schedule every year, it really hasn't changed my enjoyment of OU football one ounce.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

Then you're in agreement with a playoff.

As long as that is the extent of it...The problem is that those that want a playoff won't stop and once it begins, it will be 32 teams before you know it...

As far as a playoff ending arguments, I haven't seen that in basketball.

[IndySooner]

As long as that is the extent of it...The problem is that those that want a playoff won't stop and once it begins, it will be 32 teams before you know it...

As far as a playoff ending arguments, I haven't seen that in basketball.It will NEVER be 32 teams. It's not feasible in major college football. 16 is the most they could attempt.

[8timechamps]

As long as that is the extent of it...The problem is that those that want a playoff won't stop and once it begins, it will be 32 teams before you know it...

As far as a playoff ending arguments, I haven't seen that in basketball.

Personally, I'd like to see an 8 to 12 team playoff, but in the end, a 4 team playoff would be just fine with me as it would be better than what we have now.

I honestly can't think of a season in which I didn't think the best team in the country won the tourney. If you're talking about the NBA, then I have no idea, because I'm just not a huge fan.

[MeMyself&Me]

What about the FCS champion, are they not season champions? What about high school football, are they not season champions? NFL? Are they season champion?

I understand the concerns that are raised about the season being such a big part of the determining factor. However, I don't see there really being a fall-off in that regard. Sure it's tradition that we're talking about, and nobody really likes changes made to tradition. But, the game goes on....as much as I hated seeing Nebraska leave our schedule every year, it really hasn't changed my enjoyment of OU football one ounce.

The first part, they call them the champs but really it's just who's hot in the post season... not the same as a season champion.

To the second part, really? You're answer is change happens so we're not supposed to care? Yeah the game will go on. I'll still watch. Doesn't mean I think it's better or that I shouldn't fight to keep what we have.

[MeMyself&Me]

I honestly can't think of a season in which I didn't think the best team in the country won the tourney.

Wow

[SoonerPride]

Do you get upset when your favorite NFL misses the playoffs, but a team from a far weaker division gets in? How about your favorite NHL, NBA, MLB, MSL team? Here's the bottom line; every other sport in the world has a playoff to decide a true national champion except for D1 college football. Seems idiotic to me.

Someone said the winner of the NCAA basketball tourney was the winner of a single elimination tournament....I wonder if they call the Super Bowl winner the same thing? What about all the D2 (or FCS) teams that have won national titles, are they just single elimination tourney winners too?

I love tradition in college football, but lets face it, things are never going back to the way they used to be. TV and the internet have moved the sport along, and its time for the way D1 football determines their national champion to catch up. It's going to happen, it's just a matter of time.

I don't care about any other sports or teams.

Really.

They bore me to death.

[8timechamps]

The first part, they call them the champs but really it's just who's hot in the post season... not the same as a season champion.

To the second part, really? You're answer is change happens so we're not supposed to care? Yeah the game will go on. I'll still watch. Doesn't mean I think it's better or that I shouldn't fight to keep what we have.

I guess we'll just agree to disagree. However, I feel pretty confident that every champion that comes from a playoff (which is every other sport in the world) feels like a season champion.

That is MY answer. That's how I feel. If you agree great, if not, great. In the end, it's really not going to matter what you or I think anyway. You will continue to fight for a system that I believe is unfair, and I will continue to fight for a system you believe will ruin tradition.

[8timechamps]

Wow

Maybe you did, but I didn't. See what I did there?

[8timechamps]

I don't care about any other sports or teams.

Really.

They bore me to death.

If that's truly the case, then I can certainly understand where you are coming from. And, maybe that's why I'm biased. Plus...it gives me more chances to eat chicken wings.

[MeMyself&Me]

I guess we'll just agree to disagree. However, I feel pretty confident that every champion that comes from a playoff (which is every other sport in the world) feels like a season champion.

That is MY answer. That's how I feel. If you agree great, if not, great. In the end, it's really not going to matter what you or I think anyway. You will continue to fight for a system that I believe is unfair, and I will continue to fight for a system you believe will ruin tradition.

As long as you agree it's just a matter of preference then there isn't anything to argue about. I do take issue with regarding a playoff is fair. It's only fair from one point of view. Making LSU play Arkansas State (and risk injuries and fluky losses) when they've already proven they're better isn't really fair IMO.


Maybe you did, but I didn't. See what I did there?

I saw what you did. Just don't know how you can say that and expect to be taken seriously.

