Detnews discusses BCS Changes
It appears the BCS will soon be up for some serious change. In my opinon it is about time. Here is the link to the story:
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120109/SPORTS0203/201090380/1004/s…
What sort of changes would you like to see?
January 9th, 2012 at 1:08 PM ^
You cant have a true champion without a playoff.
January 9th, 2012 at 1:10 PM ^
No system is foolproof. Every system will have its supporters and detractors.
January 9th, 2012 at 1:22 PM ^
We have a playoff. It just happens to be a one game playoff. Some years that will work fine, for example this year if Ok St hadn't lost to Iowa St. Other years there might be 3 teams with a legit claim, other years who knows how many. In any event, there will always be arguments/disagreements about who should be in the playoff.
January 9th, 2012 at 1:28 PM ^
Most talk is that it will initially expand similar to SEC commissioner Silve's proposed "plus-one model", which would make it a four-team playoff and an extra game. I imagine years down the line it will ecolve to a 6-8 team playoff, using BCS sites/game bowls.
January 9th, 2012 at 1:53 PM ^
If Bama wins, are they the champion? What if the computers rank LSU higher?
January 9th, 2012 at 1:55 PM ^
The coaches poll is contractually obligated to vote the BCS winner the national champion, and the polls are 2/3 of the BCS formula.
January 9th, 2012 at 2:06 PM ^
The answer to your question is obviously yes, the winner of the championship game is the champion, thats how it works in all sports.
But regardless we DO have a one game playoff, if people want to ignore the result of that playoff when voting in polls they can, at least the media can, but that doesn't change that we have a one game playoff.
ESPN could choose to put someone other than the Superbowl winner as #1 on its final power rankings but that doesn't change the result of the game.
January 9th, 2012 at 2:10 PM ^
Might as well crown the 18-1 NE Patriots as the Champions in 2007-8.
January 9th, 2012 at 2:16 PM ^
they were better than NY despite the loss but--comparisons to the NFL is difficult--the entire NFL season is set up to make the playoffs, unlike college, which is set up to have the best and most meaningful regular season possible. LSU had a WAY better season than Bama and beat them at Bama, so regardless of tonight's game, LSU is a better team, and there is no doubt whatsoever about that. That is why people hate the one game playoff currently.
January 9th, 2012 at 3:00 PM ^
I really disagree with this.
First off while you might be right that even if LSU loses tonight, they still had the better season, it certainly does not follow they have the better team. They won an overtime game, and for that matter they were outplayed and would have lost had Alabama's kickers hadnt had a horrible night. If Alabama wins tonight convincingly, I'd say there is very solid evidence that they are the better team.
Furthermore, in a real sense college is set up the same as the nfl, teams are competing to make the playoff, the 1 game playoff, to win the title, there just aren't as many playoff spots and obviously college has voting involved so its more subjective. Imagine a situation where there were no divisions in the nfl and the 1 team from each conf who had the best record played in the Superbowl.
January 9th, 2012 at 4:24 PM ^
I actually would like having one team from each conference with the best record play in the Super Bowl. I'm one of the small number of people who think too many teams get in the playoffs anyway. While I enjoy watching the playoffs, I think it's actually unfair that a team like Denver, or Seattle last year, even make the playoffs at at all, then get lucky and ruin the season for a far better team like Pittsburgh or New Orleans last year.
January 9th, 2012 at 2:47 PM ^
I'm not sure but I think you're disagreeing with me. If so its quite odd because you chose THE perfect example to support my point. The Pats were the best team, they had the best season, but they did not win the championship game and thus were not crowned the champions. Just like if Alabama wins the championship game tonight, they will be the champions and not LSU, OK St, Stanford, Oregon or anybody else.
January 9th, 2012 at 3:48 PM ^
not so fast my friend!
You can still have splt national champions even if you win the BCS NCG. If Alabama wins and the coaches vote them number 1 you still have the AP poll which most have said they would still vote LSU number 1 even if they lost to bama in the NCG.
January 9th, 2012 at 4:25 PM ^
isn't that what I said? If people want to ignore the result of the Championship game and call the loser or some other team the champion, like many many on this board seem to want to do, no one can stop them, its ridiculous but in this country people are free to do ridiculous things.
January 9th, 2012 at 1:57 PM ^
I'm torn. A playoff would require the players to practice and play before/during/after finals. I like the idea of it, but there just isn't enough time in the schedule.
