I guess we owe the BCS a "thank you"?!

[8timechamps]

I was thinking about this today; if the playoff had been instituted this year, rather than 2014, there's a very high likelihood (pretty much a certainty) that OU wouldn't have played in the Sugar Bowl, or at least not against Bama.

This win has been really big from a PR perspective (and recruiting), and wouldn't have happened without the BCS.

As much as I've disliked the BCS system, this time it paid off for us.

[yermom]

the BCS has been pretty kind to us most of the time. the only time someone with a similar record to ours got picked over us was LSU in 2007 that i can think of

[sooner n houston]

I think it has paid off for us many times!

[Curly Bill]

We'll look back fondly on the BCS era one of these days, especially when we've gone to a 16 team playoff and the regular season means nothing.

But you simpletons that couldn't recognize the greatness that was college football, and screamed that it needed to be just like every other sport can be happy now.

[Eielson]

I'm going to enjoy the 4 team playoff quite a bit (at least for a couple year), but it's going to be a huge step back when we inevitably go to 8 teams, and it's going to be an absolute joke if we get to 16. The funny thing about college football is that, despite all the complaining, we've almost always crowned the best team. We've only had a few years where it was even questionable who the national champion should have been, and even those questionable years weren't usually that questionable. NCAA basketball crowns the best team less than half the time. They just jumble a bunch of teams together and hope that the best team comes out with a 6 game winning streak. That's a recipe for disaster that rarely works.

[Curly Bill]

Yup. I can live with a 4 team playoff, but anymore than that is not good, and you're right - because of the money to be made, and the inevitable griping that will accompany various teams not being included when they feel they shoulda been, it will grow and it will grow. I think it will go to 8 teams pretty soon (3-4 years) which won't be catastrophic because the regular season will still be mean a little something, and within another 4-5 years after that we'll be at 16 teams, and those regular season games that right now mean so much, will mean little beyond bragging rights.

But yay!! We have playoffs just like every other sport!! (Curly Bill rolls his eyes in disdain for that simpleminded argument)

[Widescreen]

Yes, the BCS has been good to us overall. The only time we kinda got screwed was last season when an obscure rule allowed NIU to take our spot in the BCS.

[jkjsooner]

NCAA basketball crowns the best team less than half the time. They just jumble a bunch of teams together and hope that the best team comes out with a 6 game winning streak. That's a recipe for disaster that rarely works.

Several points here:

1. Championships have never been about the "best" team. They have always been about the most deserving team - the team who wins when it matters. That is just as true with the BCS as it is with a tournament. The "best" time could easily have an off day in the BCS championship game.

2. Just because you guys think we'll end up with 16 teams is no reason to not go to a four team playoff. I feel that a four team playoff is better than a two team playoff and I'm not going to let speculation or an irrational fear of expansion convince me we shouldn't make a move to what I feel is better.

3. College football administrators still recognize the importance of the regular season and say so every chance they get. There is no doubt in my mind that there will not be a 16 team playoff any time soon. Add to this the concerns about academics and the health of the student athlete and I think concerns about a 16 team playoff is overblown.

4. I don't want it for college football but there is some magic when a team like Villanova slays the dragon (Georgetown). In addition, how would anyone have known that Butler was good enough to make two consecutive championship games if we only picked 2 teams to play?

5. People say we did a good job of identifying who the best teams are but who really knows? Auburn (2004) definitely disagrees with that. Miami (2000) disagrees. All those mid majors who went undefeated wished they had at least some type of shot (not that they would necessarily get into a four team playoff either). With four teams you have a lot better chance of identifying that one team who is really the best team.

[jkjsooner]

The only concern I have with a four team playoff is the remote chance that a team's destiny will be determined prior to their last game. Let's say we're 12-0, have already locked up the Big 12, and are a lock to make the four team playoff win or lose. We may sit and rest our starters.

However, since seeding would be a concern a team probably wouldn't do this. Unlike the NFL, nobody would have the top seed locked up before the season is over.

[Flagstaffsooner]

I dont like this committee picking the teams. Let the BCS formula pick the teams.

[Jacie]

. . . because of the money to be made . . . it will grow and it will grow.