[8timechamps]

As long as you agree it's just a matter of preference then there isn't anything to argue about. I do take issue with regarding a playoff is fair. It's only fair from one point of view. Making LSU play Arkansas State (and risk injuries and fluky losses) when they've already proven they're better isn't really fair IMO.



I saw what you did. Just don't know how you can say that and expect to be taken seriously.

I completely agree that it's a matter of preference. The only real thing I'd like to see is a system that allows every team the same opportunity to win a championship. Bowls, playoffs, whatever the system is, I really don't care...just would like to see it an even playing field.

I watch a ton of college basketball every year, and there are usually 3 or 4 teams that are the elite in the country, and rarely does one stand out from the others. I would say that 10 out of 10 times, one of those elite teams wins it all. My point is, I don't remember a team winning it all and thinking "how in the hell did that happen?!"...although, Butler came close, but they've also proven to be more than a flash in the pan.

[MeMyself&Me]

I completely agree that it's a matter of preference. The only real thing I'd like to see is a system that allows every team the same opportunity to win a championship. Bowls, playoffs, whatever the system is, I really don't care...just would like to see it an even playing field.

If you can accept that the art of scheduling is just as important as the art of recruiting then you can see a system that allows every team the same opportunity to win a championship... you just have to put your starting point much further out than the beginning of that one season.

[PDXsooner]

Depends on what you mean by a real champion. Right now, our champion is for the entire season... not who is hot in the post season. I, and others like me, like the regular season being the chief determinate. That would change with a post season tourney. You have every other sport in the world to get your post season tourney fix, why is it so important to you to change that one that is different? That is why there is pushback.

Very well said. Many times I hear the old "every other sport has a playoff" argument. So what? That's why college football is better. A playoff doesn't give you a "true" champion...it gives you the team who's hot at the end of the year.

[PDXsooner]

My point is, I don't remember a team winning it all and thinking "how in the hell did that happen?!"...although, Butler came close, but they've also proven to be more than a flash in the pan.

Just off the top of my head -- NC State in '83, Villanova in '85, Kansas in '88...had like 11 losses, Uconn last year, those teams were far from the best that year. I love the NCAA tourney, but winning it doesn't mean you're the "best" team that year. It means you were hot at the end.

[MI Sooner]

I implied that a single-elimination playoff wasn't the best way to determine a true champion earlier. I didn't mean to imply that it wasn't the best practical way for football (assuming you're going to have some sort of post-season), just that I think it's an incredibly stupid way for college basketball to do it instead of best of three series or double elimination or something with fewer teams.

[OU_Sooners75]

It will NEVER be 32 teams. It's not feasible in major college football. 16 is the most they could attempt.

And it is the size of the playoffs in D-1AA, D-II, D-III and the NAIA

[OU_Sooners75]

The first part, they call them the champs but really it's just who's hot in the post season... not the same as a season champion.

To the second part, really? You're answer is change happens so we're not supposed to care? Yeah the game will go on. I'll still watch. Doesn't mean I think it's better or that I shouldn't fight to keep what we have.

Maybe the great teams in the regular seasons were only hot in the regular season?

Champions rise to the occasion!

[OU_Sooners75]

I guess we'll just agree to disagree. However, I feel pretty confident that every champion that comes from a playoff (which is every other sport in the world) feels like a season champion.

That is MY answer. That's how I feel. If you agree great, if not, great. In the end, it's really not going to matter what you or I think anyway. You will continue to fight for a system that I believe is unfair, and I will continue to fight for a system you believe will ruin tradition.

This is a good point...lol

Those that think a playoff will ruin tradition....well, that has been taken care of with conference realignment!

No more Colorado vs. Nebraska.
No more Nebraska vs. Oklahoma
No more Missouri vs. Kansas
No more Texas vs. Texas A&M
No more Pitt vs. West Virginia
No more Rutgers vs. Syracuse

[IndySooner]

I implied that a single-elimination playoff wasn't the best way to determine a true champion earlier. I didn't mean to imply that it wasn't the best practical way for football (assuming you're going to have some sort of post-season), just that I think it's an incredibly stupid way for college basketball to do it instead of best of three series or double elimination or something with fewer teams.

You're dumb. (by the way, MI Sooner and I have been arguing about this by e-mail for years, and probably at OU back in the 90's over about 20 beers, so while this might look a personal attack......well, it probably is.)

