November 26, 2006

Wojciechowski: BCS System Needs Extreme Makeover: "I hate the BCS," declares ESPN's Gene Wojciechowski. "I hate it because the two best teams in the country aren't going to play in the national title game."

posted by wingnut4life to football at 06:42 AM - 50 comments

I've never been a big fan of the BCS. And, being a UofM fan, I'll even say this -- I don't even know if Michigan should be in the National Championship game. OSU beat them once, and it wouldn't be fair to pass over USC or Florida just so I can selfishly watch Michigan trounce Ohio State on a neutral field. I truly wish that the NCAA would stop worrying about their wallets and start a playoff system! That is the only true way to determine a true undisputed National Champion.

posted by wingnut4life at 06:47 AM on November 26, 2006

Well said wingnut. There is no valid reason for the NCAA not to have a playoff system for football. It seems there is one for almost every other sport. Injuries, can't be an excuse, ask a player, every play is a risk. Exams, other sports handle that issue, if it is one. To have a playoff system would satisy the consumer, us, and make tons of money for them, the NCAA. Seems like win, win. Oh, I forgot the contoversy of who would be in the playoffs. Like there isn't one now in basketball? And it captures all of us for the month of March regardless of who's in or not. Football would be on a grander stage. Who can't see that?? Just the guys in charge, small problem.

posted by gfinsf at 08:52 AM on November 26, 2006

Bowl season lasts almost a month why not start the playoffs sometime during bowl season and they can still play the National Title game when they want. Have the final four New years weekend and the title game the next week.

posted by livewire at 09:21 AM on November 26, 2006

The more that people get fired up about the BCS in September and October the less likely NCAA is to do anything about it. If the NCAA were to go to a playoff system, then the games in the first 6 weeks would mean alot less than they do now. The passion of the part-time veiwer would not be ignited until the end of November and into December, and insted of debaiting betwwen the likes of USC and Michigan (this year) we would talking about West virginia and BYU. Which is more exciting? The system as it stands creates buzz the entire season, good and bad. The NCAA loves that. The part-time fan of NCAA basketball doesn't care until Feb and the conferance tournys start. Maybe not until their bartender, I mean co-worker, hands them the bracket to fill out. The NCAA is banking on people getting mad and watching more intently and not turning of the set.

posted by seansterps at 09:37 AM on November 26, 2006

I think there is a solution, along the lines of what livewire said that would satisfy almost everyone. Leave the BCS rankings and other polls as they currently are. The only change would be to use two of the New Years BCS bowls by having #1 vs. #4, and #2 vs. #3. The following week the winners play for the championship. For those of you that thing you need 8, 16, or whatever teams, you are missing the point. No matter how many teams you pick, the teams that just missed getting in will be unhappy. Just look at March Madness. My point is, you can't please everyone, but a 4 team bowl playoff, would just about include the top teams every year. If you have a year with 3 undefeated powerhourse teams, (sorry Boise State, weak schedule), problem solved. Look at the rankings as they are now, and apply my proposal. I think it looks pretty good. OSU, Mich, USC, and Florida all have a shot. Then again, I may be wrong. Just my $.02.

posted by Dikky Moe at 10:11 AM on November 26, 2006

I'm fine with USC being in the National Championship game. Personally I think Michigan is the second best team in the country, but USC is a good second choice. As for Florida, you would be hard pressed to convince me they belong in the National Championship game. They have had difficulty beating opponets, and have been quite lucky in avoiding losses. They almost lost to South Carolina had they not blocked two field goals, and were barely able to beat Florida State. Had FSU's kick returner not slightly stepped out of bounds (when he already had everyone beat), that game is much closer. If FSU has a half decent quarterback, they win that game. That being said, I don't see them being much of a factor since I think Arkansas will beat them quite soundly in the SEC championship game. Hey, here's a thought: wouldn't it be neat to see the Wolverines play the Trojans in, ta-da, an actual playoff game? That would be a game to see.

