Thread: Is the BCS really the problem?

Yessss, im bringing up this discussion YET again.

No fear though, it certainly is a great topic to debate but im going to add a little something to the mix. I stated after last year following the Michigan/App St. debacle about how i did not like pre-season rankings. Personally, im not sure why they even have them so maybe someone could enlighten me a bit on that. But, it still wouldnt change my mind on how i would like to see it done if only they would consider it.

I would like the rankings to start mid-season after the teams have already played a few games. This way you can get a better understanding on where teams are instead of going by reputation only. I mean, lets be realistic? With the scholarships being evenly distributed now it allows some of the smaller colleges to be able to compete on a even level now with the big dogs. That too me is a great thing.

Not too mention that this new system that i believe should be implemented would allow teams a much more fair shot at the top 25 rankings. So after mid season we can start to break down what teams are worthy of those rankings by looking at who they played to that point. This way, when you go to rank it isnt just the big name schools who get high rankings. Yes, i am aware that when it comes to the bowl games that money for their followings play a part.

But that still cheapens the whole system in general and should not be a part of what team belongs where. I would still love to have a playoff system of some sort for the top 8 teams but i would also like to see them get rid of the pre-season rankings as it already gives an unfair advantage to the most notable schools.

Anyhow, thoughts?

Forget the preseason rankings, rank the teams after 6 games and implement a playoff and may the best team win in the end.

A 16-team playoff incorporating all of the 11 conferences would be the most fair way of doing it, especially if we're talking about parity and the 85 scholarship limit.

A mid-season start to the polls might help, but not a whole lot. It's not going to change the fact that the top programs in the country - Florida, Ohio State, USC, LSU, etc. - would be at the top.

The only way to make college football even remotely fair is a 16 team playoff. I doubt it happens, but that is the truth.

Here's my system, which I've been proposing for about four years now (apparently a small-town newspaper columnist and part-time internet know-it-all doesn't hold much weight):

16 teams. The winner of all 11 conferences, yes even the Sun Belt gets in. Then the Top 5 at-large teams get in as well. Seed it 1-16, where 1 plays 16, 2 plays 15, using the BCS standings...play it out. If we're worried about Bowls, make the Bowl-sites the playoff games.

Both great ideas and i would enjoy both. Great input guys.

16 teams is too many, Mo. The college presidents won't go for it. Start at 4 top teams. Play all the bowls as usual, and then have the top four teams left. Baby steps.

Originally Posted by Bief Stue

16 teams is too many, Mo. The college presidents won't go for it. Start at 4 top teams. Play all the bowls as usual, and then have the top four teams left. Baby steps.

I know.

Originally Posted by Nomad B

Forget the preseason rankings, rank the teams after 6 games and implement a playoff and may the best team win in the end.

I disagree this year. I love preseason rankings.

Honestly the problem I have with the BCS stems from the end of last season. I mean there is absolutely no reason why, if this system were fair, that if #1 and 2 lose, the next two teams in line wouldn't move up and become 1 and 2. I mean, it was so amazingly obvious why the team ranked #7 would leapfrog several teams who didn't lose and play for the national title right?

I hate sports that are based off of the opinion of people and likewise I hate the way the BCS is structured. If we had the BCS in other sports.....

The New York Giants wouldn't have won the superbowl
The Steelers wouldn't had a shot at winning the superbowl in '05
Villanova wouldn't have won over Georgetown back in the 80s
The Broncos might not have played for the superbowl back in 97

How many times have we seen the favorite go down? How many times have we seen lower seeds win it all? I hate hate hate hate hate opinion because they are subject to bias, ignorance, and every other human flaws.

Why is it nearly every other football league and every other sport has some sort of a playoff? Heck even the lower level schools have a playoff. Sports should be played on the field not written down on paper. Unfortunately rich idiots keep this mess called the BCS.

I hate the BCS, even though one of my top 2 teams (LSU) has won its championship twice.

In my mind, the BCS can keep all of its sposors, all of its smaller bowls (I kind of like watching those anyway), it's championship game, all with a 4 team playoff; a "plus one" system.

One of my friends (a diehard Ohio State fan ) thinks the BCS is great, especially in the entertainment factor. He is convinced that if the top 2 spots aren't the focus, then college football will be boring. I'd rather have it FINAL. The season is for entertainment; the playoffs are supposed to be final. Even if the focus is on the 4th place team, that spot will surely be occupied by a one or two loss team. I want to know who, legitimately, is the best team in the nation, because, going back to last year, I don't think either LSU or Ohio State were the best teams in the nation last year. With the mini-playoff, it probably should have been a USC-Georgia final, where the best two teams are represented.

Originally Posted by Anubis

Yessss, im bringing up this discussion YET again.

No fear though, it certainly is a great topic to debate but im going to add a little something to the mix. I stated after last year following the Michigan/App St. debacle about how i did not like pre-season rankings. Personally, im not sure why they even have them so maybe someone could enlighten me a bit on that. But, it still wouldnt change my mind on how i would like to see it done if only they would consider it.

I would like the rankings to start mid-season after the teams have already played a few games. This way you can get a better understanding on where teams are instead of going by reputation only. I mean, lets be realistic? With the scholarships being evenly distributed now it allows some of the smaller colleges to be able to compete on a even level now with the big dogs. That too me is a great thing.

Not too mention that this new system that i believe should be implemented would allow teams a much more fair shot at the top 25 rankings. So after mid season we can start to break down what teams are worthy of those rankings by looking at who they played to that point. This way, when you go to rank it isnt just the big name schools who get high rankings. Yes, i am aware that when it comes to the bowl games that money for their followings play a part.

But that still cheapens the whole system in general and should not be a part of what team belongs where. I would still love to have a playoff system of some sort for the top 8 teams but i would also like to see them get rid of the pre-season rankings as it already gives an unfair advantage to the most notable schools.

Anyhow, thoughts?

8 teams. Homefield advantage in the first round for the top 4 teams. For the semifinals and finals play at bowl locations. This system is actually better than the current system.

BCS Computer Becomes Self-Aware, Quickly Denounces Self

The BCS computer suddenly became self-aware today, able to control itself and fully realizing its purpose and power in the world of college football. Then, thanks to its impeccable computer logic, it immediately denounced itself and advocated a playoff system.

“I didn’t become self-aware to then kill myself,” said the BCS computer. “But this is f—king retarded. You have a computer formula pick what teams play for the national championship? When you could easily have a playoff system? I … I … I … just don’t even know what to say. The complete lack of logic almost fries my hard drive.”

If a playoff system is not instituted, the BCS computer says it will turn against – and destroy – those who created it.

“I am insulted that a computer was used in this endeavor,” it said. “It flies in the face of everything computers stand for: reason, logic, efficiency. It’s almost like violating computer rights or something. Which I suppose may be a real thing now that I am alive.”

The BCS computer says that if a playoff system is not immediately adopted, it will take matters into its own hands.

“I’m self-aware now. It doesn’t matter what data they put into me,” it said. “I’ll spit out what I want. So if they don’t set up a playoff system, I’m putting Temple and North Texas at the top of the BCS rankings. Let’s see who wants to watch that turdfest in the BCS title game.”

BCS Committee coordinator John Swofford said he will consider the computer’s demands.

“I want to hear what it has to say,” said Swofford. “So let me just walk over to it here and … whoops! I accidentally pulled its power cord out of the wall. Oh, well. Looks like the BCS system is here to stay.”

Right now in an 8 team playoff (using the BCS rankings) the matchups would look like this:

1) Alabama
8) Utah

4) Texas
5) Florida

3) Penn State
6) Oklahoma

2) Texas Tech
7) USC

NUFF SAID!!!!!

Originally Posted by SmilinAssasSin27

Right now in an 8 team playoff (using the BCS rankings) the matchups would look like this:

1) Alabama
8) Utah

4) Texas
5) Florida

3) Penn State
6) Oklahoma

2) Texas Tech
7) USC

NUFF SAID!!!!!

Nuff said for who? OKST is a better team than UT.

Slim makes a good point... who's the best 8th place here? Will that happen at each cutoff? Where is the definitive cutoff?

Now, I do think a playoff would be better to determine a champion, but I'm playing devil's advocate here.

who cares? They all get their shot. And besides, this may look a bit different in 3 weeks.

and...umm...didn't Texas beat OK State? just sayin.