[sooned]

In my opinion, Auburn wasn't stiffed by the BCS system in 2004. If you want to be considered for championship game it is better to not schedule Citadel late in the season.

Likewise, I feel that Alabama (this year) should be penalized more for scheduling Georgia Southern late in the season!

Overall I agree with the original poster.

[jkjsooner]

In my opinion, Auburn wasn't stiffed by the BCS system in 2004. If you want to be considered for championship game it is better to not schedule Citadel late in the season.

Depends on how you look at it. I think the BCS did its job of picking the most deserving two teams to play for the title. If you have to pick two, the BCS picked the right two - at least without using hindsight logic.

But Auburn did get stiffed by a system that only allows two teams to play for a title. If I remember correctly, the Citadel was a last minute addition to replace a team that dropped Auburn.

[jkjsooner]

The first part, they call them the champs but really it's just who's hot in the post season... not the same as a season champion.

Assuming you only let the top 4 or 8 teams in the playoff (not automatic bids), those teams are going to have very similar records.

If you include the tournament as part of the season, it would be hard to argue that any winner of such a tournament didn't have the best season.

That's absolutely true with 4 teams.

Let's say OSU beats Bama and then LSU in a tournament. If you lined up their wins and losses it would be hard to argue that they didn't have the best season (even considering the tourney games as equal to regular season games).

The same with Stanford. Heck, the same would apply for VT and Houston.

[MeMyself&Me]

Assuming you only let the top 4 or 8 teams in the playoff (not automatic bids), those teams are going to have very similar records.

If you include the tournament as part of the season, it would be hard to argue that any winner of such a tournament didn't have the best season.

That's absolutely true with 4 teams.

Let's say OSU beats Bama and then LSU in a tournament. If you lined up their wins and losses it would be hard to argue that they didn't have the best season (even considering the tourney games as equal to regular season games).

The same with Stanford. Heck, the same would apply for VT and Houston.

As we've already discussed, an 8 team tourney would more likely have AQs, not top 8. I don't think 4 really gives the access that the playoff proponents want and certainly not the access that the non-AQs would want which constitute a sizable amount of the vote. It may be tried as a last ditch effort to keep bowls but it will be a quick move beyond that very soon. I really don't see any post season tourney lasting unless it's 16 teams.

[GreenSooner]

I am serious. I think the BCS has been largely successful in accomplishing what is was meant to do

I agree. The BCS was primarily meant to delay a playoff system and to funnel millions of dollars to a select group of schools, conferences, and bowls. It's done those two things enormously successfully!

[MeMyself&Me]

I agree. The BCS was primarily meant to delay a playoff system and to funnel millions of dollars to a select group of schools, conferences, and bowls. It's done those two things enormously successfully!

Sooo, you're upset at the BCS since it helps funnel money to the entities that made college football worth spending money on and doesn't give free hand outs to conferences full of teams that have done nothing historically, or even worse, has a bunch of teams that voluntarily moved from FCS to FBS recently and want a free share of the pie. OK then, I see where you stand.

[PDXsooner]

Yeah, I get it. The system's corrupt. I don't see how a playoff system deals with that. No one's defending that...but as a system of determining a champion I'm defending it. (the BCS)

[mdklatt]

But Auburn did get stiffed by a system that only allows two teams to play for a title. If I remember correctly, the Citadel was a last minute addition to replace a team that dropped Auburn.

This always comes up in BCS discussions: "You shouldn't penalize a team for play who's on their schedule." Maybe, but you sure as hell can't penalize somebody else (OU or USC, for example). And every SEC team schedules an FCS patsy late in the season almost every season. **** 'em.

[IndySooner]

Sooo, you're upset at the BCS since it helps funnel money to the entities that made college football worth spending money on and doesn't give free hand outs to conferences full of teams that have done nothing historically, or even worse, has a bunch of teams that voluntarily moved from FCS to FBS recently and want a free share of the pie. OK then, I see where you stand.It's not about the schools making money. It's not about the conferences making money. It's about the back-room shady deals that go on in this system to keep it in place. Look up, if you haven't seen already, how many of the Fiesta Bowl people are in trouble right now. The Orange and Sugar Bowls have both been doing the same types of things. It is a SHADY system built on glad-handing millionaires into keeping the status quo. Why do you think the Big 12 still exists? I'll give you a hint: It's not because the Pac 10 didn't want OU and OSU. They did.

