BCS source: Playoff 'gets done' as part of new contract Read more: http://aol.sporti

[popeyoung5]

Plus One! Final BCS rankings, #4 plays #1 and 3 plays 2 in a new years bcs bowls. Those winners play for the NC a week later. If You finish #5 in the BCS, oh well, You are out.

 

[RodentRampage]

I think anything more than a +3 will result in the near complete destruction of college football as we know it.

The interest in a major bowl that is not part of a playoff will be the same as the current interest in the capital one / gator / outback bowl. Then they will say, "why not start the playoffs right after the season?". Once they do that the (remaining) bowl games that now will occur after the championship will become the pro bowl. Once that happens, most of them will fold, and a team will be out of contention once they are 0-2 or 0-3 making all non-rivalry games pointless. And we'll have ruined college football.

People seem pretty interested in the Capital One, Gator One and the Outback Bowls. Starting the playoffs at the end of the regular season seems like a pretty good idea. Waiting weeks doesn't make a lot of sense. Why would they become the Pro Bowl? Few people would care about the Pro Bowl no matter when it was played. People don't care about the Pro Bowl because they care little about all star games, and because the players care little about it. People will watch the bowl games to watch their teams.

As it is, one loss and you're out of contention. By your reasoning, the Gophers final game against Illinois was "pointless", after all, the Gophers were out of contention for a bowl.

 

[Goldmember]

Follow the money:

All of the "proposals" for a playoff in this thread fail to consider the fact that whatever system is created will be crafted exclusively by two negoitiating interests:

1. the Big10/Pac12 cooperative
2. the SEC

And I don't see how that produces anything other than a "plus-one" that gives the Big Ten and Pac 12 champions automatic berths in the Rose Bowl (which becomes a semi-final to the NCG).

 

[mplsbadger]

As it is, one loss and you're out of contention. By your reasoning, the Gophers final game against Illinois was "pointless", after all, the Gophers were out of contention for a bowl.

I was saying that if there were no bowls and only an eight or 16 teams playoff, three losses and you're out. In today's world you are playing for a bowl until you have 6 losses.

 

[Formo]

Ratings for BCS games on ESPN:

NCG: 13.8 (16.1 last year)
Rose Bowl: 11.8 (13.1 last year)
Fiesta Bowl: 9.0 (6.7 last year)
Sugar Bowl: 7.0 (9.5 last year)
Orange Bowl: 5.3 (7.1 last year)

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/spor...e-watching-2012-bcs-bowl-games-say-tv-ratings

Money talks, and if this year is any indication, it's shrinking. Way to go ESPN!

Thank you!!!

ESPN is ruining the bowl season for me, and big. I couldn't believe that the BIGGEST EFFING GAME IN COLLEGE FOOTBALL was NOT on an over-the-air broadcast. Un-effing-believable.

That is the only change I ask for right now.. For NCAA FBS football to drop ESPN as a broadcast partner.

 

[MNGoldenGophers1]

8-Team playoff pitting teams from the Rose, Orange, Sugar and Fiesta using traditional conference match ups from the 6 "power" conferences (e.g., B1G vs. PAC12 in the Rose) plus 2 at large bids which could from within or outside the "power" conferences. This would protect the bowls (at least the relevant ones), make the non- conference schdule irrelevant, and the conference games would be even more meaningful which is the way it should be! Too damn bad if you're ND or a team from one of the lame conferences (e.g., USA, WAC, Mountain West, etc.). These lesser conferences don't have the week in and week out rigor of the "power" conferences (that means you Boise State!). Either you get in one of the "power" conferences or hope for one of the at large bids. Sorry, anything else is nonsense.

 

[GophersInIowa]

Something interesting to look at. There have now been 14 BCS championship games played.
- In the 14 games, there were just three years where the two teams playing in the NC were the only undefeated teams after the regular season.
- In five years there was at least one undefeated team not playing in the NC. All of these instances has happened in the past 8 seasons.
- In five years just one of the teams playing in the NC was undefeated while the other had a loss.
- One season (2007) there was no undefeated teams going into the championship game.
- Since 2004, only 57% of regular season undefeated teams have had a chance to play for the National Championship. Most of those teams are non-BCS teams, however.

 

[GophersInIowa]

Thank you!!!

ESPN is ruining the bowl season for me, and big. I couldn't believe that the BIGGEST EFFING GAME IN COLLEGE FOOTBALL was NOT on an over-the-air broadcast. Un-effing-believable.

That is the only change I ask for right now.. For NCAA FBS football to drop ESPN as a broadcast partner.

I'm curious why it matters so much. Do you not have ESPN? If it was on ABC, wouldn't it be pretty much the same broadcast?

 

[Formo]

I'm curious why it matters so much. Do you not have ESPN? If it was on ABC, wouldn't it be pretty much the same broadcast?

