BCS

[Joemailman]

West Virginia is going to lose, and Missouri trails Oklahoma. Looks like Ohio State gets to play for the National Title again. Not sure who they would play if Missouri loses.

[Brando19]

I was getting ready to post this...except the Subject was gonna be..."Mountaineers". I can't believe it. I live in WV and we were all so excited cuz we just knew it was going to be a cake walk against Pitt. Boy was we wrong. WV was favored by 4 TD's! WTF?! I was one who wanted Green Bay to draft Steve Slaton...but he proved nothing tonight. That's for sure. It looks like it's gonna be Ohio State vs Georgia, maybe? or LSU.

[Cheesehead Craig]

That sound you hear is the screams from the BCS headquarters that their worst case scenario is happening. No dominant teams. No matter who they put in, there's going to be a huge controversy.

Ahhhh... let the chaos and crying begin.

My prediction: LSU jumps over everyone to play OSU.

[Joemailman]

Can't count out Virginia Tech. They beat Boston College today.

[Charles Woodson]

Can't count out Virginia Tech. They beat Boston College today.

but is that saying much? :lol:
i mean my Noles beat BC

[Cheesehead Craig]

I just think that in a season where so much wacky stuff has happened, why not a team jumping up 5 spots in the BCS to play for the national title?

[b bulldog]

I hope USC or Georgia get the chance to embarrass the Bucks

[cpk1994]

That sound you hear is the screams from the BCS headquarters that their worst case scenario is happening. No dominant teams. No matter who they put in, there's going to be a huge controversy.

Ahhhh... let the chaos and crying begin.

My prediction: LSU jumps over everyone to play OSU.I disagree. That sound you hear is relief that they will avoid a Missouri-WVU BCS title game, which would have been a ratings disaster. Now they get OSU-LSU(probably). Much more preferable to the BCS, I think.

[Rastak]

That sound you hear is the screams from the BCS headquarters that their worst case scenario is happening. No dominant teams. No matter who they put in, there's going to be a huge controversy.

Ahhhh... let the chaos and crying begin.

My prediction: LSU jumps over everyone to play OSU.

Good, maybe they'll get their crap together and institute a playoff finally.

[Scott Campbell]

Good, maybe they'll get their crap together and institute a playoff finally.



I wish. But I doubt it. Too much money slipping out of too many corrupt hands.

[Fred's Slacks]

Good, maybe they'll get their crap together and institute a playoff finally.



I wish. But I doubt it. Too much money slipping out of too many corrupt hands.

You know it just doesn't make sense. Wouldn't a playoff, were every game helps decide the National Champs, generate a lot more hype and, in turn, a lot more money for those corrupt hands? Instead you have one meaningful game, and a bunch that only those teams fans care about. This is run by a bunch of morons if you ask me.

[KYPack]

Ohio State v Georgia for the title?

That's what they are saying this AM.

[b bulldog]

BCS Champ is totally a paper tiger no matter who the victor is. O St deserves to be in the game but other than that, who knows

[Fritz]

I just want OSU to lose. Whoever they play.

[The Leaper]

I wish. But I doubt it. Too much money slipping out of too many corrupt hands.

That is what is ridiculous.

A playoff in college football would bring in a lot more money to the NCAA...it just might not be "distributed" to where some people who are in charge think it should go.

The bottom line is that no other major sport in either college or the pros has adopted such a stupid system of determining who should play in a championship game.

The solution? I love what Dan Wetzel has suggested on Yahoo sports. A 16 team playoff that is completely separate from the current bowl system. Force all 11 conferences to have a championship game...and the 11 conference champs advance. You have 5 at large bids, which will be determined by a committee just like NCAA basketball does.

The top 8 teams HOST the first round. These games would generate far more money for the individual schools than any bowl game does. Ohio State estimates each home game brings in $5M in revenue. Bowl games are not run by the NCAA...outside people are the ones garnering the most profit from the bowl system. Why not play games at The Horseshoe, The Swamp, The Big House, down from Touchdown Jesus rather than some suburban NFL environment that doesn't have nearly the intrigue?

This format still makes the regular season EXTREMELY important...you have to WIN your conference to guarantee an invite. It allows for Cinderella matchups...precisely what makes March Madness so intriguing. It would be a huge ratings boost...because suddenly you'd have 12-15 games that would be getting ratings equal to what the BCS currently has in only 3 or 4 games (at least 1 is usually a dud that no one watches).

I'm sorry...that system is precisely what the NCAA does with the lesser football divisions, and it works tremendously well. It is a no-brainer that is what should also be done for major college football.

[Cheesehead Craig]

That sound you hear is the screams from the BCS headquarters that their worst case scenario is happening. No dominant teams. No matter who they put in, there's going to be a huge controversy.

Ahhhh... let the chaos and crying begin.

My prediction: LSU jumps over everyone to play OSU.I disagree. That sound you hear is relief that they will avoid a Missouri-WVU BCS title game, which would have been a ratings disaster. Now they get OSU-LSU(probably). Much more preferable to the BCS, I think.
Ratings don't enter into the picture this year. There are at least 5 teams that can throw in a legit claim to be in the title game. BCS is screwed as there is going to be more controversy this year than any year ever.

[MadtownPacker]

Where is the mention of undefeated Hawaii? :roll:

[Bretsky]

Where is the mention of undefeated Hawaii? :roll:


Did they win last night ? They were getting crushed. They stink anyways :lol:

[cpk1994]

Where is the mention of undefeated Hawaii? :roll:


Did they win last night ? They were getting crushed. They stink anyways :lol:Yes, they won 35-28 after being down 28-0.

[3irty1]

That Hawaii game was terrific. I might be a Colt Brennon fan. The kid has such a quick release and is soooooooo accurate it's scary. They actually might have an alright team. No chance at anything but a BCS bowl though.

[Bretsky]

I'd love to see the Badgers play them

[Pacopete4]

the badgers are one of the most overrated teams in the land.. and im a badger fan... hawaii would put us to shame with athletes on the field.. im so sick of badger football being so vanilla.. get a damn QB and some athletes to go with those RB's and Oline and we might have something worth talking about... GO RAINBOW WARRIORS

[Cheesehead Craig]

Where is the mention of undefeated Hawaii? :roll:
Sure, they can be in a BCS Bowl game. No way they should be in the discussion for the title game. They played 2 teams that had a winning record this year.

[Pacopete4]

so did USC and Kansas and they've been talked about being in it... its bullshit just cuz they are not from the main states.. that hawaii team is flat out good and id love for them to beat up on lsu or ohio st. cuz those teams are so damn overrated

[BallHawk]

Hawaii vs. Georgia in the Sugar Bowl.

USC vs. Illinois in the Rose Bowl.

Oklahoma vs. West Virginia in the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl.

Virginia Tech vs. Kansas in the Orange Bowl

LSU vs. Ohio State in the BCS Championship.

[highlander]

USC is just going to kill Illiniois.

I will be pulling for the Big Ten , however USC is heads and tails above Illinois.

[Partial]

Terrible system. How can the undefeated Hawaii not be playing in the big game when teams with one and two losses are. Bullshit.

[Bretsky]

Terrible system. How can the undefeated Hawaii not be playing in the big game when teams with one and two losses are. Bullshit.


Hawaii makes their non conference schedule; they played 2 teams above .500 and a bunch of cupcakes

I agree the BCS sucks, but they need to schedule some quality non conference teams and then they can gripe.

[Partial]

What BCS team would schedule Hawaii as a non-conference game? any team guaranteed to kill them doesn't want that powder puff on there and any team that will make it a game could lose.

I don't fault them at all.

[Fred's Slacks]

This system is the biggest joke in major sports. Missouri is the number 1 team in the nation one day and the next they're not even in a BCS game. Yet Kansas, whom Missouri just beat is in. What a joke. Every year these morons ruin a great sport.

[Pacopete4]

what i dont get is.. the bsc woulda had no problem putting USC or Kansas in the game had they not lost, or just lost one game in USC's case.. cuz they only played 2 winning teams apiece as well..

[digitaldean]

Like it or not, Hawaii got screwed.

Hawaii tried scheduling games with USC, they backed out. They had Mich. St. scheduled. Mich. St. backed out of the contract they had and was willing to pay a penalty clause in the contract rather than play Hawaii. When no one wants to play you, you are screwed for non-conference teams.

I hope another WAC team wins to prove this BS system wrong.

I am so sick of that stinkin' Herbstreit talking about how great OSU is. No shit, sherlock you went there!

OSU played Akron, Kent State and Ohio U. That is so full of Twinkies it needs a health label warning.

[Bretsky]

What BCS team would schedule Hawaii as a non-conference game? any team guaranteed to kill them doesn't want that powder puff on there and any team that will make it a game could lose.

I don't fault them at all.


I'm not even talking about a BCS team.......just a good one.

[Partial]

see Digital Deans post. Not their fault. Same with Boise last year. And what did they do? They came in and showed the powerhouse who's boss. I figured last year would end this bologna. Evidently not.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Like it or not, Hawaii got screwed.

Hawaii tried scheduling games with USC, they backed out. They had Mich. St. scheduled. Mich. St. backed out of the contract they had and was willing to pay a penalty clause in the contract rather than play Hawaii. When no one wants to play you, you are screwed for non-conference teams.

I hope another WAC team wins to prove this BS system wrong.

I am so sick of that stinkin' Herbstreit talking about how great OSU is. No shit, sherlock you went there!

OSU played Akron, Kent State and Ohio U. That is so full of Twinkies it needs a health label warning.

I hate Herbie as much as the next guy, but let's be fair. This year, and only this year, OSU had an easy pre conf sked.

They typically play one really tough game. Last year they played Texas and Cinci. That ain't easy.

2005: Texas

The problem is the rankings/polls. If you play a tough sked and lose a game, usually you are out of it. This year is the exception.

SEC teams do this all the time. This year Florida played Troy and WKU.

LSU: This year, VaTech. Last year..Arizona and Lafayette.

GA: OK State and West Carolina.

So, this year's OSU sked is an aberration, and we have the perfect storm in regards to tons of top teams losing.

Hawaii: I agree with you on that. Hard to mount an effective attack on the system, when the system won't play you. But, let's be honest, they really can't compete.

It took everything BSU could pull out of their hat just to hang with Oklahoma. And, Ok was far from being the top team. I loved watching BSU win, but it was clear that they didnt' have the horses to win 9/10 times. They played outta their minds and were well coached.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Missouri is the number 1 team in the nation one day and the next they're not even in a BCS game.

Kansas came back and made the score look close in their game with Missouri, but Missouri proved they are a much more talented and balanced team. Missouri got totally screwed. Unbelievable. Kansas is a paper tiger.

So much to complain about, where to start?

The strongest teams at the end of the season appeared to be USC, Georgia, Oklahoma & LSU. (I have no idea how good Ohio State is because they didn't beat a good team. They lost to the only decent squad they faced.) So what do the powers that be do? They don't have any of the hot teams play each other in bowls! What do we learn by seeing Georgia face Hawaii? Or USC play Illinois?

Its not the end of the world, we'll probably see some unexpected good games. But it would be much more exciting to see the top teams slug it out.

[3irty1]

If this year proved anything its that their is no situation in which Hawaii can ever make a national championship. They have already made their school very proud though. Personally I would have liked to see a national championship of Hawaii and Oklahoma. Based on how they've played lately and what they've accomplished this season I think they are the best two teams in the nation.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Personally I would have liked to see a national championship of Hawaii and Oklahoma. Based on how they've played lately and what they've accomplished this season I think they are the best two teams in the nation.