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 10:17 AM on November 26, 2006

I definetly agree wingnut. This BCS is a bunch of bullshit. The NCAA needs a playoff system. Maybe the top teams in each conference play until it comes to two teams? I don't have an answer for it ,but I thought of several different ways it could be done. But it'd take me forever to post. All I know is I think the system they have now sucks. Just to say if Rutgers had gone undefeated,does anybody think they would get a shot at the National Title? I doubt it. It's all about money and who's going to draw the biggest TV ratings and how much money the NCAA will make. Does Michigan deserve another shot OSU? It's a big game and probably is going to be the game to watch. I don't think they do. All it comes down to is the almighty dollar. MONEY! This BCS needs to be fixed. The way it stands now in my eyes it sucks seansterps, what you posted about the first six weeks of the year won't mean anything, I quite doen't understand. I think they would mean just as much. Are you talking about money wise? I'm not argueing your point, I just don't know what you mean. We all can beat this subject to death. But until the NCAA does something about it, it'll be the same thing every year.

posted by Ghastly1 at 10:22 AM on November 26, 2006

Dikky Moe: I was probably typing my comment before I got to read yours. But thats what I'd like to see. Something on that idea at least. Even if it involved all of the conferences winners would be good Conference winners in a playoff format. Boise State played a weak schedule, but at least this way, they could never say they didn't get their shot.

posted by Ghastly1 at 10:37 AM on November 26, 2006

Ghastly, I think a playoff system would be great from a pure football standpoint, but you hit the nail on the head. MONEY! The raging debate regarding an extended playoff season would be, who plays who, and most importantly, who's stadium. Some of the other problems I see would be: 1. Dilution of the big regular season matchups. Would last night's USC game(or other big matchups) matter as much if both teams were still assued of being in the playoff mix, win or lose? I loved some of the games this year, in which there was more at stake. 2. Money. The powers that be won't let go of the millions as the system currently stands. 3. Not fair to fans. Trying to follow their teams around the playoffs on short notice would be difficult, as well as financially difficult. How would attendance be at some of the playoff games if the fans only have a week to plan a trip cross country. Bowl games are scheuled in advance, giving people a good chance to get there. (Airfare, hotel, etc.) There are other things, but the only improvement that would realistically happen would be a compromise, instead of a complete overhaul.

posted by Dikky Moe at 11:01 AM on November 26, 2006

Those out there suggesting a playoff sytem and calling for conference winners to be in the playoff, do you realize that would rule out a Michigan-OSU rematch? If you think that is the best game out there, which I do, you need to revamp your thinking. Some hybrid of the BCS and the bowl system needs to be developed. Top 8 teams play in the BCS bowls and play out to determine a true champion. I think the rematch has a better chance of happening than a lot of you out there. Florida will probably lose to Arkansas and USC still has to beat their other arch rival UCLA. Two rivalry week games in a row, watch out for a let down.

posted by chuck'n'duck at 11:06 AM on November 26, 2006

There will never be playoffs because the bowls mean big $$ for the schools. The BCS sucks and may never work. How many times has the National Championship game had a team that didn't even when their conference (My Huskers were one of them) And it could happen again this year. That being said, I say go back to the old days before the BCS. I see a lot of Michigan and Ohio St fans on this site- Remember when it was all about the Rose Bowl. I have always been a Husker fan, but grew up in Iowa- The few times the Hawkeyes went to the Rose Bowl meant a lot to the state. Every Jan 1st bowl game was important and I think the college game was better because of it!! Sure, there was always a lot of talk about the polls being screwed up- but that hasn't changed. There were a few times you had a #1 vs #2 matchup in a bowl, but if you didn't, #1 never got a free pass. And is a shared National Championship such a terrible thing? Do any of the teams that have shared a National Championship consider themselves #2. What if USC gets in? Ohio State VS Southern Cal would be a classic Rose Bowl. Too bad it's not in Pasadena!!!!

posted by pcbenedict at 11:37 AM on November 26, 2006

Those out there suggesting a playoff sytem and calling for conference winners to be in the playoff, do you realize that would rule out a Michigan-OSU rematch? So be it. I just want a playoff system. There is a month in between the end of the regular season and the bowl games. That is plenty of time to have some sort of playoff, and have the top teams play in those precious bowl games.

posted by wingnut4life at 11:51 AM on November 26, 2006

A playoff system wouldn't need to eliminate the Wolverines. My contention has always been that you take the top 12 ranked teams. The top four get a bye in week one of the playoffs, which are the first week in December. Week two has four games, week three has two, and New years day sees the Big Daddy. Sure, there would be complaints about teams being ranked too low and not making it in, but how often do you think a team ranked #13 or lower is really the best team in the country? Under this system, an undefeated Rutgers gets in. A one loss Rutgers still has a shot. Heck, Boise State would have a chance of getting in (and does anyone really believe that they'd have a snowball's chance in hell of surviving this playoff?). As for the "Bowl" games, spread the playoff games around the usual bowl sites. The championship game still rotates between sites, every bowl game has championship ramifications, everyone gets to play at a neutral site, and you have a true national champion in the end.