[MeMyself&Me]

This always comes up in BCS discussions: "You shouldn't penalize a team for play who's on their schedule." Maybe, but you sure as hell can't penalize somebody else (OU or USC, for example). And every SEC team schedules an FCS patsy late in the season almost every season. **** 'em.

You can penalize a school for whose on their schedule because the school is responsible for who's on their schedule. Scheduling is a part of college football.

[MeMyself&Me]

It's not about the schools making money. It's not about the conferences making money. It's about the back-room shady deals that go on in this system to keep it in place. Look up, if you haven't seen already, how many of the Fiesta Bowl people are in trouble right now. The Orange and Sugar Bowls have both been doing the same types of things. It is a SHADY system built on glad-handing millionaires into keeping the status quo. Why do you think the Big 12 still exists? I'll give you a hint: It's not because the Pac 10 didn't want OU and OSU. They did.

Yeah, it's shady. That's not all that unique nor is it even likely that a tournament fixes it and I'm not sure why that's part of a bowl vs tournament debate on which is more appealing as a fan.

[GreenSooner]

Yeah, it's shady. That's not all that unique nor is it even likely that a tournament fixes it and I'm not sure why that's part of a bowl vs tournament debate on which is more appealing as a fan.

The point I was making is not merely that the BCS is shady. It's that it is not in any sense a serious attempt to find the best--or the best two--teams in college football. This is hardly news, but this recent Dan Wetzel column (http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=dw-wetzel_football_hostage_illegitimate_bcs_112911) does an excellent job demolishing the BCS's method of selecting teams. Both the human and computer polls are a joke. All but one of the computer rankings uses a proprietary (i.e. secret) algorithm, which means even the BCS doesn't know how the BCS works. The one computer ranking that does publish its algorithm was shown by an independent journalist to have misentered its data last year, thus producing the wrong ranking. This system is a complete joke.

The point is that the shadiness of the BCS isn't a bug, from the point of view of the BCS. It's a feature. Indeed it's the entire point of the system, which was designed to make sure that the folks making money off of college football remained the same under the BCS as they had under the pre-BCS bowl system.

MeMyself&Me is entirely correct that going to a playoff system will not, in and of itself, eliminate the shadiness. But that's hardly an argument against either a playoff system or eliminating the shadiness. And the reason why it's part of the argument about bowl vs. tournament is that the more teams that make the post season, the less effect that corruption in the selection of those teams will have on determining a champion.

To put this another way: if the argument is about who's the sixteenth best team in college football, it's simply less consequential than the argument about who is the second best team. Yes, there are bitter fights about bubble teams in the NCAA basketball tournament. But the chance that these decisions will affect the outcome is extremely small.

But the shadiness of the BCS system also goes beyond the bowl vs. tournament debate. While having a less shady -- and more fair -- system would be easier with a tournament, there's no reason in principle that one couldn't have a less shady bowl system. And the reason we don't is that the college football powers-that-be prefer the utter lack of accountability of the BCS, which makes it literally impossible for anyone to determine the system's own criteria.

[MeMyself&Me]

The point I was making is not merely that the BCS is shady. It's that it is not in any sense a serious attempt to find the best--or the best two--teams in college football. This is hardly news, but this recent Dan Wetzel column (http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=dw-wetzel_football_hostage_illegitimate_bcs_112911) does an excellent job demolishing the BCS's method of selecting teams. Both the human and computer polls are a joke. All but one of the computer rankings uses a proprietary (i.e. secret) algorithm, which means even the BCS doesn't know how the BCS works. The one computer ranking that does publish its algorithm was shown by an independent journalist to have misentered its data last year, thus producing the wrong ranking. This system is a complete joke.

The point is that the shadiness of the BCS isn't a bug, from the point of view of the BCS. It's a feature. Indeed it's the entire point of the system, which was designed to make sure that the folks making money off of college football remained the same under the BCS as they had under the pre-BCS bowl system.

MeMyself&Me is entirely correct that going to a playoff system will not, in and of itself, eliminate the shadiness. But that's hardly an argument against either a playoff system or eliminating the shadiness. And the reason why it's part of the argument about bowl vs. tournament is that the more teams that make the post season, the less effect that corruption in the selection of those teams will have on determining a champion.

To put this another way: if the argument is about who's the sixteenth best team in college football, it's simply less consequential than the argument about who is the second best team. Yes, there are bitter fights about bubble teams in the NCAA basketball tournament. But the chance that these decisions will affect the outcome is extremely small.