Oklahoma would win 48-21. It could be worse.

Washington is a crappy team, Hawaii could barely play with them physically.

Lets see how Hawaii fares against Georgia. I think they will get crushed. But we'll see, maybe i am wrong.

[3irty1]

Personally I would have liked to see a national championship of Hawaii and Oklahoma. Based on how they've played lately and what they've accomplished this season I think they are the best two teams in the nation.

Oklahoma would win 48-21. It could be worse.

Washington is a crappy team, Hawaii could barely play with them physically.

Lets see how Hawaii fares against Georgia. I think they will get crushed. But we'll see, maybe i am wrong.

That's what everyone said about Boise State last year. Instead we got possibly the best game of college football ever. I think we'll have a good game with Georgia. Everyone in these bowl games are mortal this year. I won't count Hawaii out.

[privatepacker]

Until the college presidents get overwhelmed w/ people tired of the Bowl games, there will always be ?'s on which teams are better. Playoffs are the only answer.

[The Leaper]

That's what everyone said about Boise State last year. Instead we got possibly the best game of college football ever. I think we'll have a good game with Georgia. Everyone in these bowl games are mortal this year. I won't count Hawaii out.

I would agree. It will be tough for Georgia to get up to play in a non-title game against Hawaii. That is the issue. If the game really meant anything to Georgia...yeah, its a blowout. However, this game means NOTHING to Georgia and everything to Hawaii.

Just like OU-Boise State last year.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Terrible system. How can the undefeated Hawaii not be playing in the big game when teams with one and two losses are. Bullshit.


Hawaii makes their non conference schedule; they played 2 teams above .500 and a bunch of cupcakes

I agree the BCS sucks, but they need to schedule some quality non conference teams and then they can gripe.
Hawaii's schedule was ranked the easiest in the country.

http://teamrankings.com/ncf/27powerratings.php3

That's the biggest reason for the doubters.

[Bossman641]

I'm happy for my Illini but worried they are going to get throttled by USC.

Honestly, this is a mess for the BCS. The system sucks.

[TennesseePackerBacker]

LSU will beat Ohio St. by 10+, and show everyone once again how weak the big 10 really is. Not to mention USC will, as mentioned above, throttle Illinois.

[Partial]

But Hawaii and the spread offense will put up 40 points against Georgia. And even if there defense can't stop them, they can just march right back down the field and score :D

[Bossman641]

LSU will beat Ohio St. by 10+, and show everyone once again how weak the big 10 really is. Not to mention USC will, as mentioned above, throttle Illinois.

I think LSU will win, but I could OSU winning or it being a game. I've watched a few LSU games and I haven't come away that impressed with them. OSU, and the Big 10 in general, really struggle with the spread offense. LSU has the athletes, but they don't really run the spread that would kill OSU.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Hawaii's schedule was ranked the easiest in the country.

http://teamrankings.com/ncf/27powerratings.php3


Impressive. I think Hawaii's struggles to beat lowly Washington speaks volumes. I bet Hawaii would lose badly to all 9 teams ranked ahead of them.

The Mighty Ohio State University is down towards the bottom too. All the other highly ranked teams (except Hawaii) played harder schedules.

One of the TV guys joked that OS should be crowned the State Champion of Ohio. They managed to beat Kent, Akron and Miami of Ohio. (The only Ohio school they didn't play was the one decent team - Cincinnati!)

The bowls are kind of a joke. We are used to athletics being a vaguely fair competition, and the bowls are setup strictly for marketing purposes.
I think the committee didn't matchup any of the powerhouse teams against each other because it would distract from the prestige of the National Championship Game. If they had USC play, say, Oklahoma or Georgia, people would say this is the real championship game.

[Harlan Huckleby]

That's what everyone said about Boise State last year. Instead we got possibly the best game of college football ever.

Boise had more defense, a running game, and their linemen weren't so puny.

[BallHawk]

I think Hawaii's struggles to beat lowly Washington speaks volumes. I bet Hawaii would lose badly to all 9 teams ranked ahead of them.

Even worse, Hawaii barely escaped a loss playing against San Jose St. Colt Brennan gives thim a star player that gets them national appeal which gives them a platform to get into a BCS bowl. If they have another run of the mill QB that simply gets it done, nothing fancy, I doubt they make a BCS bowl.

[The Leaper]

I think LSU will win, but I could OSU winning or it being a game. I've watched a few LSU games and I haven't come away that impressed with them. OSU, and the Big 10 in general, really struggle with the spread offense. LSU has the athletes, but they don't really run the spread that would kill OSU.

I think Ohio State wins this one in what should be a good game.

#1 - Les Miles and his "where am I working this week" show is going to be a distraction for LSU until he signs an new deal. Those things never are to the benefit of the team in question.

#2 - Ohio State is plenty motivated this year after they took it easy last year and were embarrassed. It has been a motivating factor to them all year...where they overachieved IMO.

#3 - OSU's power run game...the one component they did not have last year...typically gives SEC teams fits. It allowed Arkansas to put up 50 on LSU's vaunted defense.

The BCS really stinks though. Kansas? Are you kidding me? I think Bowling Green had a more difficult schedule. USC and Georgia aren't playing each other? They got the matchups all wrong (as usual) and I doubt I'll be watching anything other than the title game this year.

[3irty1]

That's what everyone said about Boise State last year. Instead we got possibly the best game of college football ever. I think we'll have a good game with Georgia. Everyone in these bowl games are mortal this year. I won't count Hawaii out.

I would agree. It will be tough for Georgia to get up to play in a non-title game against Hawaii. That is the issue. If the game really meant anything to Georgia...yeah, its a blowout. However, this game means NOTHING to Georgia and everything to Hawaii.

Just like OU-Boise State last year.

I'm sure a nationally televised game that will win their school a bunch of money and a trophy is reason enough to play.

[The Leaper]

LSU will beat Ohio St. by 10+, and show everyone once again how weak the big 10 really is. Not to mention USC will, as mentioned above, throttle Illinois.

Of course USC wins...the game is played in their backyard. The Pac 10 and SEC will always be at an advantage in their bowl games because they play them in the same climates as their conferences.

Let's see USC play Illinois in Champaign on Jan 1. I bet Illinois kicks their ass up there with their dominant run attack.

Until we go to a 16 team playoff that includes ALL conference champions and utilizes HFA (so teams like USC and LSU have to actually play a meaningful game in a poor weather environment once in awhile) I have zero respect for college football. It is an absolute joke.

[The Leaper]

I'm sure a nationally televised game that will win their school a bunch of money and a trophy is reason enough to play.

Was it enough for Oklahoma last year?

When a coach starts whining about not being where he thinks he should be in terms of the bowl game, his team gets an ass-whooping.

Last year, it was Lloyd Carr. Yep...an ass-whooping.

[3irty1]

LSU will beat Ohio St. by 10+, and show everyone once again how weak the big 10 really is. Not to mention USC will, as mentioned above, throttle Illinois.

Of course USC wins...the game is played in their backyard. The Pac 10 and SEC will always be at an advantage in their bowl games because they play them in the same climates as their conferences.

Let's see USC play Illinois in Champaign on Jan 1. I bet Illinois kicks their ass up there with their dominant run attack.

Until we go to a 16 team playoff that includes ALL conference champions and utilizes HFA (so teams like USC and LSU have to actually play a meaningful game in a poor weather environment once in awhile) I have zero respect for college football. It is an absolute joke.

College football is first and foremost a fund raiser. The BCS might be annoying to teams and fans but doing it this way makes a lot of money.

[3irty1]

That's what everyone said about Boise State last year. Instead we got possibly the best game of college football ever.

Boise had more defense, a running game, and their linemen weren't so puny.

Boise State still supposedly had no chance. Ohio and Michigan were also considered the best teams in the country and Florida didn't belong in the national championship. Oh well they were going to get obliterated by OSU anyways.

It'll be easy to say that Hawaii isn't in the same league with any of these other teams but the truth is that we won't know until we see the game. They certainly would seem to be worse than Georgia though yes, but good game wouldn't surprise me at all and it shouldn't surprise you either.

[The Leaper]

College football is first and foremost a fund raiser. The BCS might be annoying to teams and fans but doing it this way makes a lot of money.

For who?

The bowls are not run by the NCAA, nor does most of that money go to the NCAA. Bowls are run by private entities that are entirely separate from the NCAA. Major colleges could earn far more money for themselves by having a playoff with games held in their own stadiums (not some sterile NFL stadium with no college tradition or environment) where one game brings in millions for the college and millions more for the immediate community.

It is a joke...and fans of college football should demand better by organizing a viewing boycott. It is the only way to hit these jackasses where they will feel it.

[3irty1]

I'm sure a nationally televised game that will win their school a bunch of money and a trophy is reason enough to play.

Was it enough for Oklahoma last year?

When a coach starts whining about not being where he thinks he should be in terms of the bowl game, his team gets an ass-whooping.

Last year, it was Lloyd Carr. Yep...an ass-whooping.

Well its a stretch to say thats not reason enough to play. Especially for the coaches who's only real job are to win the games that pay his salary... But even if I bought what you are selling that's not a flaw in the system. A nationally televised game, a trophy, and the money SHOULD be reason enough to play. If a coach doesn't like the game he got put in the last thing he should do is prove the BCS right by losing it.

[The Leaper]

Boise State still supposedly had no chance. Ohio and Michigan were also considered the best teams in the country and Florida didn't belong in the national championship. Oh well they were going to get obliterated by OSU anyways.

So you are missing my point? You are basically agreeing with me.

The reason why Boise State and Florida won last year was because they had more to play for...more motivation. Ohio State believed they had the title won before the game was played...and Oklahoma could care less playing a non-title game against some team who plays on a blue carpet. That is my point. Motivation is often a deciding factor when you have weeks between games.

Teams without much to play for always stand to lose. That is precisely why Georgia could be beaten by Hawaii...even if Georgia is the far better team. The current system guarantees a lot of stupid matchups though. Georgia-USC would be a far better game. Do I care if Georgia is better than Hawaii? No. So I won't be watching.

[The Leaper]

Well its a stretch to say thats not reason enough to play. Especially for the coaches who's only real job are to win the games that pay his salary... But even if I bought what you are selling that's not a flaw in the system. A nationally televised game, a trophy, and the money SHOULD be reason enough to play. If a coach doesn't like the game he got put in the last thing he should do is prove the BCS right by losing it.

The system is screwed because teams playing for a title have 40-60 days off between games...STUPID. There is no momentum or consistency that can be maintained in that kind of program. It can't even be remotely considered an accurate test of who is the better team. Would you like the Super Bowl to be played in early March? How about a World Series wrapping up around Christmas?

It makes no sense. Arguing otherwise makes you look like a fool.

[Partial]

Yes... because none of those kids wanted to win a national championship and didn't prepare before the game..

Florida won because they were the better team. So did Boise state. You're ignorant if you don't think those teams prepared harder than ever before for those games.

[The Leaper]

Yes... because none of those kids wanted to win a national championship and didn't prepare before the game.

I'm not suggesting they did not want to win.

I'm saying that Florida and Boise State had more motivation. They had more detractors. They had more locker room material to post on the board.

In a game where both teams haven't played in over a month, motivation plays a huge factor. Better teams can lose.

If you think Boise State was really a more complete team top to bottom than Oklahoma last year, you are nuts. Oklahoma may have wanted to win...Boise State wanted to MORE. That is my point. Boise State was better THAT DAY. That hardly means they were a better team.