posted by ctal1999 at 01:46 PM on November 26, 2006

Going back to what chuck n duck comments on a Michigan-OSU rematch: Sure it'd be a huge game and a good game to watch. But so what. They played each other already and everyone knows who came out on top. I for one said that it'd be a big game and a game to watch for sure. And I will watch it if it happens But, you don't think that there'd be other games out there just as good to watch? All I'm trying to say is I'd like to see some kind of playoff format put in place. Even the way they rank teams is ridiculous. Just because team x beats team y by 40 points, and then team A beats team B by 10 points, it affects team A in the rankings because they only won there game by 10 points is assanine. In my book, a win is a win.No matter if you win by 3 or 30. The NCAA rankings and BCS need a complete overhaul. Everything about it stinks.

posted by Ghastly1 at 02:05 PM on November 26, 2006

BCS = Badly Confused Selectors. Trying to take only the top 4, as Dikky Moe and others suggest, would still produce a great deal of discontent from those who would claim that their schedule or conference, or whatever, is stronger than that of one or more of the selectees. If you take whomever the selectors feel are the top 16, I'm sure that the best 10 or 12 will be there. Of course you will get an argument about the last 3 or 4 slots, but could anyone seriously consider that the number 16 team has a realistic shot at beating 3 higher-ranked teams in order to get to the title? Those who have a financial stake in the present bowl system could be appeased by having their respective bowls used as venues for playoff games. Just think, the "Pick-a-Veggie Grocery Chain Bowl" might finally have some significance.

posted by Howard_T at 03:00 PM on November 26, 2006

Howard_T, thanks for the back up. Makes sense to me. The only downside I see is that the participating schools would have to make allowances for players, student trainers, etc., to reschedule exams and the like. A pain? Sure, but considering the small number of schools involved and the huge paydays, I have to think they'd find it worth their while. SummersEve is right. The real reason there's not a playoff system is that the cash flow from the current bowl system is too comfy for the powers that be just the way things are.

posted by ctal1999 at 04:36 PM on November 26, 2006

Michigan had their chance. They were weighed. They were measured. They were found wanting. They couldn't win their conference. They did not earn a trip to the National Championship. Now, go find some tissues, dry your eyes, and stop boring the rest of us whose team earned a trip to the National Championship. Oh by the way, Ohio State has won three of the last four Fiesta Bowls, if you really believe that a Bowl Game in Arizona is any different than a home game for the Buckeyes, you're as delusional as those who don't understand that Jim Tressle outright "OWNS" Lloyd Carr. Have a nice day.

posted by PK Toledo at 05:26 PM on November 26, 2006

"Michigan had their chance"... and this invalidates the discussion about a playoff system why? Or could you just not resist an opportunity for a "Nyah! Nyah! Nyah! Nyah!" moment? USC may deserve a shot more than Michigan. Hell, some people think Florida is more deserving. The point is that with the BS ...er, BCS system, we'll never know, will we? BTW, the LAST person who wants to see a rematch is Tressle. Michigan tightens up the tackling and stops even one of those long runs (which they had the opportunity to do), and you're the one with a box of tissues. If you think for one minute that Jimmy wants a do over on that one, then you're the one that's delusional. In truth, I wouldn't be bothered by USC going even with a questionable loss. They were very impressive Saturday. The biggest reason I'm hoping for a rematch is the chance that all the yakkers like you may have to eat their words.

posted by ctal1999 at 05:50 PM on November 26, 2006

Michigan had their chance and did not beat Ohio State. USC deserves the bid for the championship and realizing it is not at all popular, i offer the idea that USC deserves the #1 ranking based upon strength of non-conference competition alone. USC has beaten Arkansas and Nebraska, both winners of their conference's respective divisions, a top 25 Hawaii team and the hellaciously overrated Notre Dame team. Ohio State beat a Texas team whose lack of competitive character was shown not only in that game, but in the A&M game last Friday after their hopes had been dashed in the K-State loss. I personally do not hold the PAC-10 in all that high a regard, but USC has done more to show it's stuff in non-conference than all the other contenders combined.

posted by jaygolf at 07:47 PM on November 26, 2006

but USC has done more to show it's stuff in non-conference than all the other contenders combined. What do you mean? Florida's non-conference schedule (Souther Miss, Central Florida, and Western Carolina) has other teams shaking in their boots.

