BCS Changes

Submitted by InterWebZ-Troll on

I just wanted to see how people felt about how the current system is set up. I ran through a couple of  scenarios in my head. I am sure many people will have better ideas, but I thought I would throw mine out there. 

 

1) You play your schedule as normal
2) Everyone schedules your last game as Rivals Weekend
3) You are then power seeded by the Pollsters after rival weekend
4) Teams are broken up into Rival Blue and Rival Red (interchangeable with east, west etc...)
5) Rivals are put on separate sides of the division so that in the end there is a chance to play them in the BCS Bowl Championship
5a) Rivals would be classified as non divisional opponents 
5b) Changing of Divisions may need to take place to insure the biggest rivals could meet in the BCS Bowl Championship
5c) Rivalries would also need to be power ranked in case there was a conflict of having them on Rivalry Red or Blue to determine which side would have more meaning
 
I see it brings back the importance of Rival Week and keeps the tradition of having it the last week in November. That means even if you have won your division and could sit out your starters. You could drop 4,5,6 or more seeding places. How many teams would be willing to do that? You take the BCS Championship out of the hands of the Pollsters. This also gives scheduling more importance, rival games more meaning, a true winner to the BCS Championship, teams who would never play each other a golden chance to showcase their talent. It sets up a possible rival BCS National Championships.
 
 
MGoBoard
Football

NomadicBlue

August 26th, 2010 at 7:39 AM ^

But it didn't stick when I hit Save and I am too lazy this morning to try and type it all again.  So, here is the summary: this is a retarded idea.  Rivalry considerations should only come into play when splitting up a conference.  Season ends, teams are seeded according to rank (probably BCS).  Try harder next time. 

Joined: 05/07/2010

MGoPoints: 3836

931 S State

August 26th, 2010 at 8:02 AM ^

Your idea is hardly clear.  I can't figure out if you're talking about the Big Ten or all BCS conferences.  Either way, it seems ridiculously complicated and subjective.  I hate subjectivity/pollsters.  

BCS Change I'd like to see:

4 16-team super conferences, each with 4 divisions.  Each division champ is seeded into a 4-team conference playoff.  Each conference champ plays in a 4-team BCS playoff at 3 of the 4 BCS bowl stadiums.  The current bowl system is maintained, with the non-playoff BCS bowl getting to choose it's top 2 ranked non-conference champs.

If they don't want that....i'd rather just go back to Big 10/Pac-10 Rose Bowl and opt-out of the BCS all together.

Joined: 09/01/2009

MGoPoints: 1964

Anunbiasedfan

August 26th, 2010 at 11:17 AM ^

I would much prefer a playoff, with 16 teams, but outside of a playoff, I would like to see the BCS give much more weight to playing quality, out of conference opponents.  I would like to see the system modified such that there is an incentive to playing good BCS opponents.  Maybe take away BSC formula points if a teams play more than one non-BCS conference opponent , and give extra points more playing BCS non-conference opponents, and extra points for away games at BCS conference opponents.  The thing I dislike the most about the BCS is the quality of non-conference games that are played now.  I remember back in the 80's when the power schools would actually play each other in the non-conference. 

Back in 1991, Michigan played Boston College, Notre Dame, and Florida State in the non-conference.  In 1989 and 1990 we played Notre Dame, UCLA, and Maryland.  In 1988 we played Notre Dame, Miami FL, and Wake Forest.  It used to be that the ACC was our easy game.  I miss the days when we played quality opponents week in and week out. 

Joined: 11/23/2009

MGoPoints: 11