As for Florida-Ohio State...I'm not sure which team was better top to bottom. Both were excellent. Florida was better that day...probably because of their motivation after being written off for the better part of a month and a half really stuck in their craw. They wanted it more. That was evident.

[Partial]

I don't think they were a more complete team. I think they were a better team, though. You play to win the game. And that they did. Thus, they are the better team. You can say they got lucky or had more motivation or whatever but all this is in going in one ear and out the other.

The better team is the team that won. Only sore losers say otherwise.

[The Leaper]

I don't think they were a more complete team. I think they were a better team, though. You play to win the game. And that they did. Thus, they are the better team.

So Michigan isn't a better team than App State?

You are nuts. The better team does not always win...especially in a one-and-done format.

I'm not a Buckeye fan, BTW...even though I live in Columbus. I am a Badger fan...although I follow the NFL far more than the NCAA.

So don't assume that I am some kind of sore loser.

[Partial]

Scoreboard. This year, yes. Their is no evidence to the contrary. The only valid evidence is the scoreboard.

[The Leaper]

Scoreboard.

WTF is that supposed to mean?

[The Leaper]

The only valid evidence is the scoreboard.

So then you admit the BCS is horseshit. Kansas was beat by Missouri, but is in the BCS when Missouri is not.

[Partial]

Scoreboard.

WTF is that supposed to mean?

AS 34, Mich 32

34 > 32

(34 -32) > 0 thus 34 is greater than 32

[Partial]

The only valid evidence is the scoreboard.

So then you admit the BCS is horseshit. Kansas was beat by Missouri, but is in the BCS when Missouri is not.

Of course the BCS is bullshit. Hawaii should be in the championship game.

[Zool]

The Fighting Rainbows FTW.

[The Leaper]

Of course the BCS is bullshit. Hawaii should be in the championship game.

Well, that pretty much proves your level of knowledge pertaining to football. Thank God the BCS didn't submit us to that nightmare...having Hawaii in the title game. Do I think they derserve a shot in a playoff? Of course. Do they belong in a one-and-done title game? No. They haven't beat one team of consequence.

A playoff is the only fair way to decide anything. My point is that until that happens, nothing means anything in the NCAA. The BCS system is nothing but a way for rich conferences to stay that way.

[highlander]

Isnt it funny how no debates who the super bowl champ is.. Even when a wild card team wins it all.

Or

who the National champions of the NCAA college hoops , even if NC State wins it.

Or

MLB even when Florida wins it

OR oh you get the picture

[3irty1]

Boise State still supposedly had no chance. Ohio and Michigan were also considered the best teams in the country and Florida didn't belong in the national championship. Oh well they were going to get obliterated by OSU anyways.

So you are missing my point? You are basically agreeing with me.

The reason why Boise State and Florida won last year was because they had more to play for...more motivation. Ohio State believed they had the title won before the game was played...and Oklahoma could care less playing a non-title game against some team who plays on a blue carpet. That is my point. Motivation is often a deciding factor when you have weeks between games.

Teams without much to play for always stand to lose. That is precisely why Georgia could be beaten by Hawaii...even if Georgia is the far better team. The current system guarantees a lot of stupid matchups though. Georgia-USC would be a far better game. Do I care if Georgia is better than Hawaii? No. So I won't be watching.

Yes I agree that upsets sometimes happen. I disagree that there is a lack of motivation for players and coaches who are unhappy with the game that they won. Especially this year. Where 0all these teams had control of their own fate except Hawaii. Had any of the top 10 won another game they'd be in the championship. That rarely happens in college football.

However these kids don't come out flat because of motivation. For many of them its their last game ever. Many of them its the biggest game they will ever play in. They are on national TV. Its an important game.

If the coaches are sore and unmotivated then they are terrible coaches. Their job is to win money. If they don't do that then they usually lose their job.

[3irty1]

Well its a stretch to say thats not reason enough to play. Especially for the coaches who's only real job are to win the games that pay his salary... But even if I bought what you are selling that's not a flaw in the system. A nationally televised game, a trophy, and the money SHOULD be reason enough to play. If a coach doesn't like the game he got put in the last thing he should do is prove the BCS right by losing it.

The system is screwed because teams playing for a title have 40-60 days off between games...STUPID. There is no momentum or consistency that can be maintained in that kind of program. It can't even be remotely considered an accurate test of who is the better team. Would you like the Super Bowl to be played in early March? How about a World Series wrapping up around Christmas?

It makes no sense. Arguing otherwise makes you look like a fool.

Hard not to agree with this. I agree for a little extra time off to be at full strength after a long season but the wait is too long I agree.

[3irty1]

Isnt it funny how no debates who the super bowl champ is.. Even when a wild card team wins it all.

Or

who the National champions of the NCAA college hoops , even if NC State wins it.

Or

MLB even when Florida wins it

OR oh you get the picture

People don't dispute who the super bowl champion is but they dispute who the best team was. Same thing in college. The national champion is clear... its the winner of the national championship.

[Partial]

Of course the BCS is bullshit. Hawaii should be in the championship game.

Well, that pretty much proves your level of knowledge pertaining to football. Thank God the BCS didn't submit us to that nightmare...having Hawaii in the title game. Do I think they derserve a shot in a playoff? Of course. Do they belong in a one-and-done title game? No. They haven't beat one team of consequence.

A playoff is the only fair way to decide anything. My point is that until that happens, nothing means anything in the NCAA. The BCS system is nothing but a way for rich conferences to stay that way.

Maybe it wouldn't be the best game to watch, but how do you know they wouldn't win? I seem to recall a very shitty (worst in the league) Colts team that knocked off the Packers back in the glory days. What about the USA hockey team beating Russia in the semi-finals of the 1980 olympics?

How can you blame them for not beating a team of consequence when other teams are too scared to play them?!? Do you think LSU is in any rush to schedule Hawaii. Hell no. They drop that game and they lose all their recruits for that year.

I will never, ever, ever understand how a team that has beaten anyone who they have played is not in the title game. LSU or OSU may be better, deeper teams, but we will never know until they play. Terrible, terrible system.

The 2005 Steelers weren't the most talented team imo, but they came in and won the super bowl despite being a 6 seed because they were a good team that won the games they needed to. Hawaii has done the same thing.

How can you fault a team for beating anyone who has played them?

[The Leaper]

Maybe it wouldn't be the best game to watch, but how do you know they wouldn't win? I seem to recall a very shitty (worst in the league) Colts team that knocked off the Packers back in the glory days. What about the USA hockey team beating Russia in the semi-finals of the 1980 olympics?

I love Cinderellas. I just don't love giving Cinderella a free ticket to the big dance. She should have to earn her way there via a playoff.


How can you blame them for not beating a team of consequence when other teams are too scared to play them?!? Do you think LSU is in any rush to schedule Hawaii. Hell no. They drop that game and they lose all their recruits for that year.

I realize they have it tough. I'm not saying they do not deserve a chance. In fact, my concept of a 16 team playoff, rather than some ridiculous 4 team playoff or "plus-one" is to GUARANTEE that teams like Hawaii get a fair chance to prove their regular season.

[The Leaper]

I disagree that there is a lack of motivation for players and coaches who are unhappy with the game that they won.

Perhaps you disagree, but the fact of the matter is that recent bowl history suggests that teams who have a reason to be disappointed in where they wind up based on the regular season usually underperform in the bowl game they end up at.

If you think you truly should have a shot at something more...and don't get it...obviously that will make it more difficult to really gear up for the game you are playing.

Should it be that way? No. But these aren't professional athletes. These are college kids with over a month between games. It is hard to keep them on task that long with little in the way of motivation. If they win...who cares? They SHOULD win in the eyes of the pundits. That makes it harder to motivate yourself than someone who is on the other side of the argument...told they SHOULDN'T win.

[4and12to12and4]

I didn't read one post on this thread, but I just want to say that a playoff system isn't going to solve anything unless they make it 64 teams involved in it, which would be almost impossible. But you have an 8 or 16 team playoff, we will still have the same arguments about who got shafted as the ninth or 17th team out, and that will be the new stories for the media to feed off of. It's not the answer, there is no answer, and this system at least is exciting in that you're favorite team has to go undefeated to have a shot, and that's cool.

[Rastak]

Isnt it funny how no debates who the super bowl champ is.. Even when a wild card team wins it all.

Or

who the National champions of the NCAA college hoops , even if NC State wins it.

Or

MLB even when Florida wins it

OR oh you get the picture

People don't dispute who the super bowl champion is but they dispute who the best team was. Same thing in college. The national champion is clear... its the winner of the national championship.


The National Championship matchup is a friggen vote or a computer picking who they might be the two best. Yes, every sport has a debate about the best team vs the champion. Difference is, they won it on the field in a tourney, not by vote or by a computer matchup.


I HATE the bowl system. Maybe hoops should have a bowl system, how thrilling would that be?

[HarveyWallbangers]

I didn't read one post on this thread, but I just want to say that a playoff system isn't going to solve anything unless they make it 64 teams involved in it, which would be almost impossible. But you have an 8 or 16 team playoff, we will still have the same arguments about who got shafted as the ninth or 17th team out, and that will be the new stories for the media to feed off of. It's not the answer, there is no answer, and this system at least is exciting in that you're favorite team has to go undefeated to have a shot, and that's cool.

Media would discuss it, but just like the #65 team in college basketball (#66 with that stupid play-in game) you don't have much of a gripe if you are team #17. If you made it questionable that you should get in, then you have no complaints when the field is 16 or 64 teams. Yes, some teams will have an argument that they should be #16, but that issue would be small potatoes.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I HATE the bowl system. Maybe hoops should have a bowl system, how thrilling would that be?

Agreed. There's a way they could make it work. Eventually, they will. The good and bad thing about this whole BCS system is that it ruined the tradition of the bowl games. Rose Bowl was Big 10 vs. Pac 10, Cotton Bowl was Big 8, etc. They don't have that to overcome anymore.

[4and12to12and4]

I didn't read one post on this thread, but I just want to say that a playoff system isn't going to solve anything unless they make it 64 teams involved in it, which would be almost impossible. But you have an 8 or 16 team playoff, we will still have the same arguments about who got shafted as the ninth or 17th team out, and that will be the new stories for the media to feed off of. It's not the answer, there is no answer, and this system at least is exciting in that you're favorite team has to go undefeated to have a shot, and that's cool.

Media would discuss it, but just like the #65 team in college basketball (#66 with that stupid play-in game) you don't have much of a gripe if you are team #17. If you made it questionable that you should get in, then you have no complaints when the field is 16 or 64 teams. Yes, some teams will have an argument that they should be #16, but that issue would be small potatoes.

The media bitch about this system, and as they do it, they love arguing about who should be placed where. They spend countless hours arguing about it, so as they bitch about the system, they secretly love it, cuz it gives them something to discuss and argue about. A playoff system would give them the same opportunity and they would take complete advantage of it. They know that controversy sells, and that's what they want. They would drum up just as much controversy of the teams not getting a chance to participate in the playoffs saying they got snubbed. Hell, they do it for the Probowl selections, and the All Star game in baseball, and those games don't even mean shit. It's just more controversy and shit for them to argue about. I hate the system as much as everyone else, I'm just saying that the sports media will bitch and argue just as much even with a playoff, because of the teams being left out. But, it would be more exciting and more fair for the teams that do make it.

[Partial]

Maybe it wouldn't be the best game to watch, but how do you know they wouldn't win? I seem to recall a very shitty (worst in the league) Colts team that knocked off the Packers back in the glory days. What about the USA hockey team beating Russia in the semi-finals of the 1980 olympics?