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 08:23 PM on November 26, 2006

AS soon as wingnut posted this, I knew there were going to be alot of people posting their opinions. But to what summer and Howard T and I posted earlier is its all about one thing and one thing only: MONEY,MONEY, AND MORE MONEY. Thats all they care about. It'll never change. If they could find a way to make more money on a playoff format put in place, then see how fast that they'd figure something out.

posted by Ghastly1 at 09:04 PM on November 26, 2006

The whole thing is fucked up just look at notre dAME hey I'm an irish fan 10-2 great record but after the first 4 weeks they don't play anybody end of story as far as USC way to go booty

posted by luther70 at 09:11 PM on November 26, 2006

As I see it, Ohio State probably deserved to win the game, but does everyone forget the penalty (15 yards automatic first down) that lead to Ohio State scoring the eventual winning points!! That was the turning point in the game...NO DOUBT!! A playoff system is needed? YES!! How? This is the question. There are so many conferences with so many schedules and so many levels of difficulty, how could you choose?? Before the BCS system there were many questions as well, is it better to have the #1 and #2 teams (as detemined by some sort of system (sarsasm here)) or to have the bowl system back again (#1 playing #Whatever to determine the Champ). just sayin' .................................. BTW I would love to See Michigan play Ohio State every week :). That was an AWESOME GAME!!!! bye

posted by nedshuck at 10:07 PM on November 26, 2006

I was just watching ESPN and they have USC #2 and Michigan#3,with of course Ohio State #1. And ned that was a great game but every week? I take it you are just joking around. And I like your question above about having the old bowl system back again. Maybe so. This whole thing is so fucked up,I wonder sometimes that if the NCAA even knows what the hell is going on. But the way it stands right now, it doesn't look to good to see a rematch OSU vs Mich. happening. But don't forget stranger things have happened in this messed up world of college football.

posted by Ghastly1 at 11:05 PM on November 26, 2006

way into the title mix. And nobody outside the greater Gainesville area wants that, do they? Apparently not. Which is why they are completely ignored in every conversation about this, or dismissed with comments like: As for Florida, you would be hard pressed to convince me they belong in the National Championship game. They have had difficulty beating opponets, and have been quite lucky in avoiding losses. Why is it so easy to ignore USC's near-losses, the three close calls in a row against mighty Washington St, Washington, and Arizona St, before losing to an unranked team? Nobody ever brings these up. In the little airtime Florida has gotten, they're quickly dismissed because of their close games and their out of conference schedule, without any consideration given to the fact that their actual conference schedule is murder. UM comes from a conference with three elite teams. USC's conference has one. The SEC has 5 excellent teams, and I'll take Georgia and SC against just about anyone they might line up with in the bowls this year as well. For a while, before they started beating each other up (and Georgia shat the bed), the SEC had 5 teams in the top 15. Remember, Tennessee, the clear #5 in the conference, absolutely destroyed the Pac 10 #2. (And yes, I recognize that the Pac-10 #1 crushed the SEC's #1 or 2, but let's not pretend that the conferences are at all even. And I think we can all agree that if they played again it'd be a closer game, given that the Arkansas game featured an awful lot of freshmen at skill positions starting their first game ever.) USC played 10 bowl eligible teams this year. So does Florida. Next week will be their third game against a 10 win team. They beat the #5 BCS team on the road. They're a bad call and blocked punt away from being undefeated. Going further - overall, even including Western Carolina's 2-9 record (which doesn't count in the BCS standings, nor does the win), Florida's opponent winning percentage going into yesterday's games was .605, which is .008 higher than USC and .0085 higher than UM. (At least according to the figures in the Indy Star.) SEC teams schedule weak out of conference games because they know they can't risk anything better, since even when they do go undefeated (see Auburn, 2004), they get fucked. I don't know if Florida would beat USC or Michigan. I have a tough time judging college teams because I find the play so sloppy compared to the NFL. I was thoroughly unimpressed with the FSU game yesterday (though I was likewise unimpressed with USC beating up an ND team that doesn't really seem to be trying to play defense). But I'm having a big problem with the horrible one-sided arguments people are making against Florida, and the overall ignorance of the team that is currently 11-1 in the toughest conference in football. To me, it's pretty clear that they've played a tougher schedule to get here, and don't deserve to be completely brushed off the way they have been in favor of these USC-UM arguments. They're a very deserving team.* Enough with this already. They added an un-named bowl to the lineup this year, why not just have 2 BCS games feature 1-4 and 2-3 and then the winners play in the title game. They still make their money, and everyone's happy. *- if they beat Arkansas, of course. Judging by how the hogs looked against LSU, that shouldn't be hard, if they can get ahead. But who knows. They've laid eggs in the past when they could have made a statement.