But the shadiness of the BCS system also goes beyond the bowl vs. tournament debate. While having a less shady -- and more fair -- system would be easier with a tournament, there's no reason in principle that one couldn't have a less shady bowl system. And the reason we don't is that the college football powers-that-be prefer the utter lack of accountability of the BCS, which makes it literally impossible for anyone to determine the system's own criteria.

I'll agree with you about the selection process. I don't like it either. I don't like any subjective measure such that comes from human polls or even committees. And the Colley Matrix, the one that publishes his method, is the only computer poll I reference. And that error in the Colley Matrix shows why it's important to publish the method... so that it can be held accountable.

That said, just going to a tournament doesn't fix that issue if you're still using the same type of system for selection or seeding. Just adding more teams to mix hides the issue and is more like using a shot gun to kill a fly. Sure you kill the fly but you absolutely ruin your counter top in the process. If that is your chief problem with the bowls then instead work to keep the integrity of what college football is and push to use more objective measures for the selection process. If that was your aim, then I can get behind that.

And to your fairness comment, a tourney would be no more fair than the bowl system. I know you're more concerned with the fairness to teams like Arkansas State but what about the fairness to teams like LSU that have already proven they're better than Arkansas State? Why should they have to play them and increase the chance of injury to key players that will effect them in later rounds of a tournament against a more worthy team? Why should a team like LSU that has survived a grueling schedule have to play a team like Houston that hasn't chanced anything and will show up with a more healthy and rested team due to such an easy schedule? The fairness argument works both ways and is therefor useless.

[jkjsooner]

As we've already discussed, an 8 team tourney would more likely have AQs, not top 8. I don't think 4 really gives the access that the playoff proponents want and certainly not the access that the non-AQs would want which constitute a sizable amount of the vote. It may be tried as a last ditch effort to keep bowls but it will be a quick move beyond that very soon. I really don't see any post season tourney lasting unless it's 16 teams.

That's fine. I just wanted to point out that there are playoff scenarios (whether you agree that they are feasible or not) that don't have many of the problems that so many are mentioning. When posters bring up the NY Giants scenario, they're not stating what playoff scenario they're arguing against. They're making a blanket statement about all playoff scenarios. That's where I feel I have to step in.

And, as far as a four team playoff, sure it won't fully satisfy the non-AQ teams but they'll agree to it because it gives them a lot better chance than the current system.

[PDXsooner]

The discussion here's gotten a little off-track. Thanks for pointing out that the people behind the BCS are corrupt. Guess what? I'm a fan. I have no hand in the money. Kind of when the conference realignment stuff was going on and everyone was squawking about the corruption and greed behind all of it. My cut if OU was going to the Pac 10 - $0. The Big 12 - $0. The SEC - $0. Yes, I know. Corruption is still there, it'll still be there if and when a playoff is formed. It'll probably be worse then.

I don't care about all of that stuff because I'm not involved in it nor can I change it. However, as a fan I know what system I enjoy to determine a champion. And for all the bashing it's taken, the BCS has been highly entertaining and pretty darn successful at matching up teams in the final.

[MeMyself&Me]

That's fine. I just wanted to point out that there are playoff scenarios (whether you agree that they are feasible or not) that don't have many of the problems that so many are mentioning. When posters bring up the NY Giants scenario, they're not stating what playoff scenario they're arguing against. They're making a blanket statement about all playoff scenarios. That's where I feel I have to step in.

And, as far as a four team playoff, sure it won't fully satisfy the non-AQ teams but they'll agree to it because it gives them a lot better chance than the current system.

The Giants reference is relevant because it shows what could happen with any feasible tournament.

Since the non-AQ teams and the fans that want college football to look like the NFL won't be satisfied, a 4 team format would just be a step toward a full scale playoff. If you could guarantee that it only included 4 teams forever into the future, I might be willing to hold my nose and let it happen without much complaint. I just don't see it happening that way. I'll also add that if you're expecting fans to travel to two consecutive neutral site games, particularly after traveling to a neutral site CCG, you're expecting a lot from fans. Most of the 4 team tourney plans I've seen have the participants playing the entirety of the tourney in the bowls. Any playoff within the bowl structure, even a 4 team playoff is a bad idea for fans that like to attend the games... not that most playoff proponents care about such things.