It has always been about the money and that is not in and of itself a bad thing. My complaint has and probably will be that the money is not going to the schools, just a handful of people at the top of the pyramid who have nothing to do with football outside of raking in the profits games between the top teams generate.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

Yup. I can live with a 4 team playoff, but anymore than that is not good, and you're right - because of the money to be made, and the inevitable griping that will accompany various teams not being included when they feel they shoulda been, it will grow and it will grow. I think it will go to 8 teams pretty soon (3-4 years) which won't be catastrophic because the regular season will still be mean a little something, and within another 4-5 years after that we'll be at 16 teams, and those regular season games that right now mean so much, will mean little beyond bragging rights.

But yay!! We have playoffs just like every other sport!! (Curly Bill rolls his eyes in disdain for that simpleminded argument)

Really thought I was the only person that felt this way.

[jkjsooner]

. . . because of the money to be made . . . it will grow and it will grow.

It has always been about the money and that is not in and of itself a bad thing. My complaint has and probably will be that the money is not going to the schools, just a handful of people at the top of the pyramid who have nothing to do with football outside of raking in the profits games between the top teams generate.

Who are these mysterious people at the top of the pyramid? By far the majority of the revenue goes back to the schools.

[SoonerorLater]

I don't like the idea of a playoff within the current construct of college football. How are we any better off having a committee wisemen arbitrarily selecting who they think are the four most deserving teams? Most time there won't be a lick of difference between number 4 and 5. Just another gimmick.

Selection process works in basketball because the size of the field probably puts the chances of a deserving team capable of winning it all being left out at about zero percent.

[aurorasooner]

It has always been about the money and that is not in and of itself a bad thing. My complaint has and probably will be that the money is not going to the schools, just a handful of people at the top of the pyramid who have nothing to do with football outside of raking in the profits games between the top teams generate. I've actually been wondering when some Yahoo Sports Reporter will get access to the major university's college football financial records and see which Univ Prezs, Univ ADs, and Univ Head Coaches financially abused their fan's pocketbooks the most.


Who can blame them? The BCS was a cash spigot for everyone – well, except the players of course.


Junker threw an opulent multiday party every year in Scottsdale – The Fiesta Frolic – for all the important decision-makers in college sports, picking up travel costs, meals, drinks, golf, everything. ADs and commissioners came with hands out, bellies ready to be filled and swings grooved.


The Orange Bowl doled out free Caribbean cruises. The Sugar Bowl had a "subcommittee" on golf. Every bowl director walked around flashing plastic, buying favor with anyone and everyone. The BCS was an exercise in cronyism and hypocritical corruption. The same people with their palms out – college sports leadership – wrote and enforced rules that would excommunicate any of their athletes that took even a fraction of what they did.


Few knew how much money was really getting siphoned off. Many were stupefied.

Wait. That overpriced hotel we were contractually obligated to stay in gave a kickback to the bowl? Yes.

Are you saying that game that kept telling us they were all about charity only gave a couple grand? Yep.

So the guy in the garish blazer is making $800,000 to run one game? Oh yeah.
The BCS existed to allow a small number of people – notably bowl directors – to make an incredible amount of money by serving as the outsourced middlemen of the sport's lucrative postseason. That's why it lasted. Because no matter how nonsensical it was, someone was profiting handsomely off the nonsense.

All you ever needed to know about the BCS came from the handiwork of a man named John Junker, who ran the Fiesta Bowl for a couple of decades and made himself a millionaire doing it.



That was good for some laughs, but it missed the point. The strip-club bill was about the 500th most scandalous thing about the Fiesta Bowl. Nos. 1 through 499 were the other ways John Junker spent the game's cash on himself (which proved the largesse) and why guys like him fought so hard and so long to maintain the BCS.

At the time of his firing, Junker paid himself nearly $700,000 per year. He managed to get the bowl to pay for membership in four exclusive, private golf clubs in three different states. Four! His car allowance was $2,250 per month, which meant he was either secretly paying for four or five cars for his entire family or the dealer that leased him a vehicle for that amount should be imprisoned.

Junker had an AMEX Black Card that he worked like few others. Over a 10-year period, he averaged – averaged – $1,330 per day, every single day, in expenses. Go ahead and even try to do that.

