Quesiton about FBS/BCS

The conundrum is that THERE IS NO OFFICIAL NATIONAL CHAMPION. The whole thing effing made up, it is Santa Claus, and most people and especially the media continue to believe in it.

The game tomorrow night is the BCS National Championship Game. The BCS is not the NCAA, its a banana republic of the most powerful conferences that want to control the money and the power. There is nothing just or offically sanctioned about it. Its a cartel.

The Non-BCS schools could form their own alliance and create their own game and call it a National Championship Game if they wanted. Nobody would take it serious without the "big boys" however. Everyone is addicted to the bowl money so they have become prostitutes for the bowls.

I swear I don't want to hear one complaint from a Texas fan or USC fan. Texas and USC could have arranged a game in the Holiday Bowl and billed it a "National Championship" if they wanted. But they decided to take the BCS money and assumed the position. You can't have it both ways. These teams agreed to the system, so they need to either STFU or don't participate.
 
GTMensLax&SoccerD1Soon! said:
Relax guys we do have a champion. Undisputed, undefeated, and unincluded in the BCS chamionship game.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?id=3815656
Click to expand...

The problem is that all that matters is the BCS, sadly.

I am glad that this thread stirred up some great discussion. But I still have not seen a decent argument for why it is OK to have a team in FBS not be able to play for the national title no matter what they do. It's just another piece of bull crap making up the huge pile of bull crap dubbed the BCS.
 
cajunjacket said:
The problem is that all that matters is the BCS, sadly.

I am glad that this thread stirred up some great discussion. But I still have not seen a decent argument for why it is OK to have a team in FBS not be able to play for the national title no matter what they do. It's just another piece of bull crap making up the huge pile of bull crap dubbed the BCS.
Click to expand...


If michigan had ended the season at 9-3 or 10-2 aad #1 or #2 in the big ten, UTAH would have been in the ship...

The real nut jammer is why was 10-2 crappy Ohio State in over Boise State? The article tells it right when it says it's a conspiricy.
 
kirbee said:
The conundrum is that THERE IS NO OFFICIAL NATIONAL CHAMPION. The whole thing effing made up, it is Santa Claus, and most people and especially the media continue to believe in it.

The game tomorrow night is the BCS National Championship Game. The BCS is not the NCAA, its a banana republic of the most powerful conferences that want to control the money and the power. There is nothing just or offically sanctioned about it. Its a cartel.

The Non-BCS schools could form their own alliance and create their own game and call it a National Championship Game if they wanted. Nobody would take it serious without the "big boys" however. Everyone is addicted to the bowl money so they have become prostitutes for the bowls.

I swear I don't want to hear one complaint from a Texas fan or USC fan. Texas and USC could have arranged a game in the Holiday Bowl and billed it a "National Championship" if they wanted. But they decided to take the BCS money and assumed the position. You can't have it both ways. These teams agreed to the system, so they need to either STFU or don't participate.
Click to expand...

That's actually a good point. I have never looked at it that way before. No one is ever the NCAA champion because there has never ever been a college football D I-A national championship. Just another argument for why college football should act like ever sport on the planet and make some form of national championship dubbed the NCAA national championship. Just like college basketball has the NCAA tournament. There aren't sponsors names and food names (orange, sugar, chick-fil-a) plastered all over the NCAA tournament of 64 because it hasn't been bought out like college football. Why even call it NCAA Division I-A anymore? It should be called Nokia-Samsung-Sony-Orange-Sugar-Peach-Chick-Fil-A Division College Football and they can all play bowls so the sponsors can make money. We can just scrap the regular season. Heck every game can be a bowl and each team can take home a shiny trophy for all the times they win ... yayyyy
 
GTSaxophone said:
And BuzzCzar, I'm sorry, but you're really off base with the mindset of "why do we have to find a champion?" or "we should just be happy to watch football". I don't know about you, but I take pride in Georgia Tech when they do well, and yes, if we won the Mythical National Championship or if we won in a playoff format, I would consider us "Champions" and the best team in the country? Why wouldn't I? Especially in a playoff format where we would have to play several of the best teams in the country to lay claim to champion. As the current system stands, you're right, no one can lay claim to being the best in most years, because the process is extremely subjective. I can't really say this year that Florida/Oklahoma is better than USC or Utah or Texas.
Click to expand...
First of all BuzzCzar isn't off base, he just disagrees with you. What he's harking back to is how football was up until fairly recently. I would argue that there was less commotion and complaining under the old bowl/poll system than there is now. When we won our championship in 1990 and split with Colorado, people are free to believe what they want about who was better. Today's system causes more problems IMO than that did. Also a team like BYU (or Utah this year) probably would get a piece of the championship pie because someone would vote them #1.