[MeMyself&Me]

The discussion here's gotten a little off-track. Thanks for pointing out that the people behind the BCS are corrupt. Guess what? I'm a fan. I have no hand in the money. Kind of when the conference realignment stuff was going on and everyone was squawking about the corruption and greed behind all of it. My cut if OU was going to the Pac 10 - $0. The Big 12 - $0. The SEC - $0. Yes, I know. Corruption is still there, it'll still be there if and when a playoff is formed. It'll probably be worse then.

This is how I feel when people spew the corruption aspect of that book. It's just not relevant in a tournament vs bowls aspect of enjoying college football as a fan, which is what I am.

[IndySooner]

The discussion here's gotten a little off-track. Thanks for pointing out that the people behind the BCS are corrupt. Guess what? I'm a fan. I have no hand in the money. Kind of when the conference realignment stuff was going on and everyone was squawking about the corruption and greed behind all of it. My cut if OU was going to the Pac 10 - $0. The Big 12 - $0. The SEC - $0. Yes, I know. Corruption is still there, it'll still be there if and when a playoff is formed. It'll probably be worse then.

I don't care about all of that stuff because I'm not involved in it nor can I change it. However, as a fan I know what system I enjoy to determine a champion. And for all the bashing it's taken, the BCS has been highly entertaining and pretty darn successful at matching up teams in the final.So you'll be on the edge of your seat for a Virginia Tech/Louisville Orange Bowl and a Michigan/Houston Sugar Bowl? Most of the country will feel the same about an Oklahoma/Stanford Fiesta Bowl and frankly, the Alabama/LSU Championship game will probably have the lowest ratings EVER for that game.

[MeMyself&Me]

So you'll be on the edge of your seat for a Virginia Tech/Louisville Orange Bowl and a Michigan/Houston Sugar Bowl? Most of the country will feel the same about an Oklahoma/Stanford Fiesta Bowl and frankly, the Alabama/LSU Championship game will probably have the lowest ratings EVER for that game.

Given the fact he specifically was referencing the title game itself, you missed the point in referring to the non-title game bowls. Alabama/LSU will probably have the lowest ratings ever due to factors that have nothing to do with the BCS itself. Average fans no longer appreciate defensive slug fests and then there's the fact that they're both from the same regional conference and the fact that many people are turned off due to the rematch aspect of it. And then there's the fact that it's on cable instead of one broadcast TV which was the case up until last year. None of which is different if they get there due to a post season tournament.

[PDXsooner]

So you'll be on the edge of your seat for a Virginia Tech/Louisville Orange Bowl and a Michigan/Houston Sugar Bowl? Most of the country will feel the same about an Oklahoma/Stanford Fiesta Bowl and frankly, the Alabama/LSU Championship game will probably have the lowest ratings EVER for that game.

I wouldn't be on the edge of my seat for any game that isn't OU, quite frankly. I'll be on the edge of my seat in any bowl OU plays in.

[IndySooner]

Given the fact he specifically was referencing the title game itself, you missed the point in referring to the non-title game bowls. Alabama/LSU will probably have the lowest ratings ever due to factors that have nothing to do with the BCS itself. Average fans no longer appreciate defensive slug fests and then there's the fact that they're both from the same regional conference and the fact that many people are turned off due to the rematch aspect of it. And then there's the fact that it's on cable instead of one broadcast TV which was the case up until last year. None of which is different if they get there due to a post season tournament.Ratings for the first, second and semi-final round games would KILL ratings from meaningless bowl games. Wouldn't even be close. It's one thing Dan Wetzel researched extensively for his book.

[OU_Sooners75]

Heh, so I want and did a computer rating, like that of the RPI...I call it the RPO (Really Pissed Off) Ratings...LOL

I am no math whiz, and I know this poll is probably as in accurate as any out there...but there you all go (PDF file).

enjoy.

I am working on making it into a HTML document...but this will suffice for now.

If anyone here is great with math and want to help make this better...let me know please!

http://www.soonercode.com/comp-rank/RPO-Football%20Poll.pdf


(http://www.soonercode.com/comp-rank/RPO-Football%20Poll.pdf)Explanation...

http://www.soonercode.com/comp-rank/RPO-Football-Poll-Explanation.pdf

[MeMyself&Me]

Ratings for the first, second and semi-final round games would KILL ratings from meaningless bowl games. Wouldn't even be close. It's one thing Dan Wetzel researched extensively for his book.

He was talking about the championship matchup. Your the one that brought up the other bowls.

[IndySooner]

He was talking about the championship matchup. Your the one that brought up the other bowls.We've been talking about the BCS and the bowl system the entire time. There's no argument that a playoff system wouldn't be a bigger draw than the bowl system. None.

