The MWC Proposal to Reform the BCS

Donate To GopherHole


I'm just happy the dialogue is moving up a notch. We now have a conference saying what alot of people are thinking. The ND thing is wacky, I agree. If they want equal footing join a damn conference, or roll the die with at large selection.
 

Schnoodler said:
I'm just happy the dialogue is moving up a notch. We now have a conference saying what alot of people are thinking. The ND thing is wacky, I agree. If they want equal footing join a damn conference, or roll the die with at large selection.
Click to expand...

Personally, I belive this proposal is a step-backward. It is an early indication of just how totally unreasonable the non-BCS conferences are going to be in negotiation a tournamnent or playoff. I don't have much hope for a deal ever getting done after reading that crap.

This proposal doesn't put Notre Dame on "equal footing," it gives them slightly more power than the entire Big Ten Conference on the new BCS committee. It looks like the MWC is "buying off" Notre Dame to gain a key ally in a proposal that is otherwise blatantly in the best interest of only the MWC.
 

but you know it's another voice in the crowd. It's clearly a system that is unfair to a great many teams and conferences. This proposal says everybody deserves a shot and your system prevents that. It also puts down in black and white what is possible. It at least is something where people stop talking about 'if' and start talking about 'how'. I think that's an important step.

It will force the NCAA to at least address the basic question if all teams deserve a fair shot or if we're going to continue with the elite class and the sub-class format we have now.

Quite frankly I'm happy with whatever movement. If all we get is a plus one format now that is positive. But it won't end until every conference has a shot at inclusion. And since the BCS conferences won't give up their advantage that means 8 teams plus at large. We're looking at a 12-16 team format eventually. It's only a matter of time. We may as well see the proposals so we can sort through them. this is a start, not the end.

the first hurdle in my mind is to get conferences to admit that playing more than one post season game is acceptable. It's been an argument against expanding to a tourney format. Here is a conference that says not only is two games OK but so is three.

My preference is for a 24 team format. 8 teams with byes (BCS conference winners) and 8 play in games. Everybody is frikken happy and it is very unlikly that anyone plays more than three. the big Bowls get premium games as quarter finals, they make more dough with greater national interest. And three more games get created generating huge revenues.
 


I think the MWC proposal is a great starting point to a conversation about a playoff. And it does a great job of working with the existing system and moving it forward incrementally:

1. There are still 10 teams going to BCS games.
2. The Rose, Fiesta, Orange and Sugar Bowls still get to play on 1/1 and host their associated teams if possible.
3. It makes it a true playoff between the top 8 teams. Yes, there will be complaining about who should be the 7th and 8th teams, etc., but it's far less relevant than arguing about who's the 2nd vs. 3rd team.

And Goldmember, I think you're overreacting a bit about the Notre Dame thing. They aren't given any special privileges beyond being treated as a conference. The MAC and Sun Belt conferences also gets a rep on the board that Notre Dame is on. ND would still have to finish in the top 10 of the BCS to get into the playoff.

Ultimately, I'd like to see at least a 12 or 16 team playoff, but a 8 team playoff would be a great starting point to that.
 

Sounds to me like the MWC is trying to become a BSC conference. There proposal isn't going to happen there whole AQ conference seems like they are trying to put them on the level with the Big 12, SEC, Big 10, Pac 10 while trying to push out the rest of the non-BCS conference under the bus. And it gives ND way to much power. Personally I think the less power ND has the better. I know why people want a playoff but I just don't think it will happen. Last time they won a bowl game that meant something was about 20 years ago. Personally I think the rest of the BCS should tell them to get off there high horse. If they really don't want to join a conference then they can play a decent schudule out side of USC, UM, MSU, and Purdue.

My solution is what I believe the most likely.
1A. Get rid of Fox as the boardcasters of the BCS, I don't want to see Joe Buck call my NC game give me Brent Musburger.
1B. You add a 5th BCS bowl(My vote Cotton)
2. You keep the tie-in system so Pac-10 and the Big 10 still play in the Rose for the current BCS conferences
3. Play all 5 bowls on Dec 31 though Jan 2(depending on how the week falls) for example Cotton on Dec 31 Rose on Jan 1 afternoon, Suger that night, Fiesta the 2nd and Orange rotates.
4. After the 5 BSC games are played they have one final ranking of all the 10 team in BCS bowls.
5. The top 2 schools are annouced. Have a selection Sunday type show the public would eat it up.
6. Allow 2 weeks for the excitement to build. Then have the NC game at a true neutral site meaning LSU couldn't play in New Orleans, USC couldn't play in LA, none of the Florida teams could play in Miami.
7. Winner of that game gets the crystal football and declaired National Champions.