Yes, I do not have ESPN. And that's my emotional gripe. I also don't like the monopoly that ESPN has on most of the major bowl games. I like NBC's football (and sports) broadcasting. Lets get some games there.

I just really dislike the "mothership's" business tactics.

 

[Lakeville Goldy]

A lot of people have proposed that teams in the playoffs that lose should still go to BCS bowl games. I really don't think this is realistic. Think about this - if WI and OR had both lost in the playoffs and then met in the Rose Bowl - who would care, outside of WI and OR? The BCS bowl games become a consolation round. The money from those games would dry up due to lack of interest.

Also, I don't believe the money from a playoff game (other than the title game) would be as much as a BCS bowl game. Yes the bowl organizers take a cut, but in return the advertising that is poured into the game (that they find) creates significant revenue. There would not be the money pumped in from local businesses, because before the conference title games no one would know where the games are. I also question whether a first round game between OK St and Stanford gets the same ratings as a bowl game between OK St and Stanford, for example.

Someone made a point about losing money at bowl games. That does happen, but only applies to the bottom of the barrel games. Teams choose to go to even those bottom barrel ones because it is very cheap advertising and it bolsters the reputation of the school (plus you get extra practices which helps the product on the field going forward). Also, here's where being in a conference helps. The B1G not only allows schools to take out cost of travel before the prize money is split up with the other teams, but they cover any losses by schools that went to bowl games before the money is split up. I know the U of MN lost a little money going to the Insight Bowl last time, and the B1G covered that (although it was very close to break even). The reason is because the B1G considers it advertising and recognizes the importance of having teams at bowl games.

 

[westcoastgopher11]

A lot of people have proposed that teams in the playoffs that lose should still go to BCS bowl games. I really don't think this is realistic. Think about this - if WI and OR had both lost in the playoffs and then met in the Rose Bowl - who would care, outside of WI and OR? The BCS bowl games become a consolation round. The money from those games would dry up due to lack of interest.

Also, I don't believe the money from a playoff game (other than the title game) would be as much as a BCS bowl game. Yes the bowl organizers take a cut, but in return the advertising that is poured into the game (that they find) creates significant revenue. There would not be the money pumped in from local businesses, because before the conference title games no one would know where the games are. I also question whether a first round game between OK St and Stanford gets the same ratings as a bowl game between OK St and Stanford, for example.

Someone made a point about losing money at bowl games. That does happen, but only applies to the bottom of the barrel games. Teams choose to go to even those bottom barrel ones because it is very cheap advertising and it bolsters the reputation of the school (plus you get extra practices which helps the product on the field going forward). Also, here's where being in a conference helps. The B1G not only allows schools to take out cost of travel before the prize money is split up with the other teams, but they cover any losses by schools that went to bowl games before the money is split up. I know the U of MN lost a little money going to the Insight Bowl last time, and the B1G covered that (although it was very close to break even). The reason is because the B1G considers it advertising and recognizes the importance of having teams at bowl games.

I think that teams would still get up for a BCS game, its the fricking Rose Bowl! And as it stands the BCS games SHOULD be a step below the national championship in stature, not to the point where no one cares about them, but I can't see that being the case. They are still excellent inter-conference matchups, regardless of the stakes and teams want to play there, especially if it brings with it top8-10 status.

If you gave me a choice between playing in the National Championship or the Rose Bowl the decision is easy. If you tell me that the Rose Bowl is a redemption game, it doesn't lose any of its luster imo.

 

[Goldmember]

The likliest of all scenarios is that the BCS is disolved entirely, and the system returns to what we had in 1997-98. Frankly, those who matter don't need it any longer.

This would be a beautiful thing. Because all the people who claim that they "hate the BCS" will go bananas and cry and whine for its return.

 

[GophersInIowa]

A lot of people have proposed that teams in the playoffs that lose should still go to BCS bowl games. I really don't think this is realistic. Think about this - if WI and OR had both lost in the playoffs and then met in the Rose Bowl - who would care, outside of WI and OR? The BCS bowl games become a consolation round. The money from those games would dry up due to lack of interest.

I don't get it, how is that any different than it was this year? The Wisconsin-Oregon game this season meant nothing in terms of the National Championship. I guess then, why did anyone outside of Wisconsin and Oregon care about the game?

Other than the BCS NC game, all other bowl games now are essentially exhibitions. I just don't see how that changes things a whole lot.

 

[Formo]

The likliest of all scenarios is that the BCS is disolved entirely, and the system returns to what we had in 1997-98. Frankly, those who matter don't need it any longer.

This would be a beautiful thing. Because all the people who claim that they "hate the BCS" will go bananas and cry and whine for its return.

lol Oh, you think that too?