I love Cinderellas. I just don't love giving Cinderella a free ticket to the big dance. She should have to earn her way there via a playoff.


How can you blame them for not beating a team of consequence when other teams are too scared to play them?!? Do you think LSU is in any rush to schedule Hawaii. Hell no. They drop that game and they lose all their recruits for that year.

I realize they have it tough. I'm not saying they do not deserve a chance. In fact, my concept of a 16 team playoff, rather than some ridiculous 4 team playoff or "plus-one" is to GUARANTEE that teams like Hawaii get a fair chance to prove their regular season.

They went undefeated. No other team in the country did that. I'd say they more than payed their dues.

I agree completely on 16 team playoff.

[The Leaper]

The votes are in...how did the coaches vote in the final tally of the year?

Of the 60 coaches we have voting information on...here is what interests me:

- Only 9 coaches did not vote Ohio State #1 or #2...and 46 of the 60 placed them at #1. For all the bloviating from talking heads on how the Buckeyes don't belong in the title game, I think the take of the actual coaches (since they likely do actually vote themselves on the final vote) is telling.

- Only 20 coaches did not vote LSU #1 or #2.

- Tressel voted Ohio State #1, LSU #2.

- Miles voted LSU #1, Ohio State #2.

- Stoops voted for Oklahoma #1, Ohio State #2...and LSU #6, the lowest ranking LSU received from any of the 60 coaches! Bob Stoops was clearly trying to do his best to help himself and HURT LSU...and should be pointed out as the jackass he is for doing so. He put VT above LSU in his rankings, even though LSU beat VT head to head in a blowout.

- Richt voted Ohio State #1, Georgia #2, LSU #3, Oklahoma #4...hard to argue that he tried to lowball his competitors like Stoops did.

- Beamer voted LSU #1, VT #2, Oklahoma #3, Ohio State #4.

- Carroll's vote wasn't listed among the 60 coaches.

Go here to look at the results for yourself.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/graphics/coaches_fb_poll_2007/flash.htm

[swede]

Maybe I'll spend part of the BCS bowl season breaking out the tapes and watching USC vs. Texas again. That was a great game. Ohio State vs. Miami in the Orange Bowl was pretty good, too.

Wayne Larrivee had an excellent rant on the BCS matchups this morning on WTMJ.

With the disclaimer that this was a tough year to pick a slate for the BCS bowls, he nevertheless called the BCS selection committee a bunch of "overweight, inebriated guys in plaid sportcoats concerned mostly with getting wined and dined." Riffing on the idea that the BCS guys are drunks, he called the bowl matchups a "slurred version".

Go Wayne.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I agree completely on 16 team playoff.

16 teams is impractical, that would be four weeks of playoffs. That would be grueling, like another season. And it would take something away from the regular season if all a team had to do was crack the top 16.

Even a 4-team playoff would be a huge improvement. Usually the best team is going to be rated in the top 4. And it could be implemented easily.

Maybe an 8-team playoff might work, but that would be pushing it.

[swede]

I agree completely on 16 team playoff.

16 teams is impractical, that would be four weeks of playoffs. That would be grueling, like another season. And it would take something away from the regular season if all a team had to do was crack the top 16.

Even a 4-team playoff would be a huge improvement. Usually the best team is going to be rated in the top 4. And it could be implemented easily.

Maybe an 8-team playoff might work, but that would be pushing it.

I agree, Harlan.

I've heard it said that college coaches like the bowl games because all over the country half of the bowl teams end the season as winners.

In a playoff system everybody eventually ends on the downer of losing except the ultimate winner.

Therefore a four game playoff is best since it projects to result in the greatest likelihood of crowning the most worthy team while limiting the number of coaches fired for losing in the playoffs, something that seems important to coaches.

[The Leaper]

16 teams is impractical, that would be four weeks of playoffs. That would be grueling, like another season. And it would take something away from the regular season if all a team had to do was crack the top 16.

I disagree.

The beauty of the NCAA is that ALL teams have a fair chance to be included in most sports. The IUPUI's of the world can find themself facing off against Syracuse or Michigan. Expanding to 16 teams ensures that the champion of ALL ELEVEN conferences in major college football gets a fair shot, plus rewards 5 additional teams (independents, great non-conference champs)

Anything less, and why bother? Just stick with the current moronic format that simply rewards only the teams from the six major conferences with any realisitic chance at playing for the national title. If you go to an 8 team playoff, I guarantee the big six conferences will all want an automatic bid for their champ. That leaves 2 at larges...which will also likely go to major conferences 75% of the time.

How do you make the regular season important? Hold the playoff games at the HOME FIELD of the higher seed. I'm tired of bowl games run by corporations and played in huge, sterile NFL stadiums with no character. I want to see USC play Michigan in the Big House in December, rather than always have the advantage of playing bowl games in THEIR climate. I want to see Ohio State have to invade The Swamp. I want to see the Central Michigans of the world get a chance to go into Norman, Oklahoma and beat the Sooners. I want to see REAL COLLEGE FANS tailgating outside their stadium before these playoff games...because the college gameday atmosphere is SECOND TO NONE in sports.

Granting HFA for the top 8 seeds would most certainly keep the regular season's importance. EVERY conference game now is very meaningful. Every conference championship is now EXTREMELY meaningful. Do you know who played for the conference title in all the WACs and MACs of the world this year? Probably not...it is meaningless at this point in the scheme of the national picture. Implement the 16 team playoff, and MORE games become meaningful and intriguing...not less.

Sorry, traditionalists are always at a disadvantage. Baseball WHINED about the wild card teams...but baseball is infinitely better now with them, and even the staunchest traditionalists agree. Having 16 of 119 teams make the playoffs isn't crazy. That is less than 15% of the teams. Sounds reasonable to me.

Makes the season too long? Reduce the number of non-conference games currently played that are mostly meaningless. Every major team has at least 2 cupcakes on their schedule that no one cares about. Use the playoff to spread the money (which would be infinitely greater than the current BCS contract) among the college conferences rather than force them to earn it playing the big boys on the road in meaningless and lopsided contests.

Nope. 16 teams. Give everyone a fair shot. Just like in EVERY OTHER NCAA SPORT.

[The Leaper]

I've heard it said that college coaches like the bowl games because all over the country half of the bowl teams end the season as winners.

In a playoff system everybody eventually ends on the downer of losing except the ultimate winner.

Keep the bowl system. The playoff should be SEPARATE from the bowls, which is how you can run them in REAL college stadiums. Sure, a few of the extremely mediocre bowls would probably die on the vine. Are you going to be pissed at missing the Poinsettia Bowl? Most of the major ones would do just fine.

For instance, this weekend and next weekend could be your first/second round playoff games.

Take a week or two off for finals/holidays...some of the lesser bowl games will be held then as they normally are.

The New Years bowl games will remain the same...and could even include LOSERS from the first round of the playoff, who would still have 3 weeks notice. Those would include some very good teams.

You'd have 3 huge matchups to close the season after the bowl games on 2 weekends to finish out the playoffs...potentially using current BCS bowl games. The ending wouldn't be much later than the current Jan 7/8 slot.

It is an idea that could easily work and would provide the fairness and beauty we all respect in what we know as March Madness. Instead, college football is greedy and refuses to play fair with the lesser conferences. I'm tired of it.

[The Leaper]

16 teams is impractical, that would be four weeks of playoffs.

HEAVEN FORBID HARLAN!!!!

What the hell do we do every March in the NCAA? Oh, that's right...a FUCKING THREE WEEK PLAYOFF known as March Madness that is viewed as the NCAA's crowning jewel. Yikes, we are extending it an entire week...and only playing 15 games instead of 63.

You are hilarious in your hypocrisy...buying into the silly college presidents and BCS corporate sponsors (including outlets like ABC/ESPN and FOX) and their notion of what works and what doesn't. What do the LESSER college football divisions do to crown a champion Harlan? Oh that's right...an extended PLAYOFF.

Yet, it is good enough for Youngstown State, but not Ohio State?

That's a good one.

[Carolina_Packer]

Polls and Bowls can be wed by a playoff system that does not upset the current system, but refines it. The writer of this article has the good sense to realize that you are not going to scrap the existing format, but that reforms could work. It appears in About.com's football section and is from 2002, so it can't account for some of the more recent changes to the BCS, none of which had anything to do with a playoff, so this article is still very valid.

Part 1 - BCS Inadequate
By Alex Giles
Date: November 19, 2002

Every year about this time in College Football, the BCS nay-sayers attempt to articulate all of the reasons why the Bowl Championship Series (BCS), a system instituted prior to the 1998 season, is inadequate, unfair, or just plain ridiculous.

Heading into November, the BCS rankings featured eight undefeated teams that were positioning themselves for an appearance in the National Championship game. At that time, many observers felt this would surely be the season where public outrage would finally bring an end to the BCS...at least in its current format. Now, three weeks later, after several truly unexpected upsets, all appears to be fine again in the world of the BCS...right? We have only two undefeated teams, Miami and Ohio State, and they are ranked #1 and #2, respectively, in the most recent BCS ranking. Presumably, this sets the stage for a true National Championship game between the top two teams in the country, exactly what the BCS is expected to produce. Or does it?

Some will argue that Ohio State clearly isn't one of the top two teams in the country, despite its #2 ranking in the BCS - only .01 points behind first-place Miami. Some will even go so far as to say that Ohio State may not even be the best team in its own conference, siding with 11-1 Iowa instead. Even if you do believe that Miami and Ohio State are truly the two best teams in the country, in order for the BCS to escape serious scrutiny this season Miami and Ohio State will have to win the remainder of their games - Pittsburgh, Syracuse, and Virginia Tech for Miami, and Michigan for Ohio State.

However, what happens if either Miami or Ohio State lose one of those games? Worse yet, what happens if both Miami and Ohio State suffer a loss before the end of the season? The simple answer is that College Football and the BCS would be right back where they were three weeks ago...prime for revamping...

Part 2 - Revamping the BCS

Naturally, when people talk about revamping the BCS, the leading alternative is some sort of playoff format since College Football is the only major sport that does not employ a bracket type finish to its season. While there have been several proposals that would accomplish such a Playoff format, all appear to completely discard the current BCS system. In doing so, proponents of these playoff alternatives lack the diplomacy necessary to sell the idea as they fail to factor in the legacy and importance of the major bowls, which ultimately ends up being the death nail of any such proposal. Therefore, any modification to the BCS to incorporate a playoff system has be exactly that - a modification, and not an outright dismantling of the current system.

For all of the real and/or perceived deficiencies of the BCS, it really isn't a bad system. For the most part, the BCS does an exceptional job in utilizing the AP and Coaches polls, the computer polls, a team's strength of schedule, deductions for quality wins, and so on, to identify the best 15 teams in the country. In fact, I am not aware of any BCS-bashers that would honestly disagree with this conclusion...most likely because they have never been asked to comment on that particular issue. When you consider the effectiveness of the BCS, however, no one currently judges the BCS on its ability to identify the top 15 teams, rather the BCS is judged on its ability to identify the top 2 teams at season's end. Unfortunately, that's where the BCS' problems lie.

The 2000 and 2001 seasons are prime examples. In 2000, the BCS ranked Oklahoma #1 and Florida State #2 at season's end, despite the fact that Miami was ranked #2 in both the AP and the Coaches poll and had beaten the Seminoles during the regular season. Likewise, in 2001, the BCS ranked Miami #1 and Nebraska #2 at season's end, despite the fact that Oregon was ranked #2 in both polls. This year, once again, it is conceivable that College Football and the BCS will face the possibility that there is no clear-cut, undefeated #1 and #2 team at the end of the season, and will be forced to select among a handful of teams with one loss that can all make convincing arguments why they should be deemed one of the top two teams in the country and be invited to play in the National Championship game...

Part 3 - The Solution

In order to correct this possible nightmare situation that will continue to exist year after year, College Football should adopt a Playoff format that retains the strengths of the current BCS system. Specifically, the proposed new BCS/Playoff format should implement the following components:

1) The current BCS system for the most part would remain in place and would be used to rank the top 15 teams each week, starting with the third week in October;

2) All teams would play no more than 12 games during the regular season (this would include any conference championship games);

3) At season's end, the top 8 teams of the BCS would be playoff eligible and have a shot at advancing to the National Championship game, rather than merely the top 2 teams;

4) The 8 BCS/Playoff eligible teams would not necessarily include all of the conference champions from the 6 current BCS sanctioned conferences (ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac 10, and SEC), rather they would be comprised solely of the top 8 teams from the season ending BCS ranking regardless of conference;

5) There would no longer be a limitation that only 2 teams per conference could be BCS/Playoff eligible;

6) The new BCS/Playoff format would continue to feature the current BCS bowls - the Fiesta Bowl, the Sugar Bowl, the Orange Bowl, and the Rose Bowl, thus preserving the major Bowl tradition;

7) Each year, the priority of the four BCS Bowls would rotate. Currently, the National Championship game rotates among the four Bowls so that once every four years each Bowl hosts the National Championship game. That will continue, but the remaining three Bowls will be ranked 2 through 4 each year. For example, this year the Fiesta Bowl is the National Championship game, the Sugar Bowl would be ranked #2, the Orange Bowl #3, and the Rose Bowl #4. Next year, the Sugar Bowl, Orange Bowl, and Rose Bowl would each move up one notch and the Sugar Bowl would host the National Championship game. The Fiesta Bowl, since it hosted the Championship game this year, would rotate to the lowest ranked of the four Bowls in year 2;

8) The playoffs would begin at the end of the second full week in December, matching #1 vs. #8, #4 vs. #5, #2 vs. #7, and #3 vs. #6 in the Quarterfinals;

9) The winners of the four Quarterfinal match-ups would advance to the Semifinals to be played the following weekend. The winner of #1 vs. #8 would meet the winner of #4 vs. #5, and the winner of #2 vs. #7 would meet the winner of #3 vs. #6;

10) The losing teams from the four Quarterfinal match-ups would meet in the 3rd and 4th ranked Bowls for that year. Using the example articulated above in Paragraph 7, the losing teams from the Quarterfinals would play in the Orange Bowl and the Rose Bowl. In order to determine which teams would play in the Orange Bowl as opposed to the Rose Bowl, the two teams with the better BCS season ending ranking would play in the Orange Bowl whereas the other two teams who have the lesser BCS rankings would play in the Rose Bowl. Consequently, the regional tie-in requirement for BCS teams not in the National Championship game would no longer exist;

11) The winners of the Semifinals would advance to the National Championship game in the Fiesta Bowl. The losing teams from the Semifinals would match-up against each other in the Sugar Bowl;

12) All BCS/Playoff Bowl games would be played during the first week of January, much like the current format;

13) The winner of the BCS/Playoff National Championship game would be deemed the National Champion regardless of its season ending BCS ranking...

Part 4 - Conclusion

In order to demonstrate how the new BCS/Playoff system would work, if the 2002 season were to end today, the Quarterfinal match-ups would be as follows: #1 Miami vs. #8 Southern Cal, #4 Oklahoma vs. #5 Georgia, #2 Ohio State vs. #7 Iowa, and #3 Washington State vs. #6 Notre Dame. For the sake of argument, let's say that Miami, Oklahoma, Ohio State, and Washington State win their Quarterfinal games. Miami would then play Oklahoma and Ohio State would play Washington State in the Semifinals. Southern Cal, as the #8 seed, and Iowa, as the #7 seed, would play in the 4th ranked Bowl this year - the Rose Bowl. Notre Dame, as the #6 seed, and Georgia, as the #5 seed, would play in the 3rd ranked Bowl - the Orange Bowl.

Continuing on, let's say that Miami and Ohio State win their Semifinal games. Miami and Ohio State would then advance to the National Championship game in the Fiesta Bowl and Oklahoma and Washington State would meet in the Sugar Bowl.

This BCS/Playoff proposal takes the best from both systems and creates a win-win situation for all involved - College Football, the BCS, the major Bowls, and most importantly, the fans who want an undisputed National Champion. The time has come for this holy union of the BCS and a playoff format.

Just a word of caution for College Football though, if you wait any longer before conducting the ceremony you may find yourself with the proverbial Shotgun Wedding.

End of Article

Why can't someone effectively present these arguments to university presidents and make them see that there could be even more money to be made with BCS playoff games? If all they are worried about is money, why can't someone project what they would make under a playoff system as an argument?

You hear a lot of people trumpeting a playoff system of some kind or another. Why won't the defenders of the current poll system of determining the top two step up and defend the system publicly?

Just dealing in present reality, here is an article from ESPN Jan. 2007 quoting the BCS Coordinator and SEC Commisioner Mike Slive, who was open to change after the 2010 deal expires. The best 8 teams could play in the Orange, Sugar, Rose and Fiesta (like they presumably do now), which would get it down to 4 teams and then you could have a Final Four that could be held over a two week period, at one particular site, which could rotate between one of the existing cities like it does now. The final four eliminates the travel between the semi and championship games, because it would be in the same city, just a week apart for obvious reasons. They just need one more game.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2724819

[HarveyWallbangers]

16 teams is impractical, that would be four weeks of playoffs.

HEAVEN FORBID HARLAN!!!!

What the hell do we do every March in the NCAA? Oh, that's right...a FUCKING THREE WEEK PLAYOFF known as March Madness that is viewed as the NCAA's crowning jewel. Yikes, we are extending it an entire week...and only playing 15 games instead of 63.

Agreed. They are already doing this in all lower divisions of college football. Apparently, the kids in Div-III--many of whom aren't getting a athletic scholarship--can handle this, but not the Div-I kids. Other sports extend their seasons even more with a playoff system. This would be one extra game for 8 teams, two extra games for 4 teams, three extra games for 2 teams, and four extra games for 2 teams. I think they'd be okay with that. The one extra game for the 8 teams that lose in the first round wouldn't even be an extra game--as those teams would have played in a bowl game anyways.

[Partial]

They could cut out a pre-season game or two as well if they'd like. They could complete the sweet 16 and the elite 8 in that time, leaving only 4 teams playing extra games.

[Zool]

The NCAA could care less so long as they keep generating $ and the BCS does just that. Matches big named schools with other big named schools to generate advertising dollars and naming rights dollars.

[The Leaper]

Agreed. They are already doing this in all lower divisions of college football.

That is what really irks me.

You say it is OK for the dozens of lower schools to play additional weeks in December, where players actually are depending on their education far more because they have little shot at professional football.

However, the pampered Div I kids can't put up with an extra game or two on their schedule? Is it somehow impossible to revamp the current scheduling process to potentially accomodate a playoff system?

Anyone who whines and moans along with the reasoning of major college presidents and BCS supporters is buying into a huge load of horse manure.

[The Leaper]

The NCAA could care less so long as they keep generating $ and the BCS does just that. Matches big named schools with other big named schools to generate advertising dollars and naming rights dollars.

Another myth.

How much money does the NCAA make on BCS bowls? Not all that much, outside of the TV contract. The bowls are run by business entities with their own CEOs and CFOs...much of the revenue from a bowl goes to the support the business entity running the bowl and the community the bowl is located, not the NCAA or individual colleges. In fact, very few bowl games are close to sellouts and really don't provide much of an environment for the fans who go to them. They are held in sterile NFL stadiums, and don't provide the rich tradition that college football deserves.

You honestly believe the 5 BCS games would garner a greater windfall for the NCAA and individual colleges than an independent playoff system? You are insane. A 16 team playoff would generate tremendous TV ratings and revenue...no different from March Madness. Again...seeing USC play Michigan in the Big House in a playoff game? The ratings would easily top anything you get from the current bowl games outside of the BCS title tilt...and you will have roughly 8-10 of those major delicious matchups in a playoff system, plus the added benefit of Cinderella-type matchups that also could prove immensely intriguing.

Holding games at the home stadiums of individual colleges ensure that the teams playing in the games take 100% of the gate/parking/food/merchandise receipts. A team like Ohio State estimates that a major game in the Horseshoe generates upward of $6M. In a playoff system, that all stays with the colleges and universities...not some bowl committee/business that really has absolutely nothing to do with college athletics other than suck the lifeblood out of it. Tack in the TV revenue, and suddenly the NCAA is rolling in more money than they know what to do with...it just might not all flow into specific business/conference coffers like the current old buddy system in charge of this process wants it to go to.

[The Leaper]

FYI...for those who are interested in hearing from columnists that prefer a 16 team playoff...here's your nirvana:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spt/columnists/ksherrington/stories/120507dnsposherrington.2203b63.html

http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/news?slug=dw-playoff112707&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

http://www.sportsline.com/spin/story/9632584

AND an added bonus...for all the idiots who argue that an extra 4 week playoff is somehow a ridiculous notion...proof that the NCAA IS ALREADY ACTUALLY USING THE NOTION YOU CLAIM IS RIDICULOUS!!!!

http://www.ncaasports.com/football/mens/brackets/straight16_dyn/2006/FCS

AND an even BIGGER added bonus...proof the NCAA and college presidents are considering EXPANDING the lower division's playoff to 18, and eventually 24 teams!

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/2007-09-26-playoff-field_N.htm?csp=34

So it is so successful with the lesser divisions that they want to expand it...yet won't consider it for the big boys?

Shame on the NCAA.

[Zool]

Tell that to the Meineke Car Care Bowl or whatever random bank has paid $12mil for 3 years of naming rights to a bowl game. Now multiply that by each bowl game. Then add in the TV revenues. If it was financially advantageous to do a playoff system, it would be done IMO.

I'm all for a playoff system in college, but I just dont see it happening anytime soon.

The Tostitos Quarter Final Matchup doesn't really have much of a ring to it.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Of course it would be possible to have a 16-team playoff. If you are just looking at what is to the benefit of fans, you go for a 16 or 32 team tournament.

There would be MORE money to be made from a playoff/bowl hybrid, the difference is that the people controlling the current BCS system would get a more modest percentage.

Basketball players abandon school for weeks during March Madness. Smaller colleges have an extended football tournament. I think the players are being exploited in these situations, don't want to extend it to big time college football where the athletes are already under ridiculous time pressures.

Those of you who say that it has to be a 16-team tournament or forget it are sticking your head in the sand. Even a 4 team tournament goes a long way towards choosing a credible champion in most years.

Just watched the documentary Big Time Losers (http://www.pbs.org/merrow/tv/bigtimelosers/index.html) last night. Excellent.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Rather than start a new thread, I'm gonna change the topic slightly.

College sports are absurdly exploitive. College athletes in general have higher graduation rates than other students, but only half the football and basketball players get degrees. Only 1% have successful pro careers. Many aren't getting much education along the way.