The BCS does exactly what it's designed to do...give us a championship game. It's not a playoff and it won't be until at least the current agreemenet runs out. When it does become a playoff several things will happen IMO. Plus this idea that no one can claim the national championship this year because of all the questions around who should be in the game is bogus. That just means this year is no different from the other 100+ years we've been playing college football. And to the argument that football should be like every other NCAA sport i would ask why? Football pays the bills for every other sport except basketball now, why do they NEED to do anything?

First of all, the only scenario that doesn't wreck the current bowl structure would be the plus 1 or maybe plus 2 (pick 4 after the bowls and playoff). Even that would reduce payout for smaller bowls and some would likely cease. This isn't a bad thing necessarily, just is.

A true playoff, like in FCS would have to be played at home sites. There is simply no way they could be incorporated into the bowls because of travel costs, etc. This would probably also mean the end of at least some of the mid range bowls because who would watch them if there were playoff games to see.

Finally, the net impact in monetary terms is not clear to me. If you lose bowls, and the TV contract is all abou tthe playoffs, is it a net gain or a loss? How do you split the money (evenly, shares like in basketball, etc). i think a lot of what the college presidents are worried about is along those lines. Fewer teams in bowls = fewer schools having 'good" years and sharing in the money potentially = even more concentration of power and $$ at the big time schools? I understand all this could be negotiated but I think the issues to overcome are much bigger than we like to think.
 
beej67 said:
If Utah started preseason top ten, then they probably would have played for the championship.

That Utah didn't make it this year is an indictment on the poll system in general, not the BCS exclusionary conference system in particular.
Click to expand...

That is only partially true. You also have computer rankings, most of which are based on secret algorithms. There is no way to verify them because those that publish them (Sagarin) will not let anyone look inside. Who knows what kind of biases are built into them, just like the human polls. Utah had the largest spread of anyone in the top 10. Clearly something is going on there.
 
kirbee said:
The conundrum is that THERE IS NO OFFICIAL NATIONAL CHAMPION. The whole thing effing made up, it is Santa Claus, and most people and especially the media continue to believe in it.

The game tomorrow night is the BCS National Championship Game. The BCS is not the NCAA, its a banana republic of the most powerful conferences that want to control the money and the power. There is nothing just or offically sanctioned about it. Its a cartel.

The Non-BCS schools could form their own alliance and create their own game and call it a National Championship Game if they wanted. Nobody would take it serious without the "big boys" however. Everyone is addicted to the bowl money so they have become prostitutes for the bowls.

I swear I don't want to hear one complaint from a Texas fan or USC fan. Texas and USC could have arranged a game in the Holiday Bowl and billed it a "National Championship" if they wanted. But they decided to take the BCS money and assumed the position. You can't have it both ways. These teams agreed to the system, so they need to either STFU or don't participate.
Click to expand...

totally agree. of course, i think the AP did a good job of getting out of the BCS rankings and now they will probably be happy to throw the monkey wrench into the mix by voting UTAH number one in the AP poll. so Utah can be the AP Champion, just like Colorado was, while whoever wins the BCS Championship game can be the BCS champion just like we were the UPI champion
 
BuzzCzar said:
totally agree. of course, i think the AP did a good job of getting out of the BCS rankings and now they will probably be happy to throw the monkey wrench into the mix by voting UTAH number one in the AP poll. so Utah can be the AP Champion, just like Colorado was, while whoever wins the BCS Championship game can be the BCS champion just like we were the UPI champion
Click to expand...
I don't think AP voters have the spines to do this. If Texas had lost, I could see this happening. But you're going to end up with a handful voting for Utah, a handful voting for Texas, a handful voting for USC, and a larger handful voting for the winner of tonight's game.

I think the big misconception is that the BCS is a dramatic shift away from the old system. It is still ruled mainly by a human vote. Hell, even the computer algorthms are each skewed in their own ways. At least they aren't voting based on laundry. The whole system is a joke, and I think they should scrap it and go back to the old way. At least then people won't be confused about what is really going on.
 
Allen Koholic said:
****, are you kidding me? This is the other reason I absolutely hate the BCS. The "National Title" Game is played sometime in March...
Click to expand...

