‘Death to the BCS:’ Nonsense rules

Thank you.

First you said extreme. Then you said just as high. And now you're just saying high.

As I said before, the desire to win appears in all sports. But pressure comes from many sources: oneself, family, coaches, friends, the media, potential employers, the school. At the NAIA level, football is much more of an avocation than at the FBS level,where football is seen by many players as a stepping stone to big things.

Consider the tweet punched out by Jaz Reynolds. At my school, no one even knows it happened. FBS players live in a fishbowl with a lot of people having a stake in how they play. You simply cannot compare the two.

Now, I will turn the matter over for you to dish out a fine round of insults.

 

A playoff won't bring parity, it will deepen the gap. Schools that have the best chance of making the playoff can argue that an athlete playing for them could play three or four extra games each year, all on national tv. Over a period of four years, that's almost an entire season. That's more games on tv, in front of potential pro scouts...

Think about that: A team that has gone deep into the playoffs each year can field players with up to 12 more games of experience over their less fortunate rivals. So not only is the playoff team more attractive to recruits, it also ends up with more experienced players.

How will Kent State attract players with a playoff? They have almost no chance of playing in one, and if the bowls go by the wayside (which I think will happen) there is almost no chance of its players getting any post-season playing time at all.

 

Letard...I'm not going to get in a war of words. You know damn well what is being said. The pressure to win is at every leveland to say it isn't just shows your ignorance.

 

Letard.... The partity wouldn't disappear thanks to limits on scholarships. We will still have programs that will suck, but we will not have so called dynasties either in a playoff system. There wouldn't be a wider gap in parity, it would Shrink, bit not like some people think.

Fcs has a good parity. Yes some teams lie app state make runs every year but there is usually a differnt champ every season. Kind of like in fbs, but fbs is set up were only two teams play for the title leaving moreroom for repeats.

 

Do you read what you post? A playoff would absolutely bring more parity for the mere fact that every program would immediately have a shot at the NC from game one. All you have to do is win your conference, and get a playoff berth. Hmm, now which conferences would be easier to win? A current BCS conference or a nonBCS conference? If you said BCS you'd be wrong. All of a sudden Kent State has its best opportunity for TV exposure by getting a playoff berth than they've ever had of getting a bowl bid, because the recruits won't feel the need to have to go to an elite school, but rather to any school that's competitive in their conference enough to get a shot at the playoffs.

If a recruit wants almost a sure bet that they'll be in the playoffs annually, they will go to a Boise State/Houston/TCU at this stage over any other BCS program. Why? Because it's been the easiest road to win the conference since they don't have to play elite competition.

In the short term, it'll be relatively the same familiar schools up at the top, but over the long term (5 or so years) the gap will decrease with more parity across the NCAA. It took a while, but the 85 scholarship limit has helped create a little parity. A playoff will progress it even further.

 

Timbob...meet letard.

But one thing. Players don't really go looking to mKe the playoffs. They are there to win championships and to get to the NFL. The smaller college programs don't have the resources as the major ones.

Doesn't mean they cannot compete. And I M with you for the most part inthe parity issue.0

 

Okay, let's see how the rest of your post goes.

Oh yeah, no war of words there.

BTW, you have outdid yourself. First you said it's extreme. Then you said it's just as high. Then you said it's high. And now you're just saying it's there.

Amazing. Simply amazing.

 

We don't know that for sure now, do we? D-1A has never had a playoff. If a playoff is implemented, going somewhere to win championships will essentially be the same thing at any conference. You have to win conference championships before you can get a shot at the national championship. As I said, in the short term, it will still look like the same CFB landscape of elites, but over time when recruits start going elsewhere because conference championships mean playoff berths, and playoffs mean TV exposure and a shot at the NC, the parity will increase.

 

In theory. But not in practice. Kent State has no shot, and every big-time program is going to tell recruits that they have no shot. So every year Kent State will fall further and further behind.

Oh ho!! Now we're going to play the Playoff Tango. In your scheme, conference champs get an automatic bid. How do you plan to sell that idea to the powerhouses in college football and to the college presidents that are dead set against a 16-team playoff? (Or were you going to have an 8-team playoff with automatic conference champ bids? That would be truly hysterical.)

Which is why OU, Nebraska, USC, Texas, Florida, Ohio State... will never go for your scheme.

(Well, USC might now.)