I'd like to see the University of Wisconsin offer lifetime free tuition to all scholarship athletes in football and basketball. It's the least the system can do for all the financial benefit they've squeezed out of these players. Give them a leg-up if they decide to continue their education later on. There are only 20 seniors graduating every year if you look at football and mens/womens basketball combined, it ain't gonna break anybody's bank.

[Carolina_Packer]

I think if you look at the problem realistically instead of thinking that you can make wholesale changes to an entrenched system like they have, you can come up with adjustments that would make it even better, without changing the basic structure in place.

16 Teams would be great, but it's unlikely to happen. But they could do 8. Right now they rotate 4 major bowls and have a BCS Championship game that rotates between one of the 4 major bowl sites. Perfect! The adjustment would be, use the 4 major bowls for the top 8 teams as a qualifier for the BCS "Final 4" (ok, they might need to come up with another name, but you get the point). The BCS Final 4 could again rotate between one of the 4 major bowl sites, OR they could throw in a new wrinkle and have it at an alternate site. Their decision. Having it at an alternate site allows them to prepare for the two weekend event and have the facility and conditions perfect. The BCS Final 4 could be a spectacular 2 weekend event with lots and lots of interest. Obviously you would have the semi final matchups one weekend and then the champioinship game the following weekend. By having it at the same site, you would not have the logistical issues, which is why rotating it between the 4 major bowl sites might make even more sense.

So, that's not much change other than the BCS championship game is not decided by the polls, but all the major bowls have a bearing on it. For the casual fan, or even the hard core fan, how much more would you love seeing the 4 major bowl games if it was an advancement game? It would be huge! The major adjustment would be having a two weekend event between semi and championship events. Hell, that's just one big party waiting to happen. The interest would be off the charts.

Here is a mock scenario of this idea if it were to be used for this year's BCS Poll Top 8.

Mock BCS Playoff Spreadsheet (https://www.onlinefilefolder.com/index.php?action=getshare&type=1&user_num=57737&share_id=3286&hash=770e304857ac6221c308f0b5f992f1d2)

[HarveyWallbangers]

I don't get the hemming and hawing. Make it happen. This system isn't entrenched. The old system was ENTRENCHED and they changed it to the current BCS system. I'm really hoping it continues to be a mess for them, and they'll feel obligated to change this joke of a system.

16 teams in the playoffs. If they want, they can keep the other bowls for teams that don't make the playoffs. In the end, you'll get as many or slightly more games to commercialize the sh!t out of.

[The Leaper]

Tell that to the Meineke Car Care Bowl or whatever random bank has paid $12mil for 3 years of naming rights to a bowl game.

A playoff system should be independent from the bowls...with the exception of the last 3 games possibly, which could be utilized into current BCS bowl games.

Do you honestly think anyone makes a bunch of money on any of the pre Jan 1 bowl games? The TV ratings and attendance at those games suggests otherwise. Those bowl games also typically do not utilize teams that would be part of a playoff anyway. Let them continue...although with the playoff, some of the weaker bowls might die on the vine. No biggie to lose the Meineke Car Care Bowl IMO...are you really waiting with anticipation to tune in for UConn and Wake Forest this year? Yawn.

The current BCS games pull in about $100M in TV revenue. That total would likely triple with a 16 team playoff...as there would be triple the games to recoup the revenue (5 in the current BCS, 15 in the playoff).


Now multiply that by each bowl game. Then add in the TV revenues. If it was financially advantageous to do a playoff system, it would be done IMO.

The only reason it isn't done is because most bowl organizations are run by the friends of the college presidents...and there is a whole lot of back scratching and money changing hands in these friendships.


I'm all for a playoff system in college, but I just dont see it happening anytime soon.

Again, there already IS a playoff system in college...just not for the highest division. That is why it doesn't make any sense.


The Tostitos Quarter Final Matchup doesn't really have much of a ring to it.

So what? The fact of the matter is that A HELL OF A LOT more people would tune in to see first round playoff games than currently tune in to watch the Humanitarian Bowl or Armed Forces Bowl. The TV ratings for any bowls not on Jan 1 or part of the BCS are paltry...and TV ratings are what drive profits and advertising.

Would Jan 1 bowls be impacted by an independent playoff system? Probably not. Look at this year's games...WIS-TEN? That game could go on just fine even with an independent playoff...and the same number of fans would watch it. The only bowls that would truly be impacted would be BCS bowls that currently have access to the premier teams that would populate the playoff. However, those bowl games could easily be incorporated in the playoff system in the last 2 rounds.

They keep mentioning that the Rose Bowl has to be included. Guess what? WRONG! If they have a contract that goes through 2015, TOO BAD! The Rose Bowl doesn't deserve to be included when they pass over a matchup we all want to see (USC-Georgia) to stick with tradition and pick Illinois.

Utilize the Fiesta, Sugar and Orange Bowls in a rotating schedule for the final 3 games in the playoffs...and they now have guaranteed marquee matchups and likely will have much larger TV ratings as a result. That means MORE $$$$$$$$.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The six BCS conferences currently monopolize 95% of the pie.

If they go to a 16 team playoff system, they'll have to share the pie with the other schools. They don't want to do this, even if the pie is bigger.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I'm doing my own playoff system.

Participants:

ACC winner - Virginia Tech
Big 10 winner - Ohio State
Big 12 winner - Oklahoma
Big East winner - West Virginia
Conference USA winner - Central Florida
Mid-American winner - Central Michigan
Mountain West winner - BYU
Pac 10 winner - USC
SEC winner - LSU
WAC winner - Hawaii
At large - Georiga
At large - Missouri
At large - Kansas
At large - Arizona State
At large - Florida
At large - Illinois

First round
#1 Ohio State vs. #16 Central Michigan
#2 LSU vs. #15 Central Florida
#3 Virginia Tech vs. #14 BYU
#4 Oklahoma vs. #13 Illinois
#5 Georgia vs. #12 Florida
#6. Missouri vs. #11 Arizona State
#7. USC vs. #10 Hawaii
#8. Kansas vs. #9 West Virginia

[mngolf19]

I'm doing my own playoff system.

Participants:

ACC winner - Virginia Tech
Big 10 winner - Ohio State
Big 12 winner - Oklahoma
Big East winner - West Virginia
Conference USA winner - Central Florida
Mid-American winner - Central Michigan
Mountain West winner - BYU
Pac 10 winner - USC
SEC winner - LSU
WAC winner - Hawaii
At large - Georiga
At large - Missouri
At large - Kansas
At large - Arizona State
At large - Florida
At large - Illinois

First round
#1 Ohio State vs. #16 Central Michigan
#2 LSU vs. #15 Central Florida
#3 Virginia Tech vs. #14 BYU
#4 Oklahoma vs. #13 Illinois
#5 Georgia vs. #12 Florida
#6. Missouri vs. #11 Arizona State
#7. USC vs. #10 Hawaii
#8. Kansas vs. #9 West Virginia

I agree 100% Harv.

[The Leaper]

16 Teams would be great, but it's unlikely to happen. But they could do 8.

8 teams is far less likely to happen than 16. The NCAA already uses the 16 team format in the lesser divisions. With 6 power conferences that hold tremendous sway in the decision, an 8 team format is going to draw a lot of controversy. All 6 major conference champions will have to go into the playoff...those conferences would not possibly accept a playoff system without that guarantee. Suddenly, a team like Georgia, Hawaii or Kansas would be left out altogether, because there are only 2 at-large bids.

[MadtownPacker]

That USC vs Hawaii matchup Harv dreamed up would be huge on the West coast.

[Harlan Huckleby]

you guys are thick.

there is no dispute that a 16 team tournament would be wet dreamy for fans.

[Carolina_Packer]

I think Harvey is right about the other bowl games. Just because you create this playoff, doesn't mean you have to lose the other bowl games. As for the argument that having a playoff would weaken the importance of the other bowl games...um, I'm sorry, but can you weaken the position of the Meineke Car Care Bowl in Charlotte, NC?

Do you begrudge the cities the money they receive during the winter for these events? No, absolutely not! But, the current BCS championship does not affect the relative importance of the "lesser bowls", why would a slightly expanded playoff schedule that is a marriage of the exisitng bowls to a playoff format?

The interest in the smaller bowls comes from the fans of both teams and the cities and businesses that host and get an economic bump, the very hard core fan that is going to watch the lesser bowl games and the advertisers who buy TV time during those games. I don't think interest will be pullled away from the lesser bowls at all. Bowl games are like pizza and sex, even when they are bad, they still are somewhat pleasing.

[MadtownPacker]

you guys are thick.

there is no dispute that a 16 team tournament would be wet dreamy for fans.Oh sorry to have an imagination. We will just be like you and act bitter about the shitty cards life has dealt us.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I'm hearing a little bitterness from you, Mr. Sunshine.

[The Leaper]

The six BCS conferences currently monopolize 95% of the pie.

If they go to a 16 team playoff system, they'll have to share the pie with the other schools. They don't want to do this, even if the pie is bigger.

That is precisely correct Harv. The greedy want to horde their small, little pie...and not let anyone else get a piece. Because of that, we are missing out on having a huge pie that everyone would benefit from.

That is why I wish true college football fans would unite and send a message to these greedy bastards by refusing to watch 2 of the 5 BCS games every year. We need a boycott!

If the ratings for even 2 of the BCS games plummeted to nearly nothing (and there are always 2 BCS games that aren't worth watching anyways) the greedy horde would start listening to playoff suggestions much more rapidly, because the next TV contract would suddenly be shrinking in value.

[The Leaper]

That USC vs Hawaii matchup Harv dreamed up would be huge on the West coast.

It would be huge anywhere. Does the east coast ignore a Stanford-UCLA matchup in March Madness? Of course not.

The fans demand a playoff...and if the NCAA went ahead with it the right way, the TV ratings and revenues would go through the roof.

[The Leaper]

First round
#1 Ohio State vs. #16 Central Michigan
#2 LSU vs. #15 Central Florida
#3 Virginia Tech vs. #14 BYU
#4 Oklahoma vs. #13 Illinois
#5 Georgia vs. #12 Florida
#6. Missouri vs. #11 Arizona State
#7. USC vs. #10 Hawaii
#8. Kansas vs. #9 West Virginia

SO TANTALIZING!

Granted, the first 3 games are probably blow-outs...but just the potential of a Central Michigan or Central Florida upsetting an OSU or LSU will make for compelling TV...just like March Madness.

The rest of the matchups are a college football fan's dream. Illini invading Norman? Hogs and Gators? Trojans and Rainbows?

How this is not already happening is just unreal. The NCAA white hairs are really a bunch of greedy sticks in the mud.

[The Leaper]

The interest in the smaller bowls comes from the fans of both teams and the cities and businesses that host and get an economic bump, the very hard core fan that is going to watch the lesser bowl games and the advertisers who buy TV time during those games. I don't think interest will be pullled away from the lesser bowls at all. Bowl games are like pizza and sex, even when they are bad, they still are somewhat pleasing.

I think you are right. A playoff will only impact Jan 1/BCS bowl games. It would have no impact on the lesser bowls IMO.

If done properly, I think you could even greatly minimize the impact to Jan 1/BCS bowls as well...by incorporating some into the playoff and allowing first round playoff losers to have a chance to play in the other Jan 1 bowl games (Outback, Cotton, etc.)

[Carolina_Packer]

The interest in the smaller bowls comes from the fans of both teams and the cities and businesses that host and get an economic bump, the very hard core fan that is going to watch the lesser bowl games and the advertisers who buy TV time during those games. I don't think interest will be pullled away from the lesser bowls at all. Bowl games are like pizza and sex, even when they are bad, they still are somewhat pleasing.

