BCS---Useful or Useless?

[sweaver]

With Oklahoma the only undefeated major, the path to the NCF national championship looks pretty clear.

So, what's the BCS for, anyway?

[JamesI]

The BCS is better than nothing, I hated the mid 90's when good teams like Penn State could go undefeated and still have no shot at the title.

Without the BCS, Ohio State doesn't win last year.

That said, I'd rather see a playoff system.

[rcartman28]

The BCS, technically, does an okay job since it is only meant to pair the No. 1 and 2 teams against each other in a bowl game. Of course, it also does a great job of funneling most of the TV bowl money into six conferences while squeezing out the rest.

We definitely need a playoff system, though.

[Craig S.]

While I wouldn't protest a small, very limited playoff, I think the BCS has done a fairly good job. Problems have taken care of themselves again this season - Ohio State losing yesterday, TCU falling on Thursday - but one of these days the controversy is going to turn nasty.

One thing I like about the BCS is that it makes every game critical for your team, since a single loss could kill all your title hopes. It seems odd that Oklahoma could through a dominating undefeated season, then have to play an 8th-ranked team in a playoff. I guess I feel like it takes away some of the value from regular-season matchups.

[LeGrandOrange]

I don't want a playoff system...bowls have too much tradition to them and to change to a playoff system would be about as blasphemous as...umm...well it just wouldn't be right. :)

(Plus, I'll lose one T-Shirt a year that I get after my WSU Cougars make a bowl game...nobody will print out tees of making the playoffs)

The BCS has a purpose...it's just that some years the championship teams are obvious. The purpose then is to figure out the rest of the great eight. They don't always do a great job picking them, but they do their best. The only qualms I have are the computers...but that's everyone's qualm.

I would like to see the smaller conferences getting more involved in the BCS. I'd like to see a 5th BCS game, hopefully the Peach Bowl, do that. A "small" conference pick doesn't HAVE to go to the Peach Bowl, but they can organize it however they want...although Atlanta does make a great destination, n'est-ce pas? Of course, you'd have to deal with contracts and deals and scheduling, etc., etc., but I can dream, can't I? It'd certainly be a lot more glamourous than the places that "small" conferences are scheduled to go.

[sweaver]

I think I'd rather...

(1) have a playoff with the current bowls and sites

or

(2) go back to the old system, where it's Big10-Pac10 in the Rose, SEC champ to the Sugar, and so on.

[huskerdru]

I think I'd rather...

(1) have a playoff with the current bowls and sites

or

(2) go back to the old system, where it's Big10-Pac10 in the Rose, SEC champ to the Sugar, and so on.

I like (1) up there. You can merge the playoff idea with the current bowl situation...even rotate the bowls for the championship game, as it is now.

The BCS is a joke, and may well be exposed as such again this year. With only one undefeated team, and several one-lossers, there will be little consensus regarding the #2 team...we conceivably could end up with no major team with 1 loss!! My biggest problem with the BCS is that it's inherently inequitable - only 6 conferences are in on the automatic bids, so most of 1A is disenfranchised. Then there's the Notre Dame clause...don't get me started! Dump the BCS, bring on the playoff!!

[SmedIndy]

Playoffs the only way to go - if D-III can do it why not D-1?

[Ytown Tribe fan]

Even a four-team, three Bowl playoff would be an improvement. Eight teams might be better but really -- if they can't decide who the four best teams are without a fight, why bother?

[Craig S.]

Even a four-team, three Bowl playoff would be an improvement. Eight teams might be better but really -- if they can't decide who the four best teams are without a fight, why bother?

That's my only concern - I don't want too many teams involved. If you have 2 losses in your regular season, why should you have any right to play against a top-ranked, undefeated team?

Include too many teams, and the whole idea of regular season schedules being important goes down the toilet.

[JamesI]

I'd keep the same 8 team idea we have with the BCS now. Do the first round of playoffs on Christmas or something. And the second on Jan 1st and the championship a few days later...

[SmedIndy]

James - then we'd still have the problem of the MAC, WAC, Mountain West that DESERVE a chance to play for a championship.

[Craig S.]

James - then we'd still have the problem of the MAC, WAC, Mountain West that DESERVE a chance to play for a championship.

Why do they deserve a chance without proving themselves against good teams during the season? For example, why should Boise State be in any kind of playoff when the only major team they played this year beat them? Even Miami (Ohio), who I like, lost to Iowa in their biggest non-conference game this season.

I'm not against the mid-majors being involved - I'd love to see a team like Miami in the mix - but they need to prove their worthiness by playing tougher schedules. Either that, or they need to play each other to determine one or two teams to be involved in such a playoff.

[SmedIndy]

Craig - no one will schedule them in a fair and just way. Plus they have to play their conference schedule as well. If they're going to be D-1A, they must be included. Otherwise, it's still a sham and fraud.

