BCS Question for Brian
Brian,
You seem to be plugged in or as knowledgeable as any person in regards to the BCS. I have a few questions for you.
It's my understanding that the BCS expires in 2014. Other than the million dollar question of whether it will continue to exist, my question is when will we learn if it is extended?
Is it something that the BCS/NCAA will announce on a slow news day in 2013 that the BCS has been extended another 7 years or will it actually expire and then be renewed?
Do you feel there any real shot of a playoff (i.e. >35%)?
If they keep the BCS (sigh), what tweaks would you expect to see?
December 5th, 2011 at 1:55 PM ^
I think you meant to click the "Contact" button above before writing this...
December 5th, 2011 at 2:30 PM ^
Michigan blog to receive an intelligent response.
I have read a lot of Rational MSU fan's posts, I think we can convert him. Then he will truly be "rational".
December 5th, 2011 at 3:14 PM ^
There's only so much you can do to help the natives. Some things are just out of reach of your rationality.
December 5th, 2011 at 1:58 PM ^
I'm not sure why an MSU fan would have any interest in what happens with BCS games.
December 5th, 2011 at 2:05 PM ^
nice MSU posters out there.
(I did laugh though.)
December 5th, 2011 at 2:12 PM ^
I left my internet etiquette manual out back.
December 5th, 2011 at 2:04 PM ^
I'm not Brian, obviously, but I would love to see removing the non-title games from the BCS lineup. Make the Sugar Bowl SEC #1 v B1G #2, Fiesta can be BXII #1 v SEC #2, Jerry Jones can bring back the Cotton for Pac #2 and BXII #2 and the Orange can...who knows, non-AQ #1 v ACC #1? Let replacements for the title game come from within those conferences. I'd much rather play a Michigan-Arkansas Sugar Bowl than play a Michigan-Virginia Tech game.
December 5th, 2011 at 4:10 PM ^
YES. This or a plus one, either way the non-championship BCS bowls go back to conference associations.
December 5th, 2011 at 4:51 PM ^
I think the issue comes in when a bowl loses its tie in because the team makes the NCG. Who does the Sugar Bowl get to replace LSU? Does SEC #1 mean the "best" SEC team not in the NCG? Does that mean the loser of the conference championship or the team with the best conference record? If the latter does the conference record include the conference championship game?
December 5th, 2011 at 6:40 PM ^
If it were me, I would use the same selection rules as the Capital One uses now and just slot the Rose/Sugar above it in the order. If the BTCG sends, say, Michigan to the BCS title while OSU has a record of 11-2 (oh that sounds so, so sweet), Nebraska at 11-1, the Rose would decide between the two programs as if they were any other bowl.
December 5th, 2011 at 2:03 PM ^
December 5th, 2011 at 2:36 PM ^
Yeah. Basketball is NCAA's biggest revenue stream because of March Madness. The football money mostly goes to the conferences/schools instead of NCAA.
December 5th, 2011 at 2:05 PM ^
Will be made in order to generate more revenue for the people in power. Irrelevant teams will still be irrelevant.
December 5th, 2011 at 2:25 PM ^
Sorry, but I have no idea. I am not as plugged in as you think.
December 5th, 2011 at 2:32 PM ^
Do you think your BCS playoff proposal spells the end of conferences like the WAC, MAC, and Sun Belt?
December 5th, 2011 at 4:15 PM ^
There's been years when TCU and Boise were ranked in the Top 6 of the BCS. I'm assuming a playoff proposal would have some sort of rule stating that if a team from a 'non auto-qualifying' conference had acheived a certain ranking they would be included in the playoff.
December 5th, 2011 at 2:28 PM ^
I don't think it's time to crow about getting a bowl in a sleazy way. The system that hurt MSU is still in place to hurt us in the same way in the future. I'm glad that we're in the BCS bowl but I'd rather win a playoff to get there, rather than being selected because "our fans will travel better".
December 5th, 2011 at 3:04 PM ^
I can only assume it's based on number of losses as much as the number of wins.
December 5th, 2011 at 2:35 PM ^
I think I can safely say there will not be a full fledged playoff anytime soon. My guess is a plus 1 game will be instituted and perhaps slightly stricter rules about passing over higher ranked teams for more bowl atttractive ones.
But even that won't be a drastic change, I can't imagine the major bowls will go for a set up where they're forced into selecting a team they don't think will bring the $.
As an MSU fan I really don't think any of the things you guys are unhappy about will be changed unless the B10 itself decides that a division champ is automatically entitled to the highest pick in its division. Again, I just don't see that happening.
December 5th, 2011 at 2:55 PM ^
What many people fail to realize, is that the BCS is really only created to attempt to ensure a #1 vs. #2 game. All the remaining BCS games don't have any such desires/motives/instructions. The fact that K. State and Boise State were passed over really has nothing to do with the real purpose of the BCS. If the BCS stays around in some format, you can guarantee the non-title bowls will still be able to pass over small schools or other non-desirables. it is a business afterall, not a charity
December 5th, 2011 at 7:43 PM ^
I'm asking these questions as a college football fan. I'm not upset about BCS. We had our crack at the Rose and lost. At least we had our shot.
I also understand fully that the BCS "non championship games" are not based on finding the best two teams, but rather on $$$.
December 5th, 2011 at 3:31 PM ^