I think you are right. A playoff will only impact Jan 1/BCS bowl games. It would have no impact on the lesser bowls IMO.

If done properly, I think you could even greatly minimize the impact to Jan 1/BCS bowls as well...by incorporating some into the playoff and allowing first round playoff losers to have a chance to play in the other Jan 1 bowl games (Outback, Cotton, etc.)

Well, your statement assumes that a 16 team playoff is doable. I don't see that happening (not that I personally wouldn't like to see it). Being realistic; offering what could happen vs. what would be great if it happened I think it's more likely that an 8 team playoff could occur. Let everything that exists happen...12 game schedule, conference championships, BCS standing being used to decide the top 8. Then slot those top 8 in the Rose, Fiesta, Sugar and Orange bowls and then the week after that have a two week final 4 chamionship. Under this system, all current bowls go on as planned, there is no watered down regular season argument when it comes to having a playoff, and it doesn't affect the other bowl games, which stand or fall on their own merit anyway. My idea merely allows for the current system to go on, which placates the establishment, and having the 8 team playoff format placates the fans who want a playoff, and to see even more of it decided on the field. As it stands now, the major bowls still factor into deciding the national championship, but not as much in a head to head way as it could if they used the 4 bowls to incorporate a head to head playoff. It would be cool to have 16 teams and each of the conference champs playing, but it's not likely.

You might say my idea doesn't change enough, but realistically it does enough to solve the current conundrum. It doesn't necessarily solve what to do with the Hawaais and Boise States of the world, but I'm not sure what you do about that. Like the bubble teams in the basketball Final 4, there are always going to be teams that feel like they were excluded. The BCS standings still decide everything, but the bowls are used as a playoff, head to head with the winners advancing. It could work, and create an even bigger pie to divide up without affecting the existing share anyone gets. It's not the best idea, but it's better than the existing system which has too much human decision making. The current system is too much like fantasy football in a rotisserie league.

[The Leaper]

Well, your statement assumes that a 16 team playoff is doable.

Of course it is doable. That has never really been the issue, although the people who make the final decision try to use that as a smoke screen to pull over our eyes.

If the NCAA can do a 16 team playoff in a lesser division...where there are still college athletes playing games on four weekends in December, through finals, through the holidays...and if the NCAA can think about expanding the playoff in the lesser division to 24 teams (now we are talking about FIVE weekends here)...why is a 16 team playoff in major college football not doable?

In fact, there is no doubt that it is doable. The people in charge might not want to do it for their own greedy reasons, but it is certainly doable.

Your suggestion actually is NOT doable. The Rose Bowl has its own contract with TV...which is why it is on ABC, not FOX. That contract runs through 2015...while the other BCS bowls only have contracts through 2009. If something were to happen after 2009, it would probably involve the bowls up for a new contract.

If a playoff happens, the Rose Bowl isn't likely to be part of it. They care less about the game and more about their parade, tradition and other activities.

[MadScientist]

With the extra games for the playoff teams, they might have to use some of the early bowl games as place holders for the first round of playoffs.

But then some 6-6 or 7-5 fifth place team from a big conference might not get into a bowl, and how terrible would that be.

Really the only problem is that a 16 team playoff will extend the season another week, if the big 4 bowls are still on New Years. Also, since we can't force New Years day to be on or close to a weekend, the date of those bowls will have to be changed. That change to tradition, and pushing the season back into the NFL playoffs will cause greater problems then anything else.

Still it would be good to see a real playoff system.

[Carolina_Packer]

Well, your statement assumes that a 16 team playoff is doable.

Of course it is doable. That has never really been the issue, although the people who make the final decision try to use that as a smoke screen to pull over our eyes.

If the NCAA can do a 16 team playoff in a lesser division...where there are still college athletes playing games on four weekends in December, through finals, through the holidays...and if the NCAA can think about expanding the playoff in the lesser division to 24 teams (now we are talking about FIVE weekends here)...why is a 16 team playoff in major college football not doable?

In fact, there is no doubt that it is doable. The people in charge might not want to do it for their own greedy reasons, but it is certainly doable.

Your suggestion actually is NOT doable. The Rose Bowl has its own contract with TV...which is why it is on ABC, not FOX. That contract runs through 2015...while the other BCS bowls only have contracts through 2009. If something were to happen after 2009, it would probably involve the bowls up for a new contract.

If a playoff happens, the Rose Bowl isn't likely to be part of it. They care less about the game and more about their parade, tradition and other activities.

I'm not saying doable as in you, I or anyone would like to see it, so it could possibly hapen. I'm completely talking about probable outcome, based on how things are setup and run under the current system and the current powers that be who control the machine. What would they be likely to agree to if the sentiment for a playoff won't die (and it won't). Is it more probable that they would go for an 8 team playoff or a 16 team playoff? Let the debate rage. It's encouraging that the BCS coordinator (also the SEC Commish) has said that they would entertain thoughts of a possible playoff format when the current agreement expires. It will be interesting to see if it stays status quo or changes. Whatever happens will have to be a hybrid of the polls and bowls system and a playoff. If you're going to marry the two, you're going to need compromise. Existing infrastrure and will to do something is going to be key.

[The Leaper]

Is it more probable that they would go for an 8 team playoff or a 16 team playoff? Let the debate rage. It's encouraging that the BCS coordinator (also the SEC Commish) has said that they would entertain thoughts of a possible playoff format when the current agreement expires. It will be interesting to see if it stays status quo or changes. Whatever happens will have to be a hybrid of the polls and bowls system and a playoff. If you're going to marry the two, you're going to need compromise. Existing infrastrure and will to do something is going to be key.

It will need to be a 16 game playoff if it goes to a playoff format. The powers that be won't go for a playoff to begin with...but if they ever do, they will only do what will bring in the greatest possible $$$$$$$$$.

Clearly, a 16 game playoff has a far greater chance for $$$$$$$$ than an 8 team playoff. Also, as I mentioned before, and 8 team playoff is too small when you have a division comprised of 11 separate conferences and one very aggressive independent.

[HarveyWallbangers]

The six BCS conferences currently monopolize 95% of the pie.

If they go to a 16 team playoff system, they'll have to share the pie with the other schools. They don't want to do this, even if the pie is bigger.

That is precisely correct Harv.

Okay, Bretsky.

[Harlan Huckleby]

If the NCAA can do a 16 team playoff in a lesser division...where there are still college athletes playing games on four weekends in December, through finals, through the holidays

ya, they can do it, but is this really a good idea?

There are four or five parties with conflicting interests: The BCS schools (& BCS sponsors), the non-BCS schools, the fans, and the athletes.

You can say the selfish BCS schools are currently ignoring the interests of the fans, true enough. But you advocate a solution favorable to the fans and non-BCS schools that ignores the interests of the athletes! Is this more ethical?

12 games is a long enough season for college students; in fact it is a grind if they are trying to be real students.
Asking them to play a 16 game season (even if it is just a couple teams) is too much.

A 4-team playoff strikes a proper balance. Try that for a few years.

I'd be more open to a 16-team playoff if players were compensated better, I don't like the current exploitation. My suggestion is to offer athletes lifetime free tuition to increase their eduational possibilities. Make freshmen year ineligible so they can get basic academic grounding, insure every athlete has highschool-level math and english skills. That will help them with college work, or be good preparation for vocational training if neither college or pro sports works out for them.

[The Leaper]

I'd be more open to a 16-team playoff if players were compensated better, I don't like the current exploitation.

The guys at major universities get a $1500 a month stipend on top of a free ride through school. Their locker rooms have a dozen plasma TVs. They stay in 4 and 5 star hotels. Their life is one of luxury and privilege.

Sure, colleges make a lot of money on the backs of these kids...no argument there. I think it is very unfair...that is why I hate the greedy bastards running the NCAA and wish fans would stand up to them.

It is hardly exploitation though. The NCAA is giving them the means to display their talent and potentially earn millions in the NFL someday.

[The Leaper]

12 games is a long enough season for college students; in fact it is a grind if they are trying to be real students.

What is the ratio of players who are grinding to be real students on teams with the capacity of gunning for the national championship?

5%? Even less?

Harlan, your argument is dumb. The kids playing football who ARE real students are the ones who already utilize a 16 team playoff already, which is planning on being expanded to 24. They have time to do it, so why can't Michigan and USC do it?

Claiming additional games is going to "hurt the academics of real students" is one of the most ridiculous positions I've ever heard. Those kids hardly do any schoolwork as it is. They are PE majors with 8 tutors to do their homework for them.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The guys at major universities get a $1500 a month stipend on top of a free ride through school.

This a hoot. You think athletes get $1500/month spending money!? Is this for the football players, volleyball players, swimmers - all the scholarship athletes?

The poor athletes have a real problem with spending money because they are barred from working. They typically can't afford to travel home for holidays. You are misinformed.


Their locker rooms have a dozen plasma TVs. They stay in 4 and 5 star hotels. Their life is one of luxury and privilege

I think this is, again, laughable. But even if they have these physical comforts, it doesn't help them in the long run. I'm not suggesting that athletes needs to be provided with more money or comforts.


Sure, colleges make a lot of money on the backs of these kids

I don't mind that the college make money from football/basketball. Except for some excessive salaries for coaches, the money goes to good purposes.



It is hardly exploitation though. The NCAA is giving them the means to display their talent and potentially earn millions in the NFL someday.

Many of the athletes hope to be pros, but in reality only a tiny percentage make it. In most cases, the colleges are not making an all-out effort to provide for the future of the athletes, they use them and discard them when their eligibility runs out. This is exploitation. The colleges can do better, I decribed a couple ways.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Claiming additional games is going to "hurt the academics of real students" is one of the most ridiculous positions I've ever heard. Those kids hardly do any schoolwork as it is. They are PE majors with 8 tutors to do their homework for them.

There's a mixture. About half the players are serious students who complete degrees.

But lets assume your theory that they are all PE majors who don't do their own homework. This situation seems to be acceptable to you. You are not bothered by the fact that only a tiny percentage will be able to make a living off their athletic skills.

This is exploitation. It doesn't have to be this way.

[The Leaper]

This a hoot. You think athletes get $1500/month spending money!?

I'm talking about football players from major college programs...ones that we are referring to in this argument. It is indeed a fact that these players get a reasonable amount for expenses. I know for a fact that kids on a full ride at Ohio State get roughly $1500 a month for expenses. That is a pretty nice chunk of coin. No, you can't live like an NFL player on it.

However, Harlan...how many poor college students don't get free rides through school? How many poor college students don't get a $1500 check every month? Don't sit here and whine about how bad a football player at a Big 6 conference university has it. Most other college students in the United States have it far worse.


I think this is, again, laughable. But even if they have these physical comforts, it doesn't help them in the long run. I'm not suggesting that athletes needs to be provided with more money or comforts.

Read Rick Reilly's take on the comparison of the life of an OSU football player to a homeless guy in Columbus in a recent SI magazine. Tell me again how the life of an OSU football player is such a trying, impossible life...or how laughable it is to know that a soup kitchen in Columbus on a budget of $250,000 annually, which is the cost OSU utilizes to support THREE scholarship basketball players. $80,000 a year is spent on ONE SCHOLARSHIP ATHLETE.

You clearly have no idea just how good these guys have it. Again, I'm not talking about kids playing at Morehead State here. I'm talking about the BIG TIME PROGRAMS. The programs who would be potentially involved in a playoff.


Many of the athletes hope to be pros, but in reality only a tiny percentage make it. In most cases, the colleges are not making an all-out effort to provide for the future of the athletes, they use them and discard them when their eligibility runs out. This is exploitation. The colleges can do better, I decribed a couple ways.

Do better how? Are you saying great athletic ability should somehow be a ticket to a free ride through life? These kids all earn a FREE RIDE THROUGH COLLEGE...and not some community college, but a university that is respected world-wide. It gives them a chance to get out of the impoverished lifestyle you are claiming they are in.

I'm sorry. I just don't see how scholarship athletes at major universities have it tough. Some parts of their lives are unfair, especially when you compare sport to sport...but on the whole, they are living pretty good if you ask me. Looking at the glass half empty is the wrong approach to take in my book.

[The Leaper]

There's a mixture. About half the players are serious students who complete degrees.

Which half of the LSU or OSU roster is there aiming to complete a degree?

[The Leaper]

But lets assume your theory that they are all PE majors who don't do their own homework. This situation seems to be acceptable to you. You are not bothered by the fact that only a tiny percentage will be able to make a living off their athletic skills.

This is exploitation. It doesn't have to be this way.

How is it exploitation?

The kid with shit for brains is getting a free college degree. Who else with shit for brains is getting a free college education?

If they aren't smart enough to take advantage of that and use it to his or her advantage, what is the NCAA supposed to do? The NCAA is giving them an opportunity to learn and advance themselves as a person if they work at it. A college degree is the stepping stone to becoming a productive member of society.

However, the NCAA can't force anyone to have the determination to work though. If they squander what they've been given, it is no one's fault but their own.

[Harlan Huckleby]

How is it exploitation?

The kid with shit for brains is getting a free college degree. Who else with shit for brains is getting a free college education?

They typically are getting neither a degree or an education. You just got done arguing this yourself. This is wrong.


The NCAA is giving them an opportunity to learn and advance themselves as a person if they work at it. ?

The devil is in the details. In theory they are providing them with educational opportunity, but in practice it is not so. Making a longer football season just makes matters worse. The colleges can make some changes to provide better opportunites for the athletes. I've offered my ideas, but you don't recognize that there is a problem, so it's not surprising that you've given no thought to my suggestions.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Do better how? Are you saying great athletic ability should somehow be a ticket to a free ride through life?

My specific suggestions were to give them lifetime free tuition so they can return to school if they choose. And focus on academic work during their freshman year so they are better prepared for school/life.

These are not pie-in-the-sky ideas.

I recognize (as you should too) that not every athlete is college material. Fine. But give them a basic education. This will help them in Tech School, or some other training, after their football careers. And then again, many will be able to benefit from college. I'm just suggesting give them more educational opportunities, on a practical level. Colleges are clearly not doing enough now, it is exploitation.

[The Leaper]

They typically are getting neither a degree or an education. You just got done arguing this yourself. This is wrong.

So whose fault is it that someone going to college doesn't earn their degree? The college?

The bottom line is that kids in major college programs on football scholarships live a life few will get to experience.

Are there ways the NCAA could provide more to these players? Sure. Is it exploitation when a kid doesn't take advantage of a golden opportunity to obtain a 4 year degree from a prestigious university based on his athletic ability that gets him in the door? I don't think so.

[The Leaper]

In theory they are providing them with educational opportunity, but in practice it is not so.

So whose fault is it? You are honestly claiming it is the fault of the university for students that don't have the desire or work ethic to graduate? People are responsible for their own actions...and any football player on a free ride at a major football power has the responsibility to make the best of their individual situation.

It certainly is not the responsibility of the NCAA to ensure they succeed...just as it is not the responsibility of the NCAA to ensure that any other student succeeds. I agree the NCAA should try harder to help students succeed, or explore other avenues to achieve success...but that doesn't mean they are exploiting anyone.

[Harlan Huckleby]

In theory they are providing them with educational opportunity, but in practice it is not so.
So whose fault is it? You are honestly claiming it is the fault of the university for students that don't have the desire or work ethic to graduate? People are responsible for their own actions...

There is responsibility with both parties. The university has to provide an environment where athletes, often with poor preparation, are able to get some educational value, even if they aren't degree bound. The student has to take advantage of the opportunity.

Your view of the situation at football factories is that the athletes typically don't do any academic work, just get passed along. Total corruption. How can you just accept this situation, and absolve the university of any responsibility for changing the environment?

There are some concrete steps schools can take so that athletes get more benefit from school, even for athletes who aren't focused on a 4-year college degree. The current system too often uses and discards the players, a disgusting abuse of young people.

[Carolina_Packer]

In theory they are providing them with educational opportunity, but in practice it is not so.
So whose fault is it? You are honestly claiming it is the fault of the university for students that don't have the desire or work ethic to graduate? People are responsible for their own actions...

There is responsibility with both parties. The university has to provide an environment where athletes, often with poor preparation, are able to get some educational value, even if they aren't degree bound. The student has to take advantage of the opportunity.

Your view of the situation at football factories is that the athletes typically don't do any academic work, just get passed along. Total corruption. How can you just accept this situation, and absolve the university of any responsibility for changing the environment?

There are some concrete steps schools can take so that athletes get more benefit from school, even for athletes who aren't focused on a 4-year college degree. The current system too often uses and discards the players, a disgusting abuse of young people.

I agree HH. I don't think that there should be an instant expiration on their scholarship when their eligibility is used up athletically. I do think that the athlete bears some responsibility to meet some minimum standards academically during their athletic eligibility.

It's understood that an athlete might be a semester or two away from graduating because they have taken a lighter academic schedule during their respective sports season. The school should not play a game of gotcha with the athlete they were utilizing to help sell tickets and otherwise generate revenue for the school and then when they are short of a degree say, well, we've given you what we are going to give you. Granted, an elite athlete who ends up playing pro sports will not have a problem paying their own way to come back, but what about the many more who will not turn pro and who don't have their degree yet? The schools should fill in the gap by extending the scholarship of those athletes as a reward for what they have done to help bolster the school's finances.

Again, the athlete needs to be responsible for keeping up academic standards and conduct standards to remain eligible for the extension after their playing days are over. The avenue and the access should be open. If the student doesn't want to take advantage, that's not the school's deal.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Big schools are academically competitive. Athletes are often admitted with poor preparation, they have the skills to compete athletically only. You can't just say they should pull themselves up by their bootstraps, that's the same as putting a pencil-necked geek on the football field and saying, "show some guts and make the team."

From a little anecdotal evidence, I think many schools are already doing quite a lot to help student athletes. And the NCAA rules are reasonable. But they can do more by showing some flexibility.

What colleges need to do is open their wallets. Let athletes in the money-making, high-demand sports continue their education after their eligibility runs out. Many come after doing little work in high school, it might take them extra years to complete a degree. And even more importantly, their freshman year should be best spent on remedial courses, rather than just finding bullshit college classes that can be passed with assistance. A basic education will help them in tech school or college later on.

Only about 1% of college athletes have professional sports careers, so the argument that they are getting a chance at the pros is weak, and maybe a destructive deception for a lot of players.

[mraynrand]

The extra game complaint about the 16 game schedule is weak. Two teams will play four games, two will play three, four will play 2, and eight will play one extra game. The extra games are a small burden on a very small number of teams. Very likely, the teams competing in the final rounds will be heavily slanted towards major football schools where a large percentage of the players are there to get a shot at the NFL and won't mind the extra games (who would mind anyway? It's very unlikely that the average player will play beyond one game more than once his entire college career).

About the athletes and scholarships. I was a student athlete tutor. I can tell you that there is a good percentage of players in college are not college material, nor will they ever be. The players who are college material surprisingly take college seriously and work very hard at their academics, despite the time commitment. I also knew and was one of a number of college students who worked through school. Many of my friends worked 40hrs/week and maintained high GPAs. It's possible to do.

One change I think would be useful would be to allow players to play their four years and keep their academic eligibility, for later use. There is a reasonable number of guys who are just playing sports and don't even think about their future. Only once the sport ends do they think about academics, and then it's too late. So it would be good to have a provision to allow these guys back later to get their education, once they're more focused.

[VegasPackFan]

I know this is slightly off topic, but these players should get a piece of revenue for team paraphenelia sold in the seasons they play for the team.

Also, if you are a star player or starter on the team and your jersey number sells, you should get a piece of that too.

[Bretsky]

The six BCS conferences currently monopolize 95% of the pie.

If they go to a 16 team playoff system, they'll have to share the pie with the other schools. They don't want to do this, even if the pie is bigger.

That is precisely correct Harv.

Okay, Bretsky.


How did I get into this ? I never say you are right because it hardly ever happens :lol:

Crap, now I have to go back and read this thread.

I don't find this topic interesting

It is what it is. And it'll be a long long time be4 it changes.

What about the college kids ? Extra games in all likelihood will get added to a schedule of a team that goes to the final four and plays for a title.

What if AJ Hawk made it to the title game and Tore his ACL ?

Too many complications for a playoff system in college football.

[cpk1994]

The interest in the smaller bowls comes from the fans of both teams and the cities and businesses that host and get an economic bump, the very hard core fan that is going to watch the lesser bowl games and the advertisers who buy TV time during those games. I don't think interest will be pullled away from the lesser bowls at all. Bowl games are like pizza and sex, even when they are bad, they still are somewhat pleasing.

I think you are right. A playoff will only impact Jan 1/BCS bowl games. It would have no impact on the lesser bowls IMO.

If done properly, I think you could even greatly minimize the impact to Jan 1/BCS bowls as well...by incorporating some into the playoff and allowing first round playoff losers to have a chance to play in the other Jan 1 bowl games (Outback, Cotton, etc.)I disagree about impact to lesser bowls. The bowls(Outback, Cotton, Cap One) would have to wait additional weeks to make their matchups. That also impacts peoples ability to go to bowl games, which in turn impacts the gate revenue.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I'm doing my own playoff system.

Participants:

ACC winner - Virginia Tech
Big 10 winner - Ohio State
Big 12 winner - Oklahoma
Big East winner - West Virginia
Conference USA winner - Central Florida
Mid-American winner - Central Michigan
Mountain West winner - BYU
Pac 10 winner - USC
SEC winner - LSU
WAC winner - Hawaii
At large - Georiga
At large - Missouri
At large - Kansas
At large - Arizona State
At large - Florida
At large - Illinois

First round
#1 Ohio State vs. #16 Central Michigan
#2 LSU vs. #15 Central Florida
#3 Virginia Tech vs. #14 BYU
#4 Oklahoma vs. #13 Illinois
#5 Georgia vs. #12 Florida
#6. Missouri vs. #11 Arizona State
#7. USC vs. #10 Hawaii
#8. Kansas vs. #9 West Virginia

ESPN has stolen my idea.
:D

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/bowls07/bracket

I did.

#1 Ohio State vs. #16 BYU
#2 LSU vs. #15 Boston College
#3 Virginia Tech vs. #14 Wisconsin
#4 Oklahoma vs. #13 Illinois
#5 Georgia vs. #12 Florida
#6. Missouri vs. #11 Arizona State
#7. USC vs. #10 Hawaii
#8. Kansas vs. #9 West Virginia

Simulated.

Ohio State, Kansas, Georgia, Oklahoma, Wisconsin, Missouri, USC, and LSU won in the first round.

In round 2, Kansas upset Ohio State, Georgia beat Oklahoma, Missouri beat Wisconsin, and LSU beat USC.

In the semis, Kansas upset Georgia and LSU beat Missouri.

LSU beat Kansas in the national title game.