Now, when I point out that the college football world will scream if a 6-5 Akron team gets into the playoffs over a 8-3 Georgia team, you will promptly switch to a new scheme. "What if we only use the top 16 according to the BCS?!?!" Sure, that solves that problem, but you now regenerate the problem with parity.

And back and forth. Back and forth.

I swear that some of you must have a stack of cards, with a different playoff scheme on each one. Presented with a barrier, you just wade through the stack looking for the scheme that best answers the dilemma. But in real life you can only have one scheme.

So which one is it?

 

That may work in the short term because "helmet" teams are attractive, but in the long run recruits will wise up and look at where the best chance to play early for a program is, and which has the best chance of winning its conference.

Irrelevant to my point. I stated that a playoff would create more parity in 1-A CFB over the current system, and this reasoning of yours proves my point clearly.

See, your problem is championships to you are won by politicking and recruit rankings. The BCS programs have essentially a monopoly over TV contracts, which draws recruit interest over the nonBCS schools. Not to mention, the conference champs are guaranteed a big money BCS bowl tie-in even if they go 8-4 (Pitt 2005). But you know what? It's the system everyone agreed to.

So, if a 6-5 Akron team makes the playoffs, who cares? It's the system everyone will have agreed to if there was a playoff. You may not like it, but Akron and the MAC conference will be happy it got a shot, as well as the school that would play them in round 1.

I could tell you all about how a playoff should be implemented, but I won't waste my time. I used to be a hardcore defender of the BCS before they made the tweaks in favor of more subjective weight into the components (human polls now account for 2/3rds). Even then, they've always had the coaches poll, which is probably the most absurd poll out there. Coaches don't have time to watch the games, and come up with an educated decision. And let's not forget the bias that comes with it i.e. that old drunk and Bowden's ranking of OU.

 

No, YOUR completely unrealistic notion of a playoff would create more parity.

More parity is not inherent to a playoff system. Most systems would actually deepen the divide.

So which system do we get? Probably not yours. So how do you feel now?

And it has its flaws. But it solved the one problem that everyone bellyached about: The fact that in some years the #1 team didn't play the #2 team.

So now we are guaranteed a #1 versus #2 match every year. The result? We just bitch some more.

The fans aren't going to vote on the system. They will get handed whatever the Powers That Be want them to have. And the fans will whine and cry even more than they do now.

Who cares if Akron gets in? The fans. Why should a 6-5 Akron team get a chance to play for all the marbles when an 8-3 Georgia team (which has a better record against much stiffer competition) cannot?

Because the holes in the system will appear almost immediately. Playoff proponents love to talk in terms of general abstractions, and not the details. Because they can't agree on the details.

16 teams? Forget it. Sure, whatever system we adopt will eventually grow into one, but you're not going to get a 16-team playoff right away.

Conference champs get an automatic bid? Forget it. The big powers are not going to let that happen for good reasons. Those teams play tough competition and don't want to get penalized for it. And why should they?

 

I see we're nearing consensus just like we do every year. Carry on.

 

This thread would be better if it was about nekkid boobies.

 

Imma go to bed now. I should be able to sleep it off by early this afternoon.

 

Timbob... Your talking to a brickwall, someone that has never played in junior high let alone any level. He really has no clue as to what recruiting details.

 

I can honestly say I don't give a **** what they do to change the system as long as they don't do anything to reduce the excitement that makes college football the greatest sport in the world. I DO like the simplicity of a +1 kinda deal though. Take it too far and it turns into the No Fun League which I have refused to really watch since about '91. I haven't even watched but 1 Superbowl in those near 20 years and I don't want that to happen to the college game.

 

You don't even know what my suggestion is. You've written it off because you're being obtuse.

Based on a 2/3rds arbitrary voting system. That's why people still bitch.

Only the 5% of fans out there like you.

If there's a playoff, scenarios like this are bound to happen, but they will have agreed to the system so it doesn't matter. There are 120 teams currently in the league, but there's a glass ceiling that nearly half of them can't reach, and it's because of money.

Ha! Right, because the BCS has never made any tweaks. They still can't even figure out the flaws that create the root of the controversy (Refer to my post a page or so back).

Over time, parity will increase, so the stiff competition will level off throughout all conferences, some moreso than others.

 

Didn't take you long to figure that out.

 

I thought the number of bowl series teams was dropping because very few school make a profit from having a football team. AS I recall, OU is one of about 8-10 that actually make a profit.

 

No. You must be referring to this article, though...NCAA report: Economy cuts into sports