Everyone wins. Look ever one will complain because some team didn't get in. More $$$, more good football, hopefully less drama.
 

mnboiler said:
Sounds to me like the MWC is trying to become a BSC conference. There proposal isn't going to happen there whole AQ conference seems like they are trying to put them on the level with the Big 12, SEC, Big 10, Pac 10 while trying to push out the rest of the non-BCS conference under the bus. And it gives ND way to much power. Personally I think the less power ND has the better. I know why people want a playoff but I just don't think it will happen. Last time they won a bowl game that meant something was about 20 years ago. Personally I think the rest of the BCS should tell them to get off there high horse. If they really don't want to join a conference then they can play a decent schudule out side of USC, UM, MSU, and Purdue.

My solution is what I believe the most likely.
1A. Get rid of Fox as the boardcasters of the BCS, I don't want to see Joe Buck call my NC game give me Brent Musburger.
1B. You add a 5th BCS bowl(My vote Cotton)
2. You keep the tie-in system so Pac-10 and the Big 10 still play in the Rose for the current BCS conferences
3. Play all 5 bowls on Dec 31 though Jan 2(depending on how the week falls) for example Cotton on Dec 31 Rose on Jan 1 afternoon, Suger that night, Fiesta the 2nd and Orange rotates.
4. After the 5 BSC games are played they have one final ranking of all the 10 team in BCS bowls.
5. The top 2 schools are annouced. Have a selection Sunday type show the public would eat it up.
6. Allow 2 weeks for the excitement to build. Then have the NC game at a true neutral site meaning LSU couldn't play in New Orleans, USC couldn't play in LA, none of the Florida teams could play in Miami.
7. Winner of that game gets the crystal football and declaired National Champions.

Everyone wins. Look ever one will complain because some team didn't get in. More $$$, more good football, hopefully less drama.
Click to expand...

A plus one format is likely the first step so I'm OK with it. Just realize that a championship game is a major event and will need considerable planning. As such they won't be able to pick the venue at last minute. So a home field scenario can't be avoided other than by luck.
 

As long as the northern teams get to play multiple post season "home" games or their fans have dramatically reduced travel costs (it'll never happen). One bowl game can stress a check book enough for the typical fan. Now by this proposal, triple the fans' cost. Not a big deal if you're a fan of a team like UCLA or USC or Texas where you can sleep at home and drive to the game each week. What would happen is the current BCS games would have much lower attendance from distant universities - those fans would hope their team won and could go to the NC game instead of the meaningless BCS bowl game.
 



I think you'll see a similar showing like you do in basketball. What you lose in team support (if at all) you gain in national and local support. Adding meaning to the bowl games by making them apart of a tournament should make them a more attractive event.

who knows what possibilitied exist. Maybe the play two games in the same venue in the same weekend. It's just the beginning of the dialogue. It if ends up happening the marketing guys will get their say. i think plenty o' money will be made.
 

I know that events like a BCS Championship games takes a whole lot of planning. That's why my idea is that you have a primary site and alternate site. For example the Rose Bowl would be the primary site and if USC or ULCA get in the national championship game they game would move to an alternate site say Dolphins Stadium then next time Dolphins Stadium gets in the normal rotation of NC games it goes to the Rose Bowl instead.

As for fans support that is a risk a fan would have to take. Say for example that Minnesota was playing Cal in the Rose Bowl and if the Gophers win they have a ligit shot at the NC game. Fans would have to make a decision if they would rather take a sure thing and go to the Rose Bowl or risk it and wait for the chance at the NC game. It would be the same concern if they had neutral site playoff games.
 

8 game playoff is the way to go. Anyone outside the top 8 really shouldn't have an argument and at the same time by making it only 8 it preserves a lot of pressure to get wins during the regular season.
 

A prescription for controversy if ever there was one. There is no perfect system, but I've always liked the "plus-one" format for a four-team playoff, utilizing the bowls, based on polls. It pulls together the old and the new.
 



I don't think their proposal is unreasonable. It's a proposal that suits their interests, but in any negotiation, you put forward what you want first, then you negotiate. If you give up too much at the beginning, you have little room to negotiate without giving everything up.

I do think that there shou be some criteria for teams to gain or lose status as a BCS conference, or perhaps the whole idea of a BCS conference should be scrapped. But the MWC's idea of how to determine who is an AQ conference has some flaws. It would encourage teams to play the weakest members of AQ conferences. And if a conference did lose AQ status, wouldn't that screw over those teams that had them on their schedule? You would have scheduled games expecting that they would be against BCS teams, only to find that they are no longer BCS teams by the time the season comes up.

Maybe the MWC could raid the best of the WAC, and ship a few bottom teams over to the WAC
 

16FeetUnder said:
As long as the northern teams get to play multiple post season "home" games or their fans have dramatically reduced travel costs (it'll never happen). One bowl game can stress a check book enough for the typical fan. Now by this proposal, triple the fans' cost. Not a big deal if you're a fan of a team like UCLA or USC or Texas where you can sleep at home and drive to the game each week. What would happen is the current BCS games would have much lower attendance from distant universities - those fans would hope their team won and could go to the NC game instead of the meaningless BCS bowl game.
Click to expand...

16feetunder,

i enjoyed reading your rational post...amid the chattering nonsense...:D:D:D
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom