The BCS.

[justinsayne]

I like my idea better

 

[TSG]

just so we make this clear, the NC2A will listen to a single fan, and remove about HALF of the teams from Division 1 (something that they really can't do I don't think). Then remake ENTIRE CONFERENCES, eliminating the history of conferences and their Multi-Million Dollar profits, just to make their championship "easier" to get? Sorry, that's the stupidest thing I've heard on this forum that has anything to do with sports.

Forcing schools out of D1 will also murder their revenue from the football program, and force the schools to cut the football program. 1AA is not profitable, because it isn't D1. Schools have cut their football programs because of it (Hoftra and NorthEastern have cut their football programs this past year). And by cutting D1 in half, you will basically kill all recruiting, and lower the talent pool for the NFL draft (and thus the NFL).

This idea you have is both pathetic and a failure. You should get a time machine, go back in time to when you thought about thinking about this, and tell yourself that you have something better to do, like nothing, or twiddle your thumbs for 2 hours, or drink a gallon of gasoline and then swallow a match (OK, not the gas/match one).

Like I said, it was more of a fantasy thing which I clearly pointed out will never happen, mainly due to the conference. It was only a thing to ponder over, and to think that if in a crazy fantasy world where the conference reallignments could happen for whatever reason, would it work.

Which is why I presented a clear system a few minutes ago of what could work with the current system.

As to what Slyfox said, it is what you perfectly described, and someone in charge needs to fix it.

 

[TSG]

Here's and Idea, there are what, 11 Conferences right now? make a 12 team tourny, the winners of each Conf. automatically get a spot, with one wildcard spot determined by the polls, (in which there would be three, computer, NCAA staff, and fans) the team that gets the highest avg. ranking of the three polls would be awarded the wildcard spot, the top 4 ranked teams would all get first round byes, that would give you 4 games in the first round, 4 games in the second round, 2 games in the third round, & then the championship game, each game would be sponsored by a current bowl sponsor, the later the round the bigger the sponsor, with the championship game rotating sponsors ever year

First, you forgot the independents. Say Navy or Notre Dame goes 10-2, Michigan wins the Big Ten, Wisconson gets the Wild Card, and an independent team that could've been, say, 10th in the polls, gets overlooked. For a team like Middle Tennesee or Marshall, who won their conference.

This is decent enough, but the thing I don't like here is the every conference thing. Not every conference deserves a spot. Example, Big East, Sun Belt, C-USA. Do you think teams like Flordia International, UConn, West Virginia, or Central Flordia deserve a spot over teams like LSU, Ohio State, and Michigan State, or that the 1st group of teams even deserves a chance to compete for the Championship?

This is my problem with yours, Justin. I don't mean to descriminate against conferences like Sun Belt, I mean, if Troy goes 12-0, they deserve a shot. But if your conference champion, which this year was Flordia International, goes 6-5 through 11 games (which they did), they don't deserve a shot to compete for the National Title. Especially over a team like Stanford, a team who has 1-loss, has a higher ranking, arguably play a tougher strength of schedule (although that is a weak argument to me), play better on the field, and would get more votes in a democratic-type poll.

To me, the "if you can't win your own conference, you don't deserve to play for a national title" only applies in the BCS bowl equation. If you play in a strong conference, and you don't win the title, but finish second or third, and you're still one of the better teams in the nation, you still deserve a fair shot in a fair tournament. But you shoudn't be placed in a single bowl game if there is a team in your conference that did better than you, if that makes sense.

 

[Stormtrooper]

the BCS's job is to determine #1 and #2. They've done that 9/10 times, if not 10/10. This year they will do the same. Auburn/Oregon are clear-cut #1 and #2 right now, and if Auburn loses the SEC Championship game, #3 TCU will become #2 and get a shot. If you think otherwise, sorry, you're dead fucking wrong. That means the BCS was actually successful.

Any playoff will remove the 1 vs. 2 matchup, which is (and should be) the selling point for a national championship game. The ONLY way a playoff could work is if it were a 4-team playoff, which almost the National Championship is decided between 2 top teams. Anything more then 4 teams will give too many teams a shot. I'm sorry, but are you telling me #8 deserves as much of a chance at the national championship as #1 (a team that has CLEARLY played better all season)? They don't If anything, I could see maybe a 6 or 7 team thing where 7 plays 6, the winner plays 5, winner plays 4, etc. That would be the ONLY system to fairly give the #1 team a clear advantage over the other teams. Too bad that scenario takes WAY too long, and the season wouldn't end until February.

And all your systems are flawed beyond belief. You're eliminating Bowl games for half of the teams that get in bowls now, or just eliminating the teams itself. Bowls are HUGE payoffs for the institutions (and measuring sticks for some coaches), and you can't just eliminate that opportunity for teams. Plus, you're acting as if money doesn't play a part in the situation. Money is the number 1 priority, and since sports is big business (and has been for a long long time), money should be the #1 priority.

 

[Megatron]

For any changes to happen, a Non-AQ will HAVE to get in the NCG and HAVE to win it. That would then let the AD's make up the excuse that it's not fair that they only have to play 2-3 good teams each year and get a shot for the National Championship. A playoff could then happen. I'd personally be for a 16 team playoff, with the 6 AQ winners + 10 WC's getting in (based on BCS ranking). That'd make a shitton of revenue and would bring for some great matchups.

However, until a Non-AQ team wins, this isn't gonna happen. So we should be rooting for Oregon or Auburn to fall this year, have TCU get in and win. This year might be the best shot the Non-AQ's will have for a long time.

 

[TSG]

Any playoff will remove the 1 vs. 2 matchup, which is (and should be) the selling point for a national championship game. The ONLY way a playoff could work is if it were a 4-team playoff, which almost the National Championship is decided between 2 top teams. Anything more then 4 teams will give too many teams a shot. I'm sorry, but are you telling me #8 deserves as much of a chance at the national championship as #1 (a team that has CLEARLY played better all season)? They don't.

In my Top-10, there were 3 undefeated teams, 6 one-loss, and 1 two loss teams. Alot of the teams didn't play each other, and if the teams that go into the tournament are really the best two, they'll make it all the way through the tournament, and they'll face each other at the win. They face the lower seeds, so they should have a better chance at winning those match-ups to begin with, and if they can't beat those teams, why should I believe they are the best. And they play on different ends of the spectrum, so to say, so if #1 and #2 win out they play each other in the end. It would prove the better team out of the elite in the country, and I would generalize the Top 10 are the best, seeing as there is only 1 team with more than 1 loss.

If anything, I could see maybe a 6 or 7 team thing where 7 plays 6, the winner plays 5, winner plays 4, etc. That would be the ONLY system to fairly give the #1 team a clear advantage over the other teams. Too bad that scenario takes WAY too long, and the season wouldn't end until February.

Exactly, this works also, but takes too long.

And all your systems are flawed beyond belief. You're eliminating Bowl games for half of the teams that get in bowls now, or just eliminating the teams itself. Bowls are HUGE payoffs for the institutions (and measuring sticks for some coaches), and you can't just eliminate that opportunity for teams.

I didn't eliminate the team. The system I created for the current system includes all 120 teams. And 70 of them shouldn't beallowed to qualify for bowls just because they were "bowl eligible" at 6-6 or 7-5. That is over half of Division 1 FBS teams. You don't see that problem in Division 1 FCS. They might be lower tier, but they could still get money from payoffs if they used a similar bowl system, but they don't and they're fine.

I have no problem eliminating oppurtunities for teams like Western Michigan and UTEP that went 6-6 in the MAC or C-USA, conferences that weren't extremely strong this year. They don't deserve the oppurtunity for a post season or the money, not for mediocrity.

Plus, you're acting as if money doesn't play a part in the situation. Money is the number 1 priority, and since sports is big business (and has been for a long long time), money should be the #1 priority.

So the 15 Bowl Games, National Television deals for all the games, the hugely sponsered playoffs that can also be done as sponsered bowl games, and all other money income related to the offseason isn't enough money for the NCAA and the schools involved. The only people that suffer are the schools that don't make the offseason cut, and as I said before, they honestly do not deserve it.

And I also bring up my Division 1 FCS argument for this portion too.

 

[Stormtrooper]

In my Top-10, there were 3 undefeated teams, 6 one-loss, and 1 two loss teams. Alot of the teams didn't play each other, and if the teams that go into the tournament are really the best two, they'll make it all the way through the tournament, and they'll face each other at the win. They face the lower seeds, so they should have a better chance at winning those match-ups to begin with, and if they can't beat those teams, why should I believe they are the best. And they play on different ends of the spectrum, so to say, so if #1 and #2 win out they play each other in the end. It would prove the better team out of the elite in the country, and I would generalize the Top 10 are the best, seeing as there is only 1 team with more than 1 loss.

No, because any large tournament leaves too much to chance. Look at March Madness. #1 seeds don't make the final 4 every year (hell, most years there's only 1 or 2 1's). You can't tell me that every year the 2 best teams make it, it's just the 2 hottest teams after the regular season. The 2 best teams after the regular season should play for the National Championship, not the 3rd and 7th best teams.

I didn't eliminate the team. The system I created for the current system includes all 120 teams. And 70 of them shouldn't be allowed to qualify for bowls just because they were "bowl eligible" at 6-6 or 7-5. That is over half of Division 1 FBS teams. You don't see that problem in Division 1 FCS. They might be lower tier, but they could still get money from payoffs if they used a similar bowl system, but they don't and they're fine.

1. In your first scenario, you cut half the teams from Division 1 football. That's cutting the team. Sorry.
2. Why are you acting like D1AA (now known as D1 FCS) is this huge moneymaking proposition for schools? It's NOT. Schools are CUTTING FOOTBALL because of it. You can't fill the stadiums for minor league College Football (which 1AA football is).

I have no problem eliminating oppurtunities for teams like Western Michigan and UTEP that went 6-6 in the MAC or C-USA, conferences that weren't extremely strong this year. They don't deserve the oppurtunity for a post season or the money, not for mediocrity.

So you go and give them the millions of dollars they receive normally that they now won't get. And it's a BOWL game, not the championship. In the grand scheme of things who the hell cares who won the 2010 Meineke Car Care Bowl? No one, except the fans of the winning team.

So the 15 Bowl Games, National Television deals for all the games, the hugely sponsered playoffs that can also be done as sponsered bowl games, and all other money income related to the offseason isn't enough money for the NCAA and the schools involved. The only people that suffer are the schools that don't make the offseason cut, and as I said before, they honestly do not deserve it.

It's good for the 8 schools you are involving. Not the 112 you aren't.

As I said before, you take millions of dollars from people, and they won't be happy (nor should they). You're taking money from these schools, and act like everyone should be happy with it. Sadly, you're WAY wrong on this. If I took a percentage of your annual income that I felt you "didn't deserve", you'd be pissed.

And I also bring up my Division 1 FCS argument for this portion too.

Why do you think 1AA is this almighty amazing prosperous entity? It's NOT. Schools are LOSING MONEY because of it, and as such CUTTING FOOTBALL ENTIRELY!

 

[TSG]

No, because any large tournament leaves too much to chance. Look at March Madness. #1 seeds don't make the final 4 every year (hell, most years there's only 1 or 2 1's). You can't tell me that every year the 2 best teams make it, it's just the 2 hottest teams after the regular season. The 2 best teams after the regular season should play for the National Championship, not the 3rd and 7th best teams.

March Madness and Football shouldn't even be compared. There is such a difference it isn't even funny. And if number 1 and 2 can't win two measly games over lower ranked teams before playing each other, then they really don't deserve number one, especially since the teams they have to play before hand usually play the same level of competition, have no more than 1 loss (never more than 2) and are considered elite teams in the country. They should be able to win. It is nothing compared to basketball, where there are 55 more teams, 5 more games you have to win to make the championship, although I will say that the fact that most #1 seeds don't always make the Final Four, it proves the seeding was wrong and the polls had slight mess-ups, such as a team being 6th instead of 4th, or 10th instead of 6th, resulting in a lower tourney seed and a number 1 that wasn't as good of a team not making it. That's why the playoff is there, to seperate the best from the rest.

1. In your first scenario, you cut half the teams from Division 1 football. That's cutting the team. Sorry.

First as I stated before, that was a fantasy secnario, no need to pay any attention to that. I'm debating my second secnario. Although I suppose I forgot to mention the teams I cut in the first secnario were moved down to a second section of Division 1, higher than FCS teams, that recieved the same treatment as upper level teams. I suppose I didn't make that clear, but it is something to add to further evaluation.

2. Why are you acting like D1AA (now known as D1 FCS) is this huge moneymaking proposition for schools? It's NOT. Schools are CUTTING FOOTBALL because of it. You can't fill the stadiums for minor league College Football (which 1AA football is).

So why don't they move to a bowl system like there big brothers in FBS? Maybe because they are happy with a playoff.

So you go and give them the millions of dollars they receive normally that they now won't get. And it's a BOWL game, not the championship. In the grand scheme of things who the hell cares who won the 2010 Meineke Car Care Bowl? No one, except the fans of the winning team.

A sports post-season is supposed to reward teams for doing good in the regular season and ultimately in a way determine the best team (in this case, bowl games as a reward and play-off for the championship). Not give teams an excuse to play 1 extra game and let them get an extra million dollars for something their players and sports program didn't deserve. My post-season still makes money for the teams and governing body involved. If you don't make the cut, get a better football team if the money is really that badly needed. Sorry your sports program is mediocre, they ain't getting rewarded for it, and neither is your school. It may be cold, but it's the way life works.

It's good for the 8 schools you are involving. Not the 112 you aren't.

As I said before, you take millions of dollars from people, and they won't be happy (nor should they). You're taking money from these schools, and act like everyone should be happy with it. Sadly, you're WAY wrong on this. If I took a percentage of your annual income that I felt you "didn't deserve", you'd be pissed.

Not everyone is going to be happy about it. But if you don't earn something, then you shouldn't get it. If your school really needs the money that bad, then you need to find another way to do it, or create a winning program. Sorry, is it fair that my team goes 5-7 and your team goes 9-3, we both go to bowl games, get millions of dollars each, and both get rewarded equally? Uh-huh. I'm not aiming to make everyone happy, I'm aiming to make sports fair.

And I don't wanna hear the old cliche life isn't fair. The only things that should be unfair are the ones that aren't able to be controlled. This can be.

 

[Megatron]

the BCS's job is to determine #1 and #2. They've done that 9/10 times, if not 10/10. This year they will do the same. Auburn/Oregon are clear-cut #1 and #2 right now, and if Auburn loses the SEC Championship game, #3 TCU will become #2 and get a shot. If you think otherwise, sorry, you're dead fucking wrong. That means the BCS was actually successful.

Last year there were 5 undefeated teams at the end of the regular season. How can you pick 2 of the 5 and just automatically assume that it's right? You can't. There's been multiple times where there's been many deserving teams to play in the NCG. Just look at the past decade:

2000-01: 12-1 Florida State was chosen to play undefeated Oklahoma, over 11-1 Miami (who beat Florida State and was #2 in both polls) and Pac 10 Champ Washington (who beat Miami and had only 1 loss). FSU lost, the U and UW both won easily.

2001-02: Nebraska, ranked 4th in both human polls, who was routed by Colorado in their last game and didn't even play in the Big 12 Championship game, was picked over both the same Colorado team and Oregon, who was #2 in both polls. Nebraska got routed in the NCG by Miami while Oregon dismantled Colorado.

2002-03: First time in decade the two teams (Ohio State and Miami) were both deserving w/o any controversy.

2003-04: All 3 of LSU, Oklahoma, and USC ended the year with 1 loss. OU got routed in the Big 12 Championship game and was dropped to #3 in the polls, yet still faced LSU in the NCG, while USC was in the Rose Bowl vs. Michigan. Both LSU + USC won, and they 'split' the national championship.

2004-05: 5 undefeated teams at the end of the regular season, including Auburn from the SEC. Auburn and Utah won their BCS games, while USC romped on OU in the NCG.

2005-06: 2nd time it was right.

2006-07: There was an undefeated Boise, along with 4 one loss BCS teams (UM, Florida, Louisville, Wisconsin) that had an argument of making the BCS. Florida went, going over UM by .0101 points. Boise was still undefeated after the year though, Wisconsin and Louisville also ended with only 1 loss, yet Florida was named National Champs.

2007-08: While the two teams were probably right, there was still an undefeated Hawaii team at the end of the regular season.

2008-09: Both Utah and Boise State were the only 2 undefeated teams at the end of the regular season, yet it was Florida/OU in the championship game.

2009-10: As I said earlier, 5 undefeated teams at the end of the year, yet 3 weren't included, with 2 going off against each other.

So yeah, not only has the BCS gotten it wrong before, more often then not, there's been many teams deserving that haven't gotten a shot.

Any playoff will remove the 1 vs. 2 matchup, which is (and should be) the selling point for a national championship game. The ONLY way a playoff could work is if it were a 4-team playoff, which almost the National Championship is decided between 2 top teams. Anything more then 4 teams will give too many teams a shot. I'm sorry, but are you telling me #8 deserves as much of a chance at the national championship as #1 (a team that has CLEARLY played better all season)? They don't If anything, I could see maybe a 6 or 7 team thing where 7 plays 6, the winner plays 5, winner plays 4, etc. That would be the ONLY system to fairly give the #1 team a clear advantage over the other teams. Too bad that scenario takes WAY too long, and the season wouldn't end until February.

An 8 team playoff would give less then 6% of the FBS teams a shot at the National title. The NBA + NHL have at least half of the damn league included, while the NFL has a much greater percentage as well (37.5). You're telling me that there's less then 6% of the teams worthy of fighting for a National Championship? Bullshit.

And all your systems are flawed beyond belief. You're eliminating Bowl games for half of the teams that get in bowls now, or just eliminating the teams itself. Bowls are HUGE payoffs for the institutions (and measuring sticks for some coaches),

Slightly false. Some bowls are Huge payoffs. However, this is from an SI article within the past month on why there should be a playoff:

"Most conferences pool all their bowl payouts, using the bigger-money BCS games to cover the losses incurred in the smaller games. Thus does the Rose Bowl help subsidize the Little Caesars Pizza Bowl-a bowl bailout system that indeed spreads the wealth. Bowl directors privately admit that fewer than half the bowls could survive without the financial support from the schools. "

So yeah, the Roady's Humanitarian Bowl isn't raking up the money. In fact, it's costing the schools money.

and you can't just eliminate that opportunity for teams. Plus, you're acting as if money doesn't play a part in the situation. Money is the number 1 priority, and since sports is big business (and has been for a long long time), money should be the #1 priority.

Then what about this:

"Meanwhile, the sad sack programs that fail to qualify for a bowl often end up in the best financial position. As former Michigan AD Bill Martin said after the 2009 season, ‘The fact we didn't go to a bowl game the last two years means we actually made money.' "

UM didn't make a bowl, and since money is the #1 priority, they were saving money. And this:

"Halftime entertainment at the Jan. 1, 2009, Outback Bowl was provided by the [ Iowa ] Hawkeye Marching Band. And how did the Tampa Bay Bowl Association, which runs the game, thank the band for that gratis performance? By charging the university $65 a head for each of the 346 band members. According to university records submitted to the NCAA, the school was forced to purchase face-value tickets totaling $22,490 for the band, even though the game wasn't sold out."

"For their appearance in the 2009 Orange Bowl, Virginia Tech and the ACC agreed to purchase 17,500 tickets at $125 per seat, but they could sell only 3,342, according to university documents. The result: a $1.77 million bath for the school, not the bowl."

The schools aren't making jack shit for these little bowls featuring 7-5 and 6-6 teams. The BOWLS are.

And you think that a playoff wouldn't generate any of the almighty dollar?

Some estimates place the value of a 16 team playoff at $700-$800 million that could be distributed evenly among the conferences. In short, major money is being left on the table. Money that would go to the schools and the conferences, but not into the pockets of those in control at the moment.

So yeah, not only on the playing field, but financially, the BCS and the bowl system isn't the right option.

(Damn, I wasted a lot of time on this).