Yeah, I figure if we go to a playoff system we can get all the rounds knocked out in a weekend.
 
beej67 said:
Yeah, I figure if we go to a playoff system we can get all the rounds knocked out in a weekend.
Click to expand...
I don't like the idea of a playoff system any more then I like the asinine idea that we should start paying football players. I say we go back to having a truly mythical national title and I can go back to not giving two flying ****s about the Rose Bowl whatsoever.
 
Allen Koholic said:
I don't like the idea of a playoff system any more then I like the asinine idea that we should start paying football players. I say we go back to having a truly mythical national title and I can go back to not giving two flying ****s about the Rose Bowl whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Well, if we have a playoff system there won't even be a (relevant) Rose Bowl anymore, except maybe once every four years as the national title game. You'll be free to ignore it all you want.
 
i say:

1. NO rankings of any kind until 4 weeks into the season
2. ALL conferences play a conference championship game
3. play all the regular bowl games
4. after bowl games, select top 6 teams
5. 1 & 2 have a bye, 3v6 and 4v5 play (home field advantage to the higher seeds)
6. 1v(3/6 winner) and 2v(4/5 winner) play (higher seeds get home field)
7. winners play for the statue (highest seed get home field)
 
ncjacket said:
The BCS does exactly what it's designed to do...give us a championship game. It's not a playoff and it won't be until at least the current agreemenet runs out. .
Click to expand...

I disagree.

The BCS Title Game is a playoff. It is an inadequate 2 team playoff with questionable selection criteria based largely on uninformed voters. But it is someone's idea of the best two teams playing for a title.

I like the BCS better than the old system where #1 played #6 and #2 played #10 and #3 played #4, etc. And if #1 lost then it was a crapshoot of opinion over whether teams could jump other teams assuming the played lesser teams. Or if #1 bet #15 then could stay #1 but with lots of griping.

The BCS is in place to prevent another BYU winning a MNC without playing any top teams. The private concerns of the bowls saw us heading for a playoff championship and headed it off before it got any steam.

+1 would be better than what we have today, although not perfect.

I think the BCS will make a move before the contracts expire to delay a true playoff a bit longer and to preserve the major bowls importance for a little longer.

+1 would actually make the major bowls MORE meaningful than they were before the BCS.
 
BuzzCzar said:
i say:

1. NO rankings of any kind until 4 weeks into the season
2. ALL conferences play a conference championship game
3. play all the regular bowl games
4. after bowl games, select top 6 teams
5. 1 & 2 have a bye, 3v6 and 4v5 play (home field advantage to the higher seeds)
6. 1v(3/6 winner) and 2v(4/5 winner) play (higher seeds get home field)
7. winners play for the statue (highest seed get home field)
Click to expand...

This will never happen and I will personally pull my support of Tech if DRad approved it. If you go to multigames then the only fair method is to use conference champions. Other than the Big East, it's friggin difficult to be a conference champion.

I find it interesting that the biggest complainer of the BCS recently is Mack Brown of Texas. He's pissed that he's not in the title game. But he's not in the title game because he did not win his conference. If he's pissed, go take it up with the friggin Big 12.

Any multiple game scenario that does not ONLY include the conference champions will never be passed IMO. Prior to the bowls, the ACC was the Top ranked conference. The voters and computers, both biased, do not choose an ACC team in the Top 6, to use your example. But there is just not enough significant data points to say that Texas Tech, ranked #6, was better than Virginia Tech, ranked #20. The polls are so slanted toward the biggest repeat BCS schools (see loser Ohio State), that using the Top 6 will become just a bigger farce than it is today.

The ONLY answer is to take conference champions ONLY. If you want to expand past that, then fine, but the 11 conference champions must come first.
 
Playoff with 8 teams seeded according to BCS poll. Seeded teams include champions (and champions ONLY) of Pac 10, Big 12, Big 10, SEC, ACC and Big East, plus the highest 4 rated teams from each of the rest of the conferences (one per conference ONLY) and independents. These latter 4 square off in 2 play-in games to get to 8 teams. Play-ins are the weekend of conference championship games.

The week before Christmas play the 4 quarter final games. The week of Christmas play the 2 semi final games. The week after Christmas play the final.

Alternate the quarters annually through the minor bowls, with one in each segment of the country - west coast, southwest, midwest and south. Alternate the semis annually though the 2nd tier bowls, with one east and one west. Alternate the final annually thorugh the 4 majors (like we used to do).

Run the rest of the bowls not affiliated, in any given year,with the playoff as normal with the rest of the eligible teams.

Simple. So simple it will never be done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top