posted by Bernreuther at 11:30 PM on November 26, 2006

Michigan tightens up the tackling and stops even one of those long runs (which they had the opportunity to do), and you're the one with a box of tissues And if you take away some of those drive sustaining, questionable flags the game isn't even that close. (roughing the center) Enough about the past. I for one would like to see OSU and USC for one big reason, The quality of defense that USC put on that field saturday against Notre Dame. That was a fast and hard hitting defense. They pretty mich assured Brady Quinn will not be getting the Heisman. I would like to see how the Buc's would handle a defense with that speed and strength. If it winds up being a rematch, it still will be a good game. I just don't think it is right. I don't think you should have to play the same team twice in back to back games to be national champs.

posted by jojomfd1 at 02:08 AM on November 27, 2006

Florida's non-conference schedule (Souther Miss, Central Florida, and Western Carolina) has other teams shaking in their boots. Hey, at least the Gators still have a chance to win their conference. Guess Michigan fans will just have to be happy as runners-up. If Florida beats Arkansas and UCLA beats USC (hard to keep a straight face typing that!), then Michigan loses out and the Gators play for the National Championship. Then you'll hear some caterwauling from Wolverine fans! YYM, you're a good kid, but damn, you're a homer.

posted by The_Black_Hand at 05:38 AM on November 27, 2006

In the little airtime Florida has gotten, they're quickly dismissed because of their close games and their out of conference schedule, without any consideration given to the fact that their actual conference schedule is murder . . .They beat the #5 BCS team on the road. I assume you are referring to LSU here as the no. 5 BCS team. Florida beat LSU at the Swamp. That doesn't change the fact, though, that the SEC is by far and away the toughest top-to-bottom conference in college football.

posted by holden at 06:50 AM on November 27, 2006

Why not the playoff? Oh yeah, the almighty dollar. Why the "smaller" bowls don't push for it is beyond me. Make the Motor City Bowl mean something because the winner advances. It would have to generate better ratings for those games which translate into MORE MONEY. It would also give the teams like Boise State and Rutgers a shot. They may or may not be good enough to play in a BCS bowl, but at least we would learn that on the field, not through some sort of subjective ranking system. Ohio State and Michigan are definitely the two best teams in the country, but again, the TV money doesn't work. Think back to the World Series this year. An all Midwest series did not make the TV people happy. How can we have a championship with out a NY, LA or other East/West coast big market team??? The dollar speaks again. Being a Buckeye fan, I think that a rematch would be one hell of a game. If the OSU/MU game was in September, we would be looking at a rematch now, but the game being at the end of the season "weighs" more. BULLSH*T, let the two best teams play....better yet, have a real tournament. The arguments about exams etc. are crap. Those guys will be practicing everyday, not so much for the bowl game, but because they get almost two months of practice looking towards next year. No advantage for anyone there is there? Six more games for the eventual champs (assuming 64 teams, which would allow nearly 1/2 of the Div 1A schools in) wouldn't add anymore length to the season to speak of. The Championship would still be able to happen over New Years. It may be about the money, but I think a tournament would end up bringing in even more than the hokey BCS does now, it would just end up being spread around a little bit more.........oh no, a "non-BCS" conference might actually get some of the TV money and that would be bad how?

posted by TKTT1 at 09:36 AM on November 27, 2006

YYM, you're a good kid, but damn, you're a homer. Guilty as charged. I think Florida has a (slim) chance at making the National Championship game, but I don't think they're the second best team in the nation. I think Arkansas will win out next week, but I could be wrong. I think one thing people are forgetting is the kids who play football also have classes to go to, homework to finish. Bowl games occur quite close to final exams. A long playoff would drain the athletes physically and mentally, making it tougher for them to concentrate on schoolwork (which is supposedly the first priority). The one thing that will probably piss me off the most is if Notre Dame squirms into a BCS game. Matt Hayes makes the argument against it quite well.