One time he bought 20,000 golf balls on the bowl. He repeatedly billed it for new clubs. He paid for an employee's wedding. He threw himself a three-day, $30,000-plus birthday party in Santa Barbara and flew his entire staff out for it. He once bid $95,000 to take some conference commissioners and himself on a golf outing with Jack Nicklaus.

[Curly Bill]

Really thought I was the only person that felt this way.

Naw man, great minds and all that!

[DMSooner]

The only concern I have with a four team playoff is the remote chance that a team's destiny will be determined prior to their last game. Let's say we're 12-0, have already locked up the Big 12, and are a lock to make the four team playoff win or lose. We may sit and rest our starters.

However, since seeding would be a concern a team probably wouldn't do this. Unlike the NFL, nobody would have the top seed locked up before the season is over.

I know you may have meant 10-0 or 11-0, but if we are 12-0, the season is over and we have definetly won the Big 12 and will be in the playoff!

[jkjsooner]

I don't like the idea of a playoff within the current construct of college football. How are we any better off having a committee wisemen arbitrarily selecting who they think are the four most deserving teams? Most time there won't be a lick of difference between number 4 and 5. Just another gimmick.

Selection process works in basketball because the size of the field probably puts the chances of a deserving team capable of winning it all being left out at about zero percent.

I don't like the selection process in CFB because there is a conflict of interest when current AD's sit on that board. Even if they excuse themselves when discussing their own school, they'll have a financial interest in pushing schools from within their conference.

I don't even want to use the current BCS criteria because I hate the idea of human or computer polls playing a role.

I think a relatively simple and transparent formula should be put in place. It could be really easy and take your wins, losses, and SOS (your opponent's wins, and your opponent's losses). You could tweak the parameters and run it against previous years until they provide results for each year that seem acceptable. (One requirement of being "acceptable" would be a strong negative emphasis on losses since that is the tradition of college football.)

With such a system nobody has any complaints. It is completely transparent and everyone understands exactly why they were selected or were not selected. Was your schedule not tough enough? Did you have a loss? Too bad.

I wouldn't even be concerned that the one team everyone feels is the best was left out. If the "best" team had a loss and a weak schedule then, well, that is their fault. Congrats, you're the best team but you didn't get the job done. Have fun in your bowl game.

[BoulderSooner79]

What you describe IS a computer poll.

[Jacie]

Who are these mysterious people at the top of the pyramid? By far the majority of the revenue goes back to the schools.

Seriously, you were joking, right?

[8timechamps]

I would like to see an 8 team playoff. Ideally, I'd love a 6 team playoff, with the top two teams getting byes, but that's not going to happen. Anyway, I just think that the 4 team system is going to cause more controversy than we have ever seen (about who should be the 4th team in). With 8 teams, you know you have the best teams in the country.

As for the STOOPID* argument that the regular season won't mean as much, that's nonsense. We knew we had no chance at a national title this year, did anyone think this season didn't mean much? No. I will say though, I don't want a big 16 seed playoff, only because that would include a few teams that have no business being in a playoff.



*I'm looking at you CB and STEP (you guys are morAns) ;)

[Curly Bill]

I would like to see an 8 team playoff. Ideally, I'd love a 6 team playoff, with the top two teams getting byes, but that's not going to happen. Anyway, I just think that the 4 team system is going to cause more controversy than we have ever seen (about who should be the 4th team in). With 8 teams, you know you have the best teams in the country.

As for the STOOPID* argument that the regular season won't mean as much, that's nonsense. We knew we had no chance at a national title this year, did anyone think this season didn't mean much? No. I will say though, I don't want a big 16 seed playoff, only because that would include a few teams that have no business being in a playoff.



*I'm looking at you CB and STEP (you guys are morAns) ;)

You're flat a** wrong on this one bud! The area where you are right is on the 4 team playoff only creating more controversy.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

Heck, March Madness has half the country in the tournament and people still bitch about team 69 and 70 that should have got in..

Wait until we beat someone in the regular season and lose to them in the playoffs..Then tell me that the regular season hasn't lost value.

[Widescreen]

Wait until we beat someone in the regular season and lose to them in the playoffs..Then tell me that the regular season hasn't lost value.

In the old Big 12, that was always a possibility. We were able to beat KSU in 2000 twice and Mizzou in 2008 twice. But it could've bit us.