January 9th, 2012 at 2:28 PM ^
Michigan is the Sugal Bowl champion, Oregon is the Rose Bowl champion, Wisconsin is the Big Ten champion. College football is full of championships, and it was a great product (bowl system included) before the BCS. Oh, looking back on how miserable the 97 season was without a "true" champion.... that is just not the case, the 97 season was awesome, and the debate with Nebraska fans is fun to this day. Truth be told, it was not the pre-BCS system that had people clamoring for a "true" champion, it is the BCS system (an attempt to fill a void that I really don't remember existing) that has resulted in this sentiment. Scrap the whole damn thing, including the championship game and the plus one. Winning the Sugar Bowl used to be good enough, it still is in my book.
January 9th, 2012 at 3:03 PM ^
thats simply not correct, the BCS came about because of the uproar who split titles and the like.
January 9th, 2012 at 3:14 PM ^
uproar? I just don't remember it, I guess. There was some controversy in 97 as to who was better but not with regard to who was the champion. They both were National Champions, and both were recognized as such. I think 96 had the badass Florida v. Florida State matchups, I think 95 was Tommy Frazier's Nebraska (don't quote me but I think), and going back, I just remember a lot awesomeness, not controversy over who was or was not the "true champion." I don't remember any controversy until the BCS began, and now 14 years later, that is all college football is. One big controversy.
January 9th, 2012 at 3:49 PM ^
How about Nebraska and Penn State in 1994? Time doesn't help our memories, especially when it didn't directly involve us. There was a lot of clamoring for the Big Ten and Pac-10 to join the BCS and there has always been controversy in college football picking a champion. I suspect there always will be.
January 9th, 2012 at 3:53 PM ^
The 97 Wolverines the only team in College football history to be ranked number 1 in both polls and win their bowl convincingly and drop in one of the polls.
Have a happy retirement coach Osborne here is a piece of the national championship.
Sincerely,
The coaches poll
January 9th, 2012 at 5:43 PM ^
think you are stretching to call that convincing. It is a great game to watch on classic, but at the time that Rose Bowl performance was a touch dissapointing, certainly underwhelming.
January 9th, 2012 at 8:33 PM ^
media uproar, as opposed to fan uproar. I literally have never spoken to a person that is upset that we don't have a playoff system. Some are to be sure, but most people were completely fine with the old system.
January 9th, 2012 at 1:12 PM ^
A playoff wouldn't be bad for starters.
Why is Delaney agsint it? Afraid of losing the Rose Bowl?
January 9th, 2012 at 1:11 PM ^
Can't we just have a playoff system for the winners of each major conference? What's so hard about this?
January 9th, 2012 at 3:59 PM ^
Precluding half of the FBS teams from even having a shot? That's a drastic change. It would cause a lot of hard feelings and spark serious political interference. It looks like there are five major conferences right now, not an ideal number to work with anyway.
January 9th, 2012 at 4:52 PM ^
Simple, add a couple of at large bids. Half of the FBS doesn't have a shot in the current system. Make it an 8 team tournament.
January 9th, 2012 at 1:13 PM ^
acknowledge that picking the "best" team in college football is a fool's errand and focus instead on getting the most entertaining matchups.
January 9th, 2012 at 1:17 PM ^
Amen.
January 9th, 2012 at 2:23 PM ^
It didn't attempt to that. It simply encouraged the best regular season possible, with a reward at the end being a bowl game. Then some coaches and writers voted who they thought had the best season, and one team felt great, but the others who were in major bowls also felt good. And since sports isn't life or death, what exactly is wrong with that?
January 9th, 2012 at 2:58 PM ^
In the old system, there were sometimes two, if not three, defacto championship games. New Years Day was the greatest sporting day on the calendar.
The BCS has rendered all but one game useless and ruined New Years Day in the process.
January 9th, 2012 at 4:04 PM ^
The classic example: Miami, ranked #5, upsets #1 Nebraska and leapfrogs the #2, #3 and #4 teams to win the '83 title. That can't happen today.
January 9th, 2012 at 1:24 PM ^
I think when it is all said and done, the BCS is still pretty much going to be the same with some tweaks as usual.
January 9th, 2012 at 1:29 PM ^
I'd like to see a +1. No more, no less.
January 9th, 2012 at 1:30 PM ^
I like the plus one model. If a school is not in the top four they really do not have a right to complain about playing for the NC.