No one asks why the MEAC and SWAC are in the field of 65.

[Craig S.]

If they're going to be D-1A, they must be included. Otherwise, it's still a sham and fraud.

I agree with that part. It must frustrate some of these teams to never have the chance to prove themselves against better competition. Maybe they could institute rules regarding non-conference scheduling? Or maybe these conferences will all disappear soon enough as the super-conferences continue to grow.

[KCBOOMER]

The BCS is doing the job it set out to do. They are simply trying to get the #1 and #2 teams on the same field. This is much better than the old system.

I, too, would like to see a playoff. Even the levels of college ball that have playoffs only have 8-16 teams. If they go to an eight team playoff the wannabees will still be on the outside looking in. Sure the mid-majors and such would love home-an-away arrangements with the big schools, but the big schools have no incentive to do that. With the conference schedules those guys have why should they schedule, say Boise State, which would have everything to gain and nothing to lose?

[RedSeat]

I used to think I'd like a playoff system, but I've changed my mind. A single elimination tournament after 11 or 12 games seems a little like having a best of three world series. If you want to crown the best team as the champion (or at least let the 2 best play for it), a system like the BCS seems ideal.

Exactly how 1 and 2 are determined is very much up for debate and I'd welcome some reform there. Or at least an explanation of why a loss in September isnt nearly as bad as a loss in November.

I had real problems with the old format, that in it's final failure, prevented Michigan from playing Nebraska.

[nightal]

Maybe I'm wrong, but so far the BCS is doing it's job. Maybe lucky a couple of times, but doing it's job!
Oklahoma-USC should be a great game.

[sweaver]

Unless, of course, it ends up OU-LSU.

Or, if Oklahoma loses to Kansas State, who knows?

[Ytown Tribe fan]

What'd work (this year, anyway) is to skip the dumb Conference Championship games, and just take the top 4 seeds and have a two-week playoff.

Oklahoma would play Michigan, USC would play LSU, and the winners would play the next week for all the marbles.

[nightal]

What'd work (this year, anyway) is to skip the dumb Conference Championship games, and just take the top 4 seeds and have a two-week playoff.

Oklahoma would play Michigan, USC would play LSU, and the winners would play the next week for all the marbles.


I agree totally. I hate the conference "championship" games.

[sweaver]

Ah, but those are big money-makers, with lots of TV dollars coming in and big crowds guaranteed.

Which is the main reason I can't understand why there is no D-I playoff for football. It would bring in megabucks. It's not like university presidents and athletic directors to pass up big money.

[Skip]

Which is the main reason I can't understand why there is no D-I playoff for football. It would bring in megabucks. It's not like university presidents and athletic directors to pass up big money.But you get that now with the 4 BCS bowls, plus the big conference championships. If other conferences get a championship game (by getting to 12 teams or changing the rules) it'll add money to the pot, not spread it around. As much as I'd like to see a true tournament, there's no way it could have enough teams/games to match up with multiple conference championship games plus the current 8 team/4 game BCS series of games in terms of payoff.

More and more, I think the only way a tournament happens is the addition of conference championship games to all the major/BCS/major-wannabe conferences along with a largely increased revenue pie from TV for using the 4 BCS bowls as an 8-team tournament.

But even that won't work because there is no way of ensuring that the best 8 teams get in. Regardless of the teams at the bottom of the NCAA BB tournament, you can never argue that a truly top team got left out. It's easier to pick 64/65 than 8 or even 16. Especially when the 64/65 play about 30 games in a season instead of less than half that many.

[Craig S.]

I don't know how much more money a playoff would generate for the current BCS schools than does the current format.

The 63 teams that are part of the BCS will split somewhere in the range of $90-100 million dollars this year, about $1.5 per team. The 4 major bowls pay out about $13m per team. The other 54 schools are left with about $5m, or about $100,000 each. So is it any wonder that the big schools might drag their feet when it comes to talk of a playoff? If anyone should be clamoring (and they are) for a playoff, it's those 5 conferences that are being robbed blind.

To think that the BCS was created to make things better is a fallacy. It was created to protect the big conferences and their domination both on the field and in the bowl payouts. In the 20 years preceeding the introduction of the BCS, how many teams that aren't currently part of the BCS were among the 160 representatives in those 4 major bowls? I believe the answer is one!

I think they should reduce the number of conferences from 11 to 8, mixing in the mid-majors with the existing majors. Divide each conference into 2 divisions (for scheduling's sake), and have those division winners meet in a conference title game. With 8 conference winners, you could have a playoff spread out over 3 weeks in December. Making a team win its division and conference would allow the regular season to maintain its importance. And having a 7-game conference schedule would still allow for some traditional non-conference matchups.

[SmedIndy]

Craig - the conference reduction won't work because of basketball and other issues. They should increase the conferences and get them back on a geographical basis and pair like institutions together...but I often dream out loud.