[8timechamps]

You're flat a** wrong on this one bud! The area where you are right is on the 4 team playoff only creating more controversy.


Heck, March Madness has half the country in the tournament and people still bitch about team 69 and 70 that should have got in..

Wait until we beat someone in the regular season and lose to them in the playoffs..Then tell me that the regular season hasn't lost value.


You're both wrong, and I'm ALWAYS right. Losers!

[jkjsooner]

No, computer polls generally use more complex algorithms so the results are harder to predict and the exact algorithms are not made public.

Sure you'd use a computer to do the calculation but I wouldn't call it a computer poll.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

We'll look back fondly on the BCS era one of these days, especially when we've gone to a 16 team playoff and the regular season means nothing.

But you simpletons that couldn't recognize the greatness that was college football, and screamed that it needed to be just like every other sport can be happy now.If the playoff has 8 teams, that would be the best situation, IMHO. If it goes to 16 or more, then you are xactly right.

[Temujin]

We'll look back fondly on the BCS era one of these days, especially when we've gone to a 16 team playoff and the regular season means nothing.

But you simpletons that couldn't recognize the greatness that was college football, and screamed that it needed to be just like every other sport can be happy now.

My problem wasn't with the BCS as much as it was the BS that resulted when people who shouldn't be making these decisions didn't like the MNC matchups. The BCS picked great matchups in the first few years...but when people started to dislike the results - for example, picking OU over USC and picking OU over Auburn - they decided to rip out the margin of victory and marginalize the computers and turn it back into a popularity contest. Combine that with the age of monolithic conference TV contracts and you suddenly have SEC vs. SEC in nearly every championship game. The BCS was a pretty reasonable concept until around 2006/2007. From then on it's just been whoever ESPN thinks should be in it. But hey, it's not like ESPN being involved is a conflict of interest or anything.

[BoulderSooner79]

My problem wasn't with the BCS as much as it was the BS that resulted when people who shouldn't be making these decisions didn't like the MNC matchups. The BCS picked great matchups in the first few years...but when people started to dislike the results - for example, picking OU over USC and picking OU over Auburn - they decided to rip out the margin of victory and marginalize the computers and turn it back into a popularity contest. Combine that with the age of monolithic conference TV contracts and you suddenly have SEC vs. SEC in nearly every championship game. The BCS was a pretty reasonable concept until around 2006/2007. From then on it's just been whoever ESPN thinks should be in it. But hey, it's not like ESPN being involved is a conflict of interest or anything.

SEC vs. SEC in every championship game? That happened once.

[Curly Bill]

Why is it that when people don't understand how something works in sports they blame ESPN? Is that anything like when somebody on the donk side of politics doesn't want to be held responsible for something the fallback position is to blame Bush?

[jkjsooner]

Heck, March Madness has half the country in the tournament and people still bitch about team 69 and 70 that should have got in..

Apples and Oranges

Those teams that complain have no chance at winning the tournament. They just want the prestige of playing in the tournament and putting another banner in their gym. We forget about the bubble teams who are left out in a day or so.

This is a very different deal than the #3 team who thinks they're the best team in the country but isn't given a chance to prove it.

With a slightly larger field (like 4 or 8) a national champion becomes less and less "mythical."

[jkjsooner]

My problem wasn't with the BCS as much as it was the BS that resulted when people who shouldn't be making these decisions didn't like the MNC matchups. The BCS picked great matchups in the first few years...but when people started to dislike the results - for example, picking OU over USC and picking OU over Auburn - they decided to rip out the margin of victory and marginalize the computers and turn it back into a popularity contest. Combine that with the age of monolithic conference TV contracts and you suddenly have SEC vs. SEC in nearly every championship game. The BCS was a pretty reasonable concept until around 2006/2007. From then on it's just been whoever ESPN thinks should be in it. But hey, it's not like ESPN being involved is a conflict of interest or anything.

I agree with this. However, I was happy to see the BCS get rid of the quality win component. It was a nice thought but wasn't well thought out.

As an example, let's take 2000. Assuming KSU hadn't lost to A&M, we were to get a quality win by beating KSU. However, once we beat them a second time in the conference championship game that gave them another loss and dropped the win over them from being a quality win.

It was absurd to think that beating a team twice is considered less remarkable than beating them once.

[Eielson]

Apples and Oranges

Those teams that complain have no chance at winning the tournament. They just want the prestige of playing in the tournament and putting another banner in their gym. We forget about the bubble teams who are left out in a day or so.

This is a very different deal than the #3 team who thinks they're the best team in the country but isn't given a chance to prove it.

With a slightly larger field (like 4 or 8) a national champion becomes less and less "mythical."

Just wait until that #4 team goes on a 2 game winning streak to end the year. It's going to happen, and it's not even going to take that long. We'll switch to 8 teams within 5-10 years. Within 10-15 years we'll have a 7 or an 8 win one or two. For example, look at OU's team this year. Did they deserve a shot at the National Championship? Certainly not. We took down Bama, though, and I bet we'd have taken down whoever else dared to get in our way.

It hasn't plummeted yet. We've got many more great years ahead of us, but we set the wheels in motion, and I don't think there's any stopping it now.

[birddog]

Just wait until that #4 team goes on a 2 game winning streak to end the year. It's going to happen, and it's not even going to take that long. We'll switch to 8 teams within 5-10 years. Within 10-15 years we'll have a 7 or an 8 win one or two. For example, look at OU's team this year. Did they deserve a shot at the National Championship? Certainly not. We took down Bama, though, and I bet we'd have taken down whoever else dared to get in our way.

It hasn't plummeted yet. We've got many more great years ahead of us, but we set the wheels in motion, and I don't think there's any stopping it now. I'd love to see OU get to the playoffs. I will never understand how people could be happy seeing OU finish 6th. I'm good with 4 teams but 16 is absurd. However,I've learned to never turn down a good weekend of football

[Temujin]

SEC vs. SEC in every championship game? That happened once.

You don't recognize hyperbole when you see it?

[Temujin]

Why is it that when people don't understand how something works in sports they blame ESPN? Is that anything like when somebody on the donk side of politics doesn't want to be held responsible for something the fallback position is to blame Bush?

I don't lay the blame entirely on ESPN at all, they're just doing what they're allowed to do. They're going to push the boundaries of rules and ethics just like any other major corporation. Honestly, if you want to point a finger, point it directly at OU and the Oklahoma Board of Regents. They're the ones that sued to separate the NCAA from its control of the TV rights for college sports. Regardless, while everything ESPN does is technically within regulations, that doesn't mean that ESPN, and other media outlets as well, don't bear some responsibility for the state of college football.

But anything that draws in huge amounts of money and is loosely regulated...well, it's inevitable that it will become corrupt. It's honestly surprising that CFB has maintained it's current form as long as it has.

[BoulderSooner79]

You don't recognize hyperbole when you see it?

Your post made it sounds like a legitimate flaw in the system. Now if you said it's always SEC vs. XXX - it has been for 8 years straight.

But as other posters have said, OU fans have no basis to complain. We got the nod in '03, '04 and '08 which were among the most controversial BCS pairings. I could see outsiders claiming it's (SEC+OU) that gets unfair consideration.

[SoonerinLA]

We'll look back fondly on the BCS era one of these days, especially when we've gone to a 16 team playoff and the regular season means nothing.

But you simpletons that couldn't recognize the greatness that was college football, and screamed that it needed to be just like every other sport can be happy now.

Curly is absolutely correct. We WILL have an 8 team playoff in no time. And a 16 team playoff after that. I think the BCS worked pretty well and see no need to change. The season will mean nothing if we have a 16 team playoff. Going back before the BCS, every team that won its bowl game felt great. Now it seems, unless you have a signature bowl win like OU-Bama, the bowl wins mean less unless you're in the Natty. In pre-BCS days there were polls to decide National Champs. Occasionally there was disagreement, but even that was good for the game as it had people talking about college football. The good old days were indeed good.

Speaking of the BCS, did anybody here know BCS Executive Director when he was at OU? I'm pretty sure I knew him.

[Temujin]

Your post made it sounds like a legitimate flaw in the system. Now if you said it's always SEC vs. XXX - it has been for 8 years straight.

But as other posters have said, OU fans have no basis to complain. We got the nod in '03, '04 and '08 which were among the most controversial BCS pairings. I could see outsiders claiming it's (SEC+OU) that gets unfair consideration.