[MeMyself&Me]

We've been talking about the BCS and the bowl system the entire time. There's no argument that a playoff system wouldn't be a bigger draw than the bowl system. None.

No one is arguing that. Might as well be talking to a brick wall there. Just pointing out he said he was happy with the #1 vs #2 matchups that the BCS has provided. Your replies related to that post seem oblivious to that.

[PDXsooner]

We've been talking about the BCS and the bowl system the entire time. There's no argument that a playoff system wouldn't be a bigger draw than the bowl system. None.

You'd have to have all the rounds leading up to the championship held at home sites. Otherwise there's no way you get 40K Iowa fans to travel to a quarterfinal in the Fiesta Bowl, then win and expect them to get 40K more to travel to the Rose Bowl the next week.

So in essence you are eliminating the history and tradition of the bowls from the equation.

[IndySooner]

You'd have to have all the rounds leading up to the championship held at home sites. Otherwise there's no way you get 40K Iowa fans to travel to a quarterfinal in the Fiesta Bowl, then win and expect them to get 40K more to travel to the Rose Bowl the next week.

So in essence you are eliminating the history and tradition of the bowls from the equation.Bowls can still exist. Since you play the first one or two rounds (depending on whether it's an 8 or 16 team tourney) before Christmas, the teams that lose before the semi-finals go to bowl games. No doubt that would be necessary. Those bowl games would be no less relevant in a tournament than they are today, though, regardless of what they try to tell everyone.

[MeMyself&Me]

Bowls can still exist. Since you play the first one or two rounds (depending on whether it's an 8 or 16 team tourney) before Christmas, the teams that lose before the semi-finals go to bowl games. No doubt that would be necessary. Those bowl games would be no less relevant in a tournament than they are today, though, regardless of what they try to tell everyone.

So the teams that lose before the semifinals get to go to bowl games but the ones that lose in the semifinal don't?

[IndySooner]

So the teams that lose before the semifinals get to go to bowl games but the ones that lose in the semifinal don't?

No, because the semi-finals happen during the bowl season. Those are the "bowl games" for those teams.

[SoonerPride]

Playoff games would have to be at home stadiums.

Period.

[MeMyself&Me]

No, because the semi-finals happen during the bowl season. Those are the "bowl games" for those teams.

So their bowl game is going to be at a home stadium? Cause I know you don't expect fans to travel to back to back neutral sites, right?

[IndySooner]

So their bowl game is going to be at a home stadium? Cause I know you don't expect fans to travel to back to back neutral sites, right?Yep. Semi-finals at home stadiums. I see what you're trying to do here. Kids, fans, etc., would much prefer a semi-final home game to a bowl game. No doubt about it.

[MeMyself&Me]

Yep. Semi-finals at home stadiums. I see what you're trying to do here. Kids, fans, etc., would much prefer a semi-final home game to a bowl game. No doubt about it.

So the losers of the semi finals gets no bowl game but everyone else does. Got it.

[SoonerPride]

Yep. Semi-finals at home stadiums. I see what you're trying to do here. Kids, fans, etc., would much prefer a semi-final home game to a bowl game. No doubt about it.

Yet the players have said they prefer bowl games.

Really.

They did.


The poll clearly shows that players prefer the current system (by a wide margin) if the alternative is a playoff with no bowls.

http://www.cornnation.com/2010/11/12/1809377/bcs-vs-college-football-playoff-system-different-views-square-off

And since you eliminate bowls for the best teams, you would make the players sad.

[FtwTxSooner]

I think that it would have also failed OU and USC if they had been left out. I guess the system didn't so much "fail", but Auburn is the one exception to this golden rule about the BCS -- If you are in a major conference and you go undefeated, you will play in the BCS title game.

And if Auburn didn't play such a sucky non conference schedule, they may have played in the game, with someone else being left out.

[IndySooner]

Yet the players have said they prefer bowl games.

Really.

They did.Link? I've never once seen a poll of players that suggests that they would favor bowls over playoffs that gives any sort of scenarios. The only polls I've ever seen are done by organizations who stand to benefit by the status quo.

I just read an article in which Kirk Ferentz makes $100K for a bowl appearance this year and Carl Rhodes makes $25K. Any wonder why the coaches are for a bowl system? Hint: It has nothing to do with whether they think it's the right thing or not.