 

[John Galt]

Before the BCS, it seemed that every other year there were two undefeated teams at the end of the season that never played, and it was exclusively up to the voters to decide who was #1. Prime example is last year, where under the traditional bowl system Oregon and Auburn never would have played and the writers would annoint a champion. The BCS solved this to some degree. It's far from perfect, as once in a while there are more than 2 undefeated teams, but I'd rather argue about which 1-loss team deserves to be in the game vs. a worthy undefeated team from a large conference not getting a shot.

 

[station19]

I don't get it, how is that any different than it was this year? The Wisconsin-Oregon game this season meant nothing in terms of the National Championship. I guess then, why did anyone outside of Wisconsin and Oregon care about the game?

Other than the BCS NC game, all other bowl games now are essentially exhibitions. I just don't see how that changes things a whole lot.

They always were.

 

[Goldmember]

Before the BCS, it seemed that every other year there were two undefeated teams at the end of the season that never played, and it was exclusively up to the voters to decide who was #1. Prime example is last year, where under the traditional bowl system Oregon and Auburn never would have played and the writers would annoint a champion. The BCS solved this to some degree. It's far from perfect, as once in a while there are more than 2 undefeated teams, but I'd rather argue about which 1-loss team deserves to be in the game vs. a worthy undefeated team from a large conference not getting a shot.

This is the slippery slope that Delaney is talking about. It is dumbfounding that people actually think Okie State deserved a shot at the NCG. They had one game in the North and they lost. How many games does Okie State lose if they play a BigTen schedule. Or, for that matter, an SEC schedule

Four teams will not be good enough as soon as it is implemented because we will have a season where the final rankings look something like this:

1. Texas 11-1
2. Florida 11-1
3. Boise State 12-0
4. Michigan 11-1
5. Alabama 11-1
6. LSU 11-1
7. Ball State 13-0
8. USC 11-1
9. Oklahoma 11-1
10. Georgia 11-2 (SEC Champion)
...
27. North Carolina 8-5 (ACC Champion)

 

[BBQ Platypus]

I'd be fine with either 4 or 8 teams. The heart of the controversy is usually that there are 3 or 4 teams with a solid claim of having a right to play in the NCG, but only two slots. 16 teams would be too many.

 

[dpodoll68]

It is dumbfounding that people actually think Okie State deserved a shot at the NCG.

No, it's not. While there is no truly objective way to measure the relative quality of the teams, the computers are the closest thing we have, and nearly all of them (5/7 among those used in the BCS rankings) had OSU 2nd over Alabama after all the conference championship games had been played. OSU played a much (much) tougher schedule than did Alabama, and both finished the regular season 11-1. I do agree that Alabama was probably better, but there's no way to prove it under the current system. And that's why the current system sucks.

 

[RailBaronYarr]

No, it's not. While there is no truly objective way to measure the relative quality of the teams, the computers are the closest thing we have, and nearly all of them (5/7 among those used in the BCS rankings) had OSU 2nd over Alabama after all the conference championship games had been played. OSU played a much (much) tougher schedule than did Alabama, and both finished the regular season 11-1. I do agree that Alabama was probably better, but there's no way to prove it under the current system. And that's why the current system sucks.

Definitely agree with the first part of this. The computers, which look objectively at teams played in and out of conference can see which schedules are most difficult. SEC wasn't it this year (even the SEC-west weighted schedule that bama played).

I don't think the current system sucks any more than a system where an 18-0 team that loses the Superbowl is not the best team in the country when its only loss came in a very close game to a 13-6 Giants team. Both systems are flawed since neither is guaranteed to have the best 2 teams in the country playing each other for the championship.

 

[Formo]

Definitely agree with the first part of this. The computers, which look objectively at teams played in and out of conference can see which schedules are most difficult. SEC wasn't it this year (even the SEC-west weighted schedule that bama played).

I don't think the current system sucks any more than a system where an 18-0 team that loses the Superbowl is not the best team in the country when its only loss came in a very close game to a 13-6 Giants team. Both systems are flawed since neither is guaranteed to have the best 2 teams in the country playing each other for the championship.

Yup. But in this years case, the 2 best teams in the country played each other.

ISU < LSU. Sorry, OkieSt, you had your chance.

 

[RailBaronYarr]

Yup. But in this years case, the 2 best teams in the country played each other.

ISU < LSU. Sorry, OkieSt, you had your chance.

So now that Alabama won one game on a neutral field and LSU won one game on the road AT Alabama, which one is the best team? You could make the argument that LSU's strength of schedule (including WVU and Oregon in their NC games) beats Alabama's, PLUS they played UGA in the SEC championship game. That time off game Alabama an extra week to rest and prepare for LSU. You could make the case that Alabama "already had their chance" at LSU directly and lost. OkSt didn't. Just sayin'.