I do think there is a legitimate flaw in the system that favors whoever is the media darling at the time...which is the SEC right now. I just said SEC vs. SEC, because that's what "media" wants. The polls are 2/3 of the ranking, and the conference that has the biggest media contract with the biggest sports media outlet is getting consistently favored treatment. I'm not complaining about OU and the BCS, I'm just trying to explain what I found annoying about the BCS itself...which is how it changed from a reasonably non-biased formula that combined human polls with computer polls to the popularity contest that it is today.

But I also agree that we've benefited from the BCS more than any other individual team. That's mainly because we've been FAR more consistent than any other team since 2000. And any problems we've had with the BCS up to this point have been our own fault.

[SoonerorLater]

At this time there is no system that isn't unfair or unbiased that that could be implemented for college football in it's present form. As long as NCAA football retains it's current stucture it's just a matter of which biased and subjective system you want.

[jkjsooner]

Just wait until that #4 team goes on a 2 game winning streak to end the year. It's going to happen, and it's not even going to take that long. We'll switch to 8 teams within 5-10 years. Within 10-15 years we'll have a 7 or an 8 win one or two. For example, look at OU's team this year. Did they deserve a shot at the National Championship? Certainly not. We took down Bama, though, and I bet we'd have taken down whoever else dared to get in our way.

I see where you're going there but let me pose it this way...

Let's say the #4 team does go a 2 game winning streak and wins the title. Now let's view the entire regular and post season as a whole and try to determine who had the best season taking all games equally. I think you could make a strong case for that #4 team considering 1) unless they're SEC they most likely finished with one or fewer losses 2) they just beat #1 and #2/3.

So even if you didn't consider the playoff games as being more significant than regular season games, once it's all said and done that #4 team had possibly the most impressive season.

[jkjsooner]

Curly is absolutely correct. We WILL have an 8 team playoff in no time. And a 16 team playoff after that.

I think you're wrong about a 16 team playoff because AD's have stated over and over that they want to keep the importance of the regular season and they worry about the welfare of the student athlete.

In either case, that's a poor reason to reject a four team playoff. Let the merits of a four team playoff stand on its own.


Going back before the BCS, every team that won its bowl game felt great. Now it seems, unless you have a signature bowl win like OU-Bama, the bowl wins mean less unless you're in the Natty.

I'm not sure what the BCS has to do with this. Even before the BCS an Orange Bowl win felt a lot better than a Bluebonnet Bowl win.


In pre-BCS days there were polls to decide National Champs. Occasionally there was disagreement, but even that was good for the game as it had people talking about college football.

Why don't we just flip a coin to who gets to play in the championship game. That'll create controversy and have people talking about college football.

While we're at it, let's make officials wear glasses that impair their vision and get rid of instant replay. It'll be fun, generate a lot of controversy, and get people talking about college football.

I guess there isn't much left to argue if you think that having a crappy system that people hate is good because it draws attention to college football.

[Widescreen]

Yeah, it's tough to argue that the old old system was somehow better than the BCS. I always hated it when #1 was in one bowl game and #2 was in a different bowl game. The BCS, for all its faults, at least fixed that - at least as well as it could be fixed.

[birddog]

Yeah, it's tough to argue that the old old system was somehow better than the BCS. I always hated it when #1 was in one bowl game and #2 was in a different bowl game. The BCS, for all its faults, at least fixed that - at least as well as it could be fixed.

It was definitely a step in the right direction. The bowl system, no one knew anything else. We were deprived of some great matchups during that time. While I can appreciate the nostalgia associated with traditional bowl games it is time to extend the season. Ratings will be off the charts well through December and into January. I see no reason to complain about 2014·...?

[Eielson]

I see where you're going there but let me pose it this way...

Let's say the #4 team does go a 2 game winning streak and wins the title. Now let's view the entire regular and post season as a whole and try to determine who had the best season taking all games equally. I think you could make a strong case for that #4 team considering 1) unless they're SEC they most likely finished with one or fewer losses 2) they just beat #1 and #2/3.

So even if you didn't consider the playoff games as being more significant than regular season games, once it's all said and done that #4 team had possibly the most impressive season.

I agree (if they have 1 loss or less), and so will just about everybody else, which is the problem. Once this is established, we're expanding to 8 as soon as we legally can.