I would venture to say (and I remember hearing, but don't have a link) that if you polled college football players and gave them the option of a system that included BOTH a playoff AND bowl games, they'd be about 90% for it. It doesn't have to be an either-or.

[SoonerPride]

Link? I've never once seen a poll of players that suggests that they would favor bowls over playoffs that gives any sort of scenarios. The only polls I've ever seen are done by organizations who stand to benefit by the status quo.

I just read an article in which Kirk Ferentz makes $100K for a bowl appearance this year and Carl Rhodes makes $25K. Any wonder why the coaches are for a bowl system? Hint: It has nothing to do with whether they think it's the right thing or not.

I would venture to say (and I remember hearing, but don't have a link) that if you polled college football players and gave them the option of a system that included BOTH a playoff AND bowl games, they'd be about 90% for it. It doesn't have to be an either-or.

link is up above

or directly here

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5452896

The fact of the matter is that the players and coaches like the current system.

Only some fans want an expanded playoff.

The players like spending a week somewhere nice as a reward for the season.

But, you know, who cares what the players want? Screw them.

[IndySooner]

link is up above

or directly here

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5452896

It was EXACTLY what I said. They're for it if there's still a bowl system. In the playoff system, only two bowl-eligible teams don't go to a bowl game. Hell, I don't care, if you want to have a consolation bowl game for the losers of the semi-final, have at it! Bottom line is the people who are anti-playoff always use those polls in their arguments and they're taken out of context at best.

[SoonerPride]

It was EXACTLY what I said. They're for it if there's still a bowl system. In the playoff system, only two bowl-eligible teams don't go to a bowl game. Hell, I don't care, if you want to have a consolation bowl game for the losers of the semi-final, have at it! Bottom line is the people who are anti-playoff always use those polls in their arguments and they're taken out of context at best.

And people who are for playoffs ignore all the problems it creates and that it is subjective at best.

Which color of rose is prettiest?

The BCS two team playoff or a 16 team tournament you still have a champion determined on the field.

[8timechamps]

Yeah, I get it. The system's corrupt. I don't see how a playoff system deals with that. No one's defending that...but as a system of determining a champion I'm defending it. (the BCS)

As a system of determining a champion, it's the best we've ever had. Can't argue with that at all. But, there's always a better mouse trap.

[SoonerPride]

As a system of determining a champion, it's the best we've ever had. Can't argue with that at all. But, there's always a better mouse trap.

Not that I've seen.

[8timechamps]

Not that I've seen.

Open your mind...

[IndySooner]

And people who are for playoffs ignore all the problems it creates and that it is subjective at best.

Which color of rose is prettiest?

The BCS two team playoff or a 16 team tournament you still have a champion determined on the field.You continue to say there are problems a playoff creates, but I have yet to hear what they are. Please enlighten us.

[SoonerPride]

You continue to say there are problems a playoff creates, but I have yet to hear what they are. Please enlighten us.

never mind.

what a waste of time.

[IndySooner]

never mind.

what a waste of time.That's what I thought. You just don't like the idea of change. There's no reason for it, just your personal preference.

[MeMyself&Me]

Open your mind...

Mind is open. See it in other sports. We prefer college football's method. It's as simple as that.


You continue to say there are problems a playoff creates, but I have yet to hear what they are. Please enlighten us.

Indy, you have heard it. We went over this with you last year. You just can't open your mind enough to hear it and THAT is why it's a waste of time.

[Jacie]

As a system of determining a champion, it's the best we've ever had. Can't argue with that at all. But, there's always a better mouse trap.

As a system for making a handful of bowl officials rich, it's the best we've ever had.

As a system for convincing some college football fans it is the best we've ever had, it's the best we've ever had.

As a system of determining a champion, exactly how does that work?

They arbitrarily choose two teams to play a single game and the choices are based on little more than television ratings and which schools' fanbase travel in the greatest numbers, with a decided bias towards a certain conference.

The argument that most college presidents and AD's do not want a playoff is less an indication of the greatness of the BCS and more of the conservative nature of the men chosen for those positions. They did not get where they were by challenging the status quo but rather by blending in, accepting the powers that be in the hope and ultimate realization that one day they would be allowed to take their place. There used to be a bowl system college presidents and AD's were quite comfortable with and not one of them were responsible for deciding to change any of that to where things are now. But once they were thrown a couple of biscuits from BCS officials, the fix was in.

Sure the BCS is successful in the same way the Mafia was successful if you happened to be a don.