BCS mess!!!

bcats · Post by **bcats** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 9:15 am

I guess college football tradition is to crown who they think is the best team instead of letting a game tell them who is the best team.

John K · Post by **John K** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 10:52 am

longhorn_22 wrote:
AlphaGriz1 wrote:Hawaii and Kansas should be in the championship game.

I am sure they will get screwedas well as the fans of college football and we will get to take a bite of the Ohio St - LSU sh*t sandwich.
They just need a playoff. End of story. The NCAA is a bunch of money-hungry goons that don't give a shi* about anything but sponsoring and money.

So many people cite money as a reason for not having a playoff in I-A. I would submit that a playoff would generate much more money, than does the current system. Imagine having the existing bowls bid for their place in the hierarchy....highest bidder gets NC game, next 2 highest get the semi-final games, etc. It may be distributed slightly differently, but I think that enough money would be generated so that no one would lose, and some would make a bunch more than under the current system.

Wouldn't fan interest and media attention also be greatly enhanced by actually playing some games in December, which is somewhat of a dry period for sports?....before NFL playoffs start, before NCAA BB conference games start, and NBA and NHL don't command much interest until after the Super Bowl is over. Wouldn't the hype be magnified tenfold by having MEANINGFUL games played all through the month, rather than a bunch of insignificant lower-tier bowl games in December , followed by all the "real" games crammed into 3-4 days at the beginning of the year? Imagine the Super Bowl and March Madness all rolled into one....that is what a 16-team I-A playoff would be like. I guarantee you that when and if they ever go to a playoff, eveyone involved will be saying "why in the hell didn't we do this years ago????".

BelgradeBobcat · Post by **BelgradeBobcat** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:48 am

I posted the following last year when we were having this discussion. I thought I'd just recycle it:

I don't know anyone who likes the bowl system as it is or the Bowl Championship Series. It is universally derided so it seems. Almost every college football fan is calling for a playoff system like the former 1-AA, D-2, D-3 etc.

But would it work at the highest levels of college football? I got to thinking about this with our own Bobcats in the playoffs. Finding out we were hosting and then putting everything together to get the game on had to be a huge task-even at our level with a crowd of just under 10,000. Can you imagine the logistics if we were-say Auburn and had to impromptly host 87,000 (in a town about the size of Bozeman).

Or how about putting a team like Michigan on the road with a week's notice. I would think their 30 or 40,000 traveling fans could bring our already overused national transportation system to it's knees.

Logistically, a 16 team playoff at the highest level of college football could lead to the largest mobilization of people in the history of the world except for wartimes. It could be a huge mess.

Now maybe a playoff with the top 4 or maybe even 8-spread out from the end of November to January would work-but not the same type of system our level of football uses.

Just a thought.

I think what they might be scared of is a situation like the ACC title game in Jacksonville. It was a pretty long ways for both BC and VT to travel-espcially on a weeks notice. The stadium looked pretty empty-the upper decks weren't in use.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 12:10 pm

I would assume the early round games would be almost exclusively home-field crowds, like any other home game. But to mitigate the short notice for the championship game (which people would need to travel to from both schools), maybe they could have three weeks between the semifinal game and the championship game (at a neutral site) to allow time for everybody to make travel plans.

That would be all that much different from the current bowl timing.

crazycat · Post by **crazycat** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 12:58 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:I would assume the early round games would be almost exclusively home-field crowds, like any other home game. But to mitigate the short notice for the championship game (which people would need to travel to from both schools), maybe they could have three weeks between the semifinal game and the championship game (at a neutral site) to allow time for everybody to make travel plans.

That would be all that much different from the current bowl timing.

I don't know if its been mentioned yet, but it seems some coaches aren't real fond of a playoff. I read on egriz that Hauck is in that group. I think Glenn used to complain about it, too. I see their point. They're saying that the extra games are just too much. I can see that. These guys don't get paid, aside from scholarship and co-ed adulation, a dime.

Sorry, but I think more sports should go the route the FBS/BCS goes. I think it's great that the kids get time off from now until bowl season. I like that they just pick the top two teams instead of risking having them get knocked off by some low seed in the playoffs. I don't think the best team always wins in a playoff. You risk injuries, some teams just play out of their minds.

I say all this, but it only applies as long as the Griz aren't one of the top two teams.

OK, tear me down.

ImagineSanta · Post by **ImagineSanta** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 1:38 pm

I would like to see the top 8 teams go into a playoff system for the NC, and the rest go to normal bowl games. Then, the top 8 teams can stop complaining about how they didnt get a chance, and the others all still get to go to there precious bowl games. If you were a top 8 team and lose in the playoffs? Too bad, you wanted a chance to win it all, you have to be better than the rest. The first two rounds of the playoffs at the higher seeds home and the NC played at a neutral sight. Kinda like what 1-AA has now.

John K · Post by **John K** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 1:48 pm

crazycat wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:I would assume the early round games would be almost exclusively home-field crowds, like any other home game. But to mitigate the short notice for the championship game (which people would need to travel to from both schools), maybe they could have three weeks between the semifinal game and the championship game (at a neutral site) to allow time for everybody to make travel plans.

That would be all that much different from the current bowl timing.
I don't know if its been mentioned yet, but it seems some coaches aren't real fond of a playoff. I read on egriz that Hauck is in that group. I think Glenn used to complain about it, too. I see their point. They're saying that the extra games are just too much. I can see that. These guys don't get paid, aside from scholarship and co-ed adulation, a dime.

Sorry, but I think more sports should go the route the FBS/BCS goes. I think it's great that the kids get time off from now until bowl season. I like that they just pick the top two teams instead of risking having them get knocked off by some low seed in the playoffs. I don't think the best team always wins in a playoff. You risk injuries, some teams just play out of their minds.

I say all this, but it only applies as long as the Griz aren't one of the top two teams.

OK, tear me down.

If this is such a great idea, then why not skip the NFL playoffs too? Let's have a bunch of sportswriters and computers decide who should oppose New England. There are several worthy candidates....Dallas, Green Bay, Indianapolis. It would be much more exciting waiting for the SBCS (Super Bowl Championship Series) to announce the matchup, versus playing some games to determine the SB participants, right? Then of course, all the other teams that were at least .500 could participate in a bunch of meaningless exhibition games, all crammed into a few days prior to the SB, after going 5-6 weeks without playing any games at all.

And while we're at it, let's do away with March Madness too. Boy, I am sure that playing all those meaningful, exciting games in the NCAA tourney is a real drag for all the coaches