 

[Goldmember]

Definitely agree with the first part of this. The computers, which look objectively at teams played in and out of conference can see which schedules are most difficult. SEC wasn't it this year (even the SEC-west weighted schedule that bama played).

The "computers" (which is a widely-used misnomer for formulas) are based on human polls (the basis of determining an opponent's quality). So it is not at all true that they are objective. They may be the "best we can do" towards objectivity, but they are still only one small step removed from what is essentially nothing more than a political process. So how much are either the formulas or the human polls really worth?

Let's consider, instead, the overall strength of the programs in each conference (admittedly, a difficult thing to quantify, but the Forbes list is a good start). The SEC has 8 of the 20 most powerful programs in college football. The Big Ten has 7. The Big 12 had only 3 this year (and will only have 2 in the future). Regardless of what the polls, ranking, computers, formulas, politicians or "strength of schdule" rankings have to say on the matter, the SEC is a substantially tougher conference.

Obviously Forbes value estimates are not an ideal measure. But almost any measurement of strength would suggest the SEC has about 3-5x as many top-tier programs.

 

[dpodoll68]

The "computers" are based on human polls

I'm not sure where you got this idea, but this is absolutely not true.

http://www.bcsknowhow.com/tag/explanation

http://www.colleyrankings.com/matrate.pdf

If the computer rankings were based on polls, there would be no need for one or the other. It would be a Department of Redundancy Department.

 

[Formo]

So now that Alabama won one game on a neutral field and LSU won one game on the road AT Alabama, which one is the best team? You could make the argument that LSU's strength of schedule (including WVU and Oregon in their NC games) beats Alabama's, PLUS they played UGA in the SEC championship game. That time off game Alabama an extra week to rest and prepare for LSU. You could make the case that Alabama "already had their chance" at LSU directly and lost. OkSt didn't. Just sayin'.

This logic is so full of fail. At the time Bama/LSU first played, it was only for the #1 ranking for the following week.. That's ALL that was at stake during that game (outside of pride, of course). It was never pre-destined that Bama/LSU were going to play again for the NC.

Again, LSU > ISU. No matter how you slice it.

 

[howeda7]

Yup. But in this years case, the 2 best teams in the country played each other.

ISU < LSU. Sorry, OkieSt, you had your chance.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but did OK State not lose that game the same day their WBB coach was killed in a plane crash? It seems this was not discussed much, but I find it hard to believe that had zero impact in how they played that night. I think they win that game 9 times out of 10.

 

[dpodoll68]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but did OK State not lose that game the same day their WBB coach was killed in a plane crash? It seems this was not discussed much, but I find it hard to believe that had zero impact in how they played that night. I think they win that game 9 times out of 10.

Well, the plane crash was the day before, but your point is correct and still stands.

 

[Formo]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but did OK State not lose that game the same day their WBB coach was killed in a plane crash? It seems this was not discussed much, but I find it hard to believe that had zero impact in how they played that night. I think they win that game 9 times out of 10.

Yup. And they very well could (and should) have beaten ISU. I agree that 9 times out of 10 they beat the Cyclones. But, as the old saying goes.. If my aunt had a penis, she'd be my uncle. I was pretty miffed that OkieSt lost that game because it meant they weren't getting in the NCG without some help from Bama losing another one (I think I was worried about another team too at the time).

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

I realize that I have a really unpopular opinion of the system, but I kind of like how it's set up now. I think the entire season is essentially a tournament. I like the idea that you could tune into a OK St. v. Iowa St. football game on a (I believe Friday night, maybe Thur) and it was essentially a playoff game. It was as important as any game in the season and those teams had to play like it was a playoff game.

I liked watching LSU / Oregon, the first week of the season and it being treated like a playoff game. I LOVED watching MSU beat WI and knowing that their Nat'l Championship hopes were gone.

I think that it often pits the two most deserving teams against eachother.

If they change anything, I think the plus 1 is the best case scenario.

They shouldn't add more games before the bowls, that's finals period. They shouldn't go much later than they do right now. I can't think of many years where that wouldn't have totally resolved the issue.

 

[RedPoo]

...I don't think the current system sucks any more than a system where an 18-0 team that loses the Superbowl is not the best team in the country when its only loss came in a very close game to a 13-6 Giants team. Both systems are flawed since neither is guaranteed to have the best 2 teams in the country playing each other for the championship.

I'll take that a step further: This system sucks a LOT less than a system where an 18-1 team isn't considered the champion because they lot ONE GAME to a team that finished 14-6. To anyone that argues that a playoff wouldn't diminish the importance of the regular season, that's the only thing you need to look at. It most definitely would, as it does every single year in every other major team sport in America.

This system is far from perfect, but for my money, it's also hands-down the best one in american team sports.