Changes coming to current BCS structure - ESPN article
To understand the future of the college postseason, which the BCS bosses will take up again this week, listen to what hasn't been said.
When SEC commissioner Mike Slive asserted in January that the BCS championship would be transformed, "and I don't think those changes are going to be tweaks," no one rose to rebut him.
The silence that met Slive's comment to Tony Barnhart of CBS College Sports spoke volumes. For 14 years, in the face of loud, nasty and occasionally shrewd commentary mocking the BCS, the administrators in charge of it kept repeating their belief in its virtues.
When USA Today published a memo earlier this month outlining four new formats the 120 FBS schools are considering, the proponents of the status quo said nothing.
It appears that momentum is building for a change to the current system. I know I was upset at a rematch game between LSU and Alabama last year, but this has probably served as the necessary catalyst for change that has been missing in previous years.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7844842/changes-coming-current-bcs-structure
in the new contract, I'll consider it an improvement. However, I wouldn't mind if there was a clause putting us in the Championship game every year. Just saying.
This still does not mean that the BCS is going to turn into a playoff (though i would certainly enjoy that very much, along with the rest of the college football landscape) but, I do believe that these changes will allow for a more distinct process to be developed where the top teams get the top games.
I would love to see a playoff as well. I agree with you that we won't see that happen, but I am happy to see change being discussed openly. It always felt like in previous years it was, "Sit down, shut up, there's nothing wrong with our system."
least, not unless you consider 4 teams, or 6 max, a playoff (many say playiff and want 8 or 16 teams). I don't like the BCS, don't get me wrong, but if someone came up with a 16 team playoff that worked, I would be against it thoroughly. Play the best and most meaningful regualr season in sports, and have the best 4 teams continue it for two more games to determine a champ. No more than that.
My proposal: play all bowls, including the 4 majors. Make the 4 major bowls between the conference champions of the 5 major conferences (no Big East auto-bid), plus 3 at large teams. The winners of the 4 major bowls are in the semi-finals, and play at the home of the higher seeded team. Winners play for the title at a revolving neutral site.
makes no sense. It has to be at least a plus one. Plus two would be preferable. Anything other than some kind of playoff system and they might as well stay with what they have.
The sun will set in the west tonight - ESPN article
This article says sweet fuck all to anyone who has followed this even remotely. Its hard to imagine saying less with more words. Must be a slow day over at the worldwide leader.
...of the upcoming changes to the BCS & the national championship. I've had super secret access to the proceedings and despite a number of proposals the various members are in near unanimous agreement that the best way to settle things consist of the following:
1-the SEC will send its two best teams to meet in the Mega-Bowl with the winner being declared "National Champion"
2-the winners of the Pac-Ten & Big Ten are to meet in the Rose Bowl because they wouldn't beat an SEC team anyways.
3-everyone else (i.e., Texas, Notre Dame, ACC teams, etc) are eligible to join the SEC if they have any interest in winning a National Championship. However, the SEC will only extend a couple such invitations per year and they do not renew automatically.
4-everything else in college football remains the same.
Seriously, why don't we just say the winner of the SEC is National Champion and be done with it already?