| |
|
|
Reputation:94
Level:All-Star
Since:Feb 22, 2008
|
These lawmakers are trying to look into something. I think the BCS is a huge overhyped joke. It creates another division of football. That is what happens when you create a separation of two groups of universities in a sport. Maybe it is better that way. Maybe the 5 non BCS Conferences should declare themselves as NCAA Real Championship Division and create their own playoff system. They could exclude the BCS Conferences and have a champion of their own.
Now that may sound a bit frivolous and who would care anyway? Well, those 5 non-BCS conferences get crap times on the TV anyway (or if your favorite team is in the MWC like BYU, my team, it is hard to get the channel even if the game is one during a decent time). Some network would pick it up and show it. It wouldn't go unnoticed by the fans who want to watch it.
Instead of whining about wanting to be included, create your own system and your own prize. Let go of wanting to be a part of the BCS. Lawmakers do have better things to do with their time and should not waste it on silly things like this.
|
|
|
|
Reputation:96
Level:Superstar
Since:Jan 20, 2007
|
|
Many people may have the same sentiment but there are a few problems. The first is that any educator/administrator wants the best for their kids. The BCS conferences traditionally produce the best teams. If you make your own league and decrease the amount you compete against BCS schools, the team suffers by not competing against high level talent. The other problem is that if your argument is correct that it is hard to get TV time now, if they create their own league then they will get even less TV Time. Less TV time and no BCS money drastically reduces revenue, which then hurts the quality of athlete a school can recruit. The non-BCS schools need the money so they will stay in. The best solution really is a playoff, somewhere between 4 and 16 teams. It is feasible if the Big Ten and Pac Ten will suck up their tradition and participate. The Big 12 (previously the Big 8) sucked it up when they lost their historic position in the orange bowl and have created a new tradition with the Fiesta Bowl. No good reason to not have a playoff.
|
|
|
|
|
Reputation:95
Level:Superstar
Since:Oct 19, 2006
|
|
My biggest problem with the BCS is that the formula is designed so that teams will never take strong out of conference opponents because losses count so heavily. As a result, we have very little knowledge of the relative strength of conferences and teams.
|
|
|
|
|
Reputation:96
Level:Superstar
Since:Jan 20, 2007
|
That is definitely a problem which is why I lost respect for certain teams for not playing quality out of conference schedules, but the system encourages that type of scheduling. That problem also makes it hard for a non BCS school who is good to get quality opponents in the future because teams get scared of them.
Cheap Plug for online game here:
http://goallineblitz.com/game/signup.pl?ref=7384928
|
|
|
|
|
Reputation:96
Level:Superstar
Since:Sep 3, 2007
|
Hey, CBass, consider this: If ALL conference champs were allowed by rule into the BCS games, under a playoff system, then first, wouldn't the likes of say, LSU, Georgia, Florida, Tennessee, and Auburn all want OUT of the SEC, to go win a patsy conference? So LSU would try to take La Tech's place in their conference, and wipe out the likes of Hawaii and Boise State every year consistently.
Second, suppose we designed a "playoff" system. I'm certain that a team's record would be a major factor in determining who gets into the playoff. So, WHY would a good team schedule a strong out-of-conference team? We'd still be in the same predicament.
Finally, football, unlike basketball (i.e. March Madness) doesn't play very many games. To really determine who's worthy to make the playoffs, you'd need more games. This would be in addition to the playoff games as well. So yer talkin' 'bout 20 games at least -- The NFL needs about that many, and they only have, what? -32 teams, as compared to over 100 in college football.
So, anyone want to suggest an alternative to the BCS that would actually WORK?
|
|
|
|
|
Reputation:97
Level:Superstar
Since:Oct 7, 2007
|
|
While it's doubtful Abercrombie's been talking to Obama's parents unless he's been conducting seances, equal access is what he's talking about. It's not fair when certain conferences get automatic slots and other conferences have to play their way in. The current system would be fairer, if no conference got automatic berths and the BCS bowls were selected by the current system. There's little doubt the current BCS conferences would peobably get the same number of slots, but people like Abercrombie would have a leg to stand on if there were equal access. Everyone would have to play their way in. Assuming you keep the strehgth of schedule etc. Yes LSU would switch to a current non-BCS conference in the hope of getting a weaker schedule, but you can account for that and after a few years, they'd have trouble recruiting top talent to that mindset. It;s not something the current BCS conference should worry about.
|
|
|
|
|
Reputation:95
Level:Superstar
Since:Nov 24, 2007
|
|
CBass, losses can't hurt that much, look how many 2 loss teams were in the conversation last year. Quality wins mean alot.
|
|
|
|
|
Reputation:75
Level:Pro
Since:Dec 13, 2007
|
|
I like your idea...lets take it one step further.
Lets treat it like the NCAA vs NIT in basketball.
Those teams that don't get picked for the BCS are ranked for playoff position. All teams from all conferences included & those who decline the offer just move on to the next in line.
Maybe you take the next team in line from each conference & pair them that way.
8 conferences, 8 teams. Lets say Miami wins the ACC and accepts the Orange Bowl invitation & BC finishes second in the ACC with no BCS offer then maybe they accept the playoff berth pairing.
Higher ranked teams get the home game, but it must be in the nearest stadium that seats atleast 40 thousand fans.
|
|
|
|
|
Reputation:99
Level:Superstar
Since:Nov 15, 2006
|
|
Typical politician...opens mouth, before he knows what to say....what a clown....it's especially funny because he's from Hawaii...WAC conference......losers all.....Hawaii showed their ineptitude vs a real school, Georgia, and were bare butted spanked in front of God and everyone else on national tv....lol.
|
|
|
|
|
Reputation:96
Level:Superstar
Since:Dec 19, 2007
|
|
Get real bro'. They played in Georgia's back yard. Have Georgia come play in Hawaii on Jan 1 and see how they do (they would win but not by as much). I would have liked to see Hawaii play OSU at a neutral site like the Fiesta Bowl. Georgia would have been a tough team for anyone to go against.
|
|
|
|
|
Reputation:96
Level:Superstar
Since:Sep 3, 2007
|
|
Hey, GOBYU, when Hawaii and BYU were in the same conference, BYU won 19 of 20 against the Rainbows, on the Island as well as in Provo. Do you really think that Hawaii would fare any better against Georgia year in year out?
|
|
|
|
|
Reputation:96
Level:Superstar
Since:Sep 3, 2007
|
Hey, CBass, consider this: If ALL conference champs were allowed by rule into the BCS games, under a playoff system, then first, wouldn't the likes of say, LSU, Georgia, Florida, Tennessee, and Auburn all want OUT of the SEC, to go win a patsy conference? So LSU would try to take La Tech's place in their conference, and wipe out the likes of Hawaii and Boise State every year consistently.
Second, suppose we designed a "playoff" system. I'm certain that a team's record would be a major factor in determining who gets into the playoff. So, WHY would a good team schedule a strong out-of-conference team? We'd still be in the same predicament.
Finally, football, unlike basketball (i.e. March Madness) doesn't play very many games. To really determine who's worthy to make the playoffs, you'd need more games. This would be in addition to the playoff games as well. So yer talkin' 'bout 20 games at least -- The NFL needs about that many, and they only have, what? -32 teams, as compared to over 100 in college football.
So, anyone want to suggest an alternative to the BCS that would actually WORK?
|
|
|
|
|
Reputation:89
Level:All-Star
Since:Mar 1, 2008
|
|
Here is an idea Awacato. I'm sure you have heard this before.
First of all, the champions from the six BCS conferences get invited to the tourney. Then you pick two more at large schools. The first round can be played at the big four bowl locations (Rose, Fiesta, Orange, Fiesta).
When a non BCS conference team has an argument they can get an at large. This wouldn't require anymore games, and this would keep teams from leaving the big conferences to win in less competitive conferences. Although, I don't understand why you think a team would do this. An SEC school, or any other BCS conference school, wouldn't make anywhere near the amount of money playing in any non BCS conference.
Since you probably disagree. What do you think about the PAC-10 and Big Ten growing a pair and adding one school, and implementing a conference championship? The Big East has enough schools and should have a championship game also. (Sorry can't remember if they have one already)
This would keep the likes of Ohio State from backing into every championship game by watching the last three weeks of the season. This would also make the BCS slightly less intolerable. However, I can't understand why anyone wouldn't want a playoff.
|
|
|
|
|
Reputation:93
Level:All-Star
Since:Oct 19, 2007
|
|
I like your idea. Then you could have the two champions play each other for the overall championship.
|
|
|
|
|
Reputation:93
Level:All-Star
Since:Nov 24, 2007
|
|
Maybe Abercrombie's rants are not so mis-guided... I think the BCS is BS too, however, I wonder if the BCS is disolved, wouldn't we be left with the old bowl system? Maybe the NCAA is the real problem?
|
|
|