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 09:47 AM on November 27, 2006

The one thing that will probably piss me off the most is if Notre Dame squirms into a BCS game. I hope I'm wrong, but I think it highly likely that Notre Dame does make it into a BCS game as an at-large team. After the automatic bids and conference tie-ins, the BCS bowls are not required to look at the best teams for BCS bids. Instead, they look at who will pack the stadium and what will generate the most revenue. Notre Dame either fits that bill or there is an overwhelming misconception that they fit that bill. There are four at-large spots available. Michigan and Boise State have two of them for sure. Looking at the strongest teams, I think LSU should probably get one of the others and potentially Louisville? (If Florida loses to Arkansas in the SEC Championship game, Florida is probably getting shut out of the BCS even with the same number of losses as LSU and a victory in the head-to-head match-up of the two teams -- fair or not, it's about how you finish, as Michigan is learning.) The danger is that Notre Dame will somehow sneak in there and get a very undeserved BCS bid for the reasons mentioned above.

posted by holden at 11:12 AM on November 27, 2006

I would LOVE a playoff system, but I agree that a playoff system would be tough on athletes considering that it is near the final exams. The whole Bowl Season Lasts a Month, So Make a Playoff System that Lasts a Month Too argument isn't fair. The Bowl Season may last the month, but a team will only play once, as opposed to multiple times (requiring more dedication from players, which in turn means less time for academics). That said, the solution proposed, #1-#4 and #2-#3, would be ideal. Having this matchup as the earliest bowl game would be a big-money way to kick off the Bowl Season and possibly raise interest for early games, and seal the Bowl Season with the match-up between those two-winners (plenty of storylines throughout that month). Every season game would still matter since only #1-#4 get a shot (so interest levels shouldn't be affected because one loss could still knock you out) and the bitching would be lessened (even though teams would bitch about not being #1-#4, they still can't make the sort of argument Auburn had in 2004, and realistically the teams mentioned as legit contenders don't fall lower than that). The losers of those two games would still get a BCS bid, as they naturally would have before. A great solution that doesn't affect the big-money nature of the BCS, isn't an extreme burden on athletes, and wouldn't be drastic to implement.

posted by PublicUrinal at 11:29 AM on November 27, 2006

That missing school and exams argument is pretty lame. The NCAA has added a game to the regular season schedule, so that is obviously not that much of a concern. Further, other sports like basketball and baseball require that the athletes miss far more school than football, even if you added playoffs. The real concern is that the conferences lose control over this revenue stream that they now have. The money and bowl tie-ins are decided contractually, so that a certain amount of money is guaranteed. Also, the idea that the regular season games would be less important doesn't really fly either because each game would be crucial to assure a team a spot in the playoffs.

posted by bperk at 12:04 PM on November 27, 2006

bperk: The difference here is when. Neither March Madness nor the extra regular-season game kicks in at Finals-time. And I am not going to argue that money isn't the primary concern, but I will argue those other points. I don't expect the system to change, but it is the two cents that hopefully will eventually have enough support from fans to force the NCAA's hand. As for the regular season games, 1-2 losses could still get you into the playoffs or even a third loss in some cases (many argue for a 16-team playoff, and #16 is currently a 3-loss Tennessee), so the meanings would be diminished from the current system where 1 loss is all it takes to knock you out of contention.

posted by PublicUrinal at 12:18 PM on November 27, 2006

Neither March Madness nor the extra regular-season game kicks in at Finals-time. First, March Madness conflicts with finals for many schools that are on the quarter system. Second, bowl games are played during the same weeks that the playoffs would be played. So, either we don't care that much about exams or there aren't a ton of exams between Dec. 19 and the beginning of January. Finally, regardless of whether or not a two or three loss team plays, each college game makes the difference of who will make it to their conference championship, and into the playoffs. Diminishing the regular season is something that only the most casual of fan will do.

posted by bperk at 01:44 PM on November 27, 2006

Based on a chat today with ESPN's BCS guru that I read some of, it sounds like it's all but a given that Notre Dame will get a BCS bid. Looks like Notre Dame will likely get a Rose Bowl invite for a rematch with Michigan or a Sugar Bowl invitation to face the SEC champ. And contrary to what I stated above, if Florida loses to Arkansas (in which case Arkansas will get the auto SEC bid to the Sugar Bowl), the Orange may take Florida for the home-cooking and LSU will be shut out of the BCS (even though it may finish as high as 4th in the BCS standings) based on the 2 max from any conference rule.