This is how I see a plus one working: two different bowls could host a semi-final game and a third bowl could host the final. With the other two bowl games selected using the our current system, with one exception; if a conference champion is not in the top 15 they are not eligible for a automatic BCS bid. For example: LSU v Stanford in the Sugar Bowl, Alabama v Ok St in the Fiesta Bowl, Michigan v VT in the Orange Bowl and Wisc v Oregon in the Rose bowl. The championship game will rotate to a site that did not host one of the semi-final games like the Orange Bowl.
January 9th, 2012 at 1:46 PM ^
I think the stands would be empty for a B1G/SEC semifinal game in Pasadena, especially if the Sugar or Orange had the championship that year. I would think the better option is abolishing the autobids and having 1 v 3/ 2 v 4 games on (or maybe at a pro stadium close to) campus of the higher rated team and keep the BCS title game rotation the same.
January 9th, 2012 at 3:09 PM ^
Go back to the old system, with all the old conference tie-ins. Play all the games on New Years Day. Then, one week later, there would be Plus One game between the top two teams in the final post-bowl rankings. This system, by not declaring any games as actual semi-final games, keeps the sanctitiy of the big bowl games in tact, while adding another layer of competition before selecting the final two teams.
January 9th, 2012 at 3:16 PM ^
But in that case, couldn't you end up with 14-0 Michigan, LSU and Texas? Where do you go from there? Or if there are two undefeated teams that both lose to one loss teams, how do those teams get seeded from there?
January 9th, 2012 at 1:33 PM ^
1) no championships for non-conference winners
2) bcs only chooses championship game participants, remaining bowls free to choose whoever they like or conference affiliations.
January 9th, 2012 at 1:35 PM ^
At one point in the article, the possible removal of the auto-qualifier status altogether is discussed, and it is something I have always wondered about as a possible path to having better matchup among teams that were clearly deserving. However, because it does seem to be about the money, the Boise States of the world will still find themselves possibly shut out of some of the higher-profile bowls based on name and perception alone, not on the record.
It seems clear that the BCS is not willing to let go of the cash that easily, but I wonder if they would be talked into structuring the bowls in such a way that they were solely based on rankings. The MNC could still be 1 and 2, and then the remaining bowls could, for example, pair 3 and, say, 4 or 10, or 4 and 9 (which would be the lowest rank to get in as there are five games to worry about) or something along these lines and there could be tie-ins based on the standings that way.
Just a thought.
January 9th, 2012 at 1:35 PM ^
in my opinion its a year too late
January 9th, 2012 at 1:41 PM ^
As is every year they make a change. The BCS is reactive, not proactive .....
January 9th, 2012 at 1:40 PM ^
There are 4 BCS bowls. Have two of those bowls designated as the playoff bowls for that year. Rotate them every year. Example: In 2012 have the Rose Bowl and the Orange Bowl as the playoff bowls held on New Years Day. In 2013 it will be the Fiesta Bowl and the Sugar Bowl.
<br>
<br>Now the teams. The #1 team in the polls is the #1 seed, so #1 plays #4 and #2 plays #3. Obviously the winners play one week later in the championship game.
<br>
<br>Why the top four? in my opinion after the top four teams it's a toss up from 5 to 10. There may be years when it may be close but usually the top four teams are pretty established and recognizable. Getting 8 teams in extends the season too long and with six teams you create a bye week and I don't like bye weeks after your already off a month.
<br>
<br>To cover the other BCS bowls, let them select teams based upon payout. Same with the other bowls. Eliminate all conference affiliations and let bowls invite whoever they want to create the best matchups based upon their payoff money. Hopefully no more 10-2 teams playing 7-5 teams. The bowls with the least payout get the worst teams.
<br>
<br>Just my opinion.
January 9th, 2012 at 1:43 PM ^
from all the BCS bowl participants being from the SEC?
January 9th, 2012 at 1:51 PM ^
a universe away
January 9th, 2012 at 1:55 PM ^
The SEC is actually focusing its efforts on getting a single team in the AFC Wildcard. The MNC is seen as a consolation prize.
January 9th, 2012 at 1:49 PM ^
an extensive diary look back as to which systems would have benifited CFB over the past decade? If I remember correctly, the conclusion was that the 4 team plus one was the most viable. Does anyone have a link?
January 9th, 2012 at 1:51 PM ^
alongside the Edsel, Betamax, Countrywide Lending, New Coke, the movie Glitter, Gary Cherone as lead singer of Van Halen and the Tupolev 144.
January 9th, 2012 at 2:11 PM ^
Did people not fall over laughing at that?? It was awesomely comedic!