BCS - Is it inherently flawed?

[Scarpozzi]

My personal opinion is that the whole NCAA football organization should break apart into smaller groups and have regional tournaments and play an extra 5 months until we settle who the best is between the winners of those tournaments. If they're playing after Spring semester is over, that's what they get for being an athlete. Another advantage is that it gives us more football to watch. :thumbsup:

Anyhow, this is one of the reasons I prefer NFL. I like knowing that everyone is playing for the same trophy. In college, the BCS would never pick a smaller school to compete for the national title. This is simply because they seem to pick teams they know can fill the stands in the championship game. If the national title ended up being 2 smaller, non-state schools, no one would care who one...and ticket sales would be down. That would send a shockwave through to the networks carrying the games and commercials wouldn't pay as much for slots... NCAA is about money in that aspect.....and it's sad that they act like their not. At least in NFL, you know where the standings are in each division.

 

[Thraxen]

Originally posted by: sao123
**In normal athletics... strength ofschedule is meaningless. The last one standing is the champ. Its that way in every sport but the BCS...
So if we applied the BCS to the NFL... why should anyone from the NFC west even make the playoffs? Seattle, SF, Arizona, & St Louis... its a weak conference, and there are other teams from other conferences which should have that spot by your logic.**

Strength of schedule isn't meaningless. That often determines who gets the at-large bids and helps determine seeding in the sports that do play playoffs . Also, you can't really compare it to the NFL. They are set up to be NFC vs AFC with each division getting their best teams in. Although it would be somewhat similar to the automatic bids each conferences gets in basketball.

 

[jlbenedict]

Originally posted by: sciencewhiz

Originally posted by: jlbenedict
Division 1-AA does the playoff just fine.


Realign the conferneces; Independants would join a conference. All conferences have a championship game... winners of conference championships get automatic bids to the tourney.

There are currently 11 Division 1-A conferences. That would be 11 automatic bids. Then through a selection process, choose 5 at-large bids to be invited to the playoffs. There is your 16 team playoff, just as in Division 1-AA.

So, your 16 teams in order of seed would be: Ohio State, Florida, Michigan, LSU, USC, Louisville, Wisconsin, Boise St, Auburn, Oklahoma, Notre Dame, Wake Forest, BYU, Houston, Central Michigan, Middle Tennessee St,

I'm sure the TV ratings would be great for Ohio State and Middle Tennessee St.

And your point? It doesn't matter.. win your conference championship and you go to the tourney. Its done this way in basketball. Division 1-AA has selection criteria to determine the at-large bids, so why couldn't Division 1-A do it also?

 

[dullard]

I've still haven't seen a better plan than what I've been posting for years. My plan is a pseudo-22 team playoff (really it is an 8-team playoff).

1) All conferences have a conference championship. This would require the independents to move into a conference if they want the benefits of a conference championship game.

2) All conference champions get an automatic bid into the playoff IF they are in the top X of the BCS standings. X=16. If, on the very rare occurance that there are more than 8 teams that meet this criteria, drop the value of X until 8 teams remain. The value of this is that if you can't even win your conference championship, you CAN'T claim to deserve the national championship. But, if you do the best that you can and win in your conference, you probably will get a shot at the championship. If your conference is all pansies, you better schedule a couple of good non-conference games to make certain you are in the BCS top 16. Sorry, but Troy and Middle Tennessee St don't make that cut even if they were the top two teams of the Sun Belt because they had no quality wins and couldn't make the top 16 requirement.

3) If after #2 is over, there are not 8 teams available (very likely), then the at-large bids go to the top BCS teams that didn't make the playoff. A conference with many good teams can send more than one to the playoff (heck, it is possible for them to send more than 2). In this year, Wisconsin would have been a good canidate for an at-large bid (12-1 and they won their bowl game, they deserved a chance).

4) Use the minor bowl games as the first round play-off games. The minor bowls will get more money with OSU playing Boise St then they got by having San Jose St play New Mexico. Who really cares about those minor teams? You'll get far more fans at the game and far more TV fans watching. More fans = more $$$ for the minor bowls. Also, it means teams like OSU wouldn't sit out without playing for nearly 2 months.

5) Use the major bowls (orange, rose, etc) for the remaining play-off games. Again, the major bowls will have the top 4 teams playing each other at this point. That means big $$$ for these major bowls.

6) The remaining minor bowls can play with any team that they want that didn't make the playoff.

This conserves the conferences, conserves the bowl games, conserves the $$$ for the schools, conserves the ability of the other teams to play bowl games, only allows teams that legitimately claim a shot to play in the playoffs, keeps the BCS formula as important, allows teams like 13-0 Boise St a shot at the championship, and gives us a true winner.

Also, it only adds up to 2 games to a season. Most teams will play the same number of games. No more "football players can't do it" excuse especially considering all other divisions have their football players in a playoff.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: jlbenedict

Originally posted by: ranmaniac
I wonder if there's just too much money to be made with the current BCS system that they don't want to switch the format?

There is. There are millions and millions of dollars involved with the BCS, bowl games, etc.. etc..

This sums it up: BCS execs = OPEC and oil barons

the retarded thing is: they'd make more money if it were a playoff.

did anyone actually watch louisville/wake forest? no. if it were a playoff game, you sure as hell would watch.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: jlbenedict

Originally posted by: ranmaniac
I wonder if there's just too much money to be made with the current BCS system that they don't want to switch the format?

There is. There are millions and millions of dollars involved with the BCS, bowl games, etc.. etc..

This sums it up: BCS execs = OPEC and oil barons

Why would there be any less money to be made with a playoff system?

 

[herbiehancock]

Originally posted by: hdeck
not every conference has a championship game. imagine if the NFL had 119 teams that competed for the playoffs. good luck choosing who is deserving in that scenario.

football players do have finals to take, even if their schools do everything possible to make them easy for them. school presidents really have no reason to want a playoff system. there is no perfect system. playoffs might be better, but they aren't happening any time soon.

Odd, then, that it'd be so damned difficult for NCAA Div I schools to do a playoff system when EVERY OTHER NCAA Division of football (Div. I-A, II, III) somehow manages to do just that. I wonder why Div. I is just so different that it cannot somehow manage a playoff system.

It more revolves around money, not players having finals or any other pure BS excuse that is presented. All for the money.

 

[Childs]

I was in favor of a playoff until the Boise St game, then I thought BCS is fine, with maybe a +1. The reason being Boise St most likely wouldnt make it through a 8 or 6 team playoff. Imagine if Boise had to play USC, LSU, Louisville or Florida next week. In this case I think its better for Boise to think that they could run the table against the big boys than have to prove it. Just like Utah a couple of years ago. Beating an average Oklahoma or Pitt team is one thing, but there is a big step up from Oklahoma to LSU or USC. And in an 8 team playoff, you still leave a lot of teams out. Auburn, West Virgina and Rutgers this year. Heck, in a plus 1 LSU and USC might have been left out.

Of course next year I'd probably want a playoff, just like all previous years. What they really need to do is get rid of the Notre Dame loophole! If anyone doesnt belong in BCS bowls its them.

 

[Chiropteran]

Originally posted by: jjones

My question is this. Can a number 1 ranked team, going into the NCG, lose to the number 2 ranked team and still be ranked number 1, and National Champions, after the loss?

Wait. So the team that loses once is really the loser, and the team that lost twice is the winner? That doesn't make sense either.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Childs
Auburn, West Virgina and Rutgers this year. Heck, in a plus 1 LSU and USC might have been left out.

Of course next year I'd probably want a playoff, just like all previous years. What they really need to do is get rid of the Notre Dame loophole! If anyone doesnt belong in BCS bowls its them.

Auburn: tied #3 in the SEC. I'm sorry but if you are #3 in a small group, you don't deserve to be #1 in the whole country. Three other teams in that conference have done as well or better than Auburn.

West Virginia and Rutgers: tied for #2 in the Big East. Ranked #13 and #16 respecitively in the BCS. I'm sorry if you aren't the best in a small group and you aren't even in the top 10 of the country, then you don't deserve to be #1 in the whole country.

That is why I like my play-off plan. You qualify for the play-off if you are both (1) the conference champ and (2) near the top of the nation in ranking systems. A few others may get in on a at-large bid, but those who miss the at-large bid can never claim that they DESERVE the championship. They can claim that they were close to deserving at at-large bid, but they would never deserve the championship.

 

[hdeck]

too lazy to quote/edit, etc so yeah...

-baseball and basketball don't wear on the body like football does. they play multiple times a week, too.
-it's usually those "top 8 teams" that have academic issues to begin with.
-strength of schedule isn't meaningless in other sports. just look at the afc playoff race in the last 2 weeks.
-the team with the best record in each conference goes? does that include non-BCS conferences? don't they get beat up on enough in the first few weeks of the season?
-well that's nice that there is only 1 state champion per division in your state. it isn't the case in every state. in texas there were 2 5A state champions.
-every other division in college football has a playoff but none of them require the amount of time and dedication from the players that D1 requires. mandatory "volunteer" practices in the summer, longer/more practices during the week, etc. take away all that so that their bodies aren't completely broken by the end of football season and it might work.

+1 is the only "playoff" college football will ever turn to. that's just how it is.