posted by holden at 02:42 PM on November 27, 2006

Good point about the quarter system, but it would be nice to point out which schools that are regular contenders in March Madness that follow that system. About the Finals, it just seems as though practicing for 4 games in December leaves less time to study for Finals than playing just one. All the traveling involved would also make it more difficult to schedule make-ups, etc. A 16 team playoff would involve 4 games to be played to decide the winner. The current bowl system takes about 3 weeks. For the playoff system, you either you have to add another week at the beginning of the bowl season or at the end. The best bet would be at the end as several schools are finishing up their exams around the 20th. It just seems like a lot of stress to put on players (and regardless of stereotypes/statistics/etc., and whatever jokes may ensue, it is the NCAA's "mission" to make these athletes succeed in school as well). But again, you said it, the money is the true issue here; player welfare is the PR insert. And for diminishing the regular season, I think it would actually be the case for all but the beyond-casual fans (i.e. those that frequent this forum). The average fan, or bulk of the audience, probably would see it diminish at least somewhat.

posted by PublicUrinal at 03:02 PM on November 27, 2006

And for diminishing the regular season, I think it would actually be the case for all but the beyond-casual fans (i.e. those that frequent this forum). The average fan, or bulk of the audience, probably would see it diminish at least somewhat. I maybe agree more with bperk on this one. If a playoff field was held to 8 or 4, the games throughout the season would still be of great importance in terms of making the field (certainly in a field of 4 only) and in getting a priority seeding (more important in a field of 8, where the no. 1 seed could be much better than the no. 8 seed). Even putting that aside, people still get into college games because of the rivalry aspects. OSU-Michigan will always be a big game, even if the teams are out of the running for the conference championship or national championship, as will Auburn-Alabama, Georgia-Florida, and others. If Alabama had managed to beat Auburn this year, I doubt Shula would have lost his job and I bet the Alabama fans would have looked at the season as somewhat of a success, even though neither team is in the conference/national championship picture. Big time college games are still going to sell out even if there's a playoff at the end of the season and I doubt TV viewership and revenues would be adversely affected, so I'm not sure how the in-season games will be diminished (other than in some abstract sense).

posted by holden at 03:30 PM on November 27, 2006

Looks like Notre Dame will likely get a Rose Bowl invite for a rematch with Michigan That would be vastly hypocritical. Michigan loses to Ohio State by three points and doesn't deserve a rematch, yet a not even deserving Notre Dame team that lost by a whole lot more to Michigan would still get a rematch. When a team like Wisconsin (number seven in the BCS) gets shut out because of certain restrictions on the amount of teams that can come from a conference, and a poor at large team like Notre Dame makes it; it proves the BCS is fucked up. Of course Wisconsin is probably overrated as well since they didn't have to play Ohio State.

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 05:14 PM on November 27, 2006

That would be vastly hypocritical. Michigan loses to Ohio State by three points and doesn't deserve a rematch, yet a not even deserving Notre Dame team that lost by a whole lot more to Michigan would still get a rematch. By that logic everyone who lost to anyone should demand a rematch and then no one would play anyone. Also, we get it that you don't like Notre Dame. Fantastic. I'm sorry they raped your mom or whatever, but let it go. Money talks.

posted by yerfatma at 06:11 AM on November 28, 2006

By that logic everyone who lost to anyone should demand a rematch and then no one would play anyone. How exactly did my comment imply that?

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 09:55 AM on November 28, 2006

Every year, some team takes some lumps or worse, undeservedly. Michigan's destiny was in their own hands, and they failed. Beat OSU, and the world is their oyster. As it is, their fate will be decided by the computers and writers of the BCS, and while not perfect, all teams know the nuances of how it works, ie: a late season loss is more damning than an early season loss, strength of schedule means much, etc. etc. To Lloyd Carr's credit, he has acknowledged this, and to Michigan, I say, if you couldn't win that game for Bo, then them's the breaks.

posted by mjkredliner at 10:42 AM on November 28, 2006

How exactly did my comment imply that? If Michigan should get a rematch with Ohio State simply because Notre Dame got a rematch with a team they lost to . . . what's to stop everyone else from demanding the same treatment?

posted by yerfatma at 01:12 PM on November 28, 2006

Only Notre Dame gets this kind of treatment because they reportedly have such a huge fan base. It seems crazy that ND would get in because their performance in "big" games this season was pretty lackluster.

posted by bperk at 03:06 PM on November 28, 2006

Happens every year they are above .500, simply because of the ratings and ticket sales they bring with them. I can't excuse it, but I dunno how it would get fixed without a playoff system. And even then . . .

posted by yerfatma at 04:04 PM on November 28, 2006

I can't agree with any of the arguments that a playoff system would be difficult to implement because of academic conflicts (finals, etc.) The most obvious counter to this is, "How do the 1AA schools do it?" Many of the 1AA schools consider their academic performance to be more important than their football performance, yet they willingly participate in the post-season. Their student-athletes don't seem to suffer. The second counter is that if finals are the only obstacle, the college can provide copies of the exams to be taken on the road, and proctors could be provided. The athletes miss class time for every road game during the regular season, yet they make it up. The same can be done for the post-season. The third counter-argument is that many student-athletes take a fifth year to complete their degree requirements. Thus, they can take a reduced course load during the fall semester, and make up for it in their fifth year. Red-shirts do this regularly.

posted by Howard_T at 08:42 AM on November 29, 2006

If Michigan should get a rematch with Ohio State simply because Notre Dame got a rematch with a team they lost to . . . what's to stop everyone else from demanding the same treatment? I didn't say Michigan should get a rematch. I said its hypocritical to say Michigan doesn't deserve one but then have Notre Dame face Michigan in a bowl game.

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 05:29 PM on November 29, 2006

Spot on, Howard_T.

posted by ctal1999 at 08:29 PM on November 29, 2006

Personally, I hate change. I have always been a Big Ten Fan (Buckeye Fan). I hated when the BCS was introduced. It made all the bowl games that were the crowning events of a successful college football season seem diminished. It made the pinnacle "New Years Day Bowls" take a back seat something that is no more conclusive than we've had in the past 100 years of college football. And now the fans as a whole want something more. They want no more arguements about who should play. The BCS was supposed to bring that. It didn't. Will a playoff put number one vs. number 2? Maybe, maybe not, but it will take away any argument about who the "REAL" champion is when the dust has cleared. I personally don't want a playoff. I like the idea of people in different parts of the country arguing on behalf of their team being the number one team in nation. I dont remember what year it was, but even in a post BCS era time when Michigan, and Nebraska had a split Championship,(something the BCS was supposed to eliminate, but couldn't) what was so bad about fans knowing in their hearts that their team was the only true national champion? I miss the bowl games of my youth. I miss the days when saying that The Rose Bowl was the grand daddy of em all, actually meant something. This year there will be 32 bowl games out there. How ridiculus is that?! at least 19 teams will be in bowl games with 6-6 records. Why bother? I remember a few years back when Toledo was 10-1, and ranked 25th in the nation, and didn't get invited to a bowl game. That was the first time that a ranked team didn't get invited to a bowl game in college football history. They didn't win the MAC Championship game. They didn't earn the trip. The Bowl Games today are a joke. The BCS is just sad. The BCS made all the once prestigeous bowl games irrelevant. Now that all the bowl games are irrelevant, why not make them all irrelevant by creating the most pethetic matchups in bowl history, by "Oh i don't know" "Lets have 32 meaningless Bowl Games". I hate change. Do we need a playoff? In my opinion; no. Is the BCS good on any level? no. Send in the clowns. (Oh wait. they already did that during the Oklahoma vs Oregon game). Officials like that make me wonder why we even argue for a playoff system.....In my opinion; Ohio State is the best team in the country this season. They are undefeated and earned there trip to the national championship. If USC beats UCLA and is the PAC 10 champs, having out of conferrence wins over 3 ranked teams, two of which will play in their conference championships, ie; Nebraska (Big 12), and Arkansas (SEC), there can be no arguement that they have not earned a trip to the national championship against the Buckeyes. Florida's non-conference schedual was a joke. Michigan didn't win their conference, and their only good non-conference win was against a Notre Dame team that was also decimated by USC. USC has earned the right to be the sacrificial lamb to Ohio State. Peace.

posted by PK Toledo at 10:09 PM on November 29, 2006

You're not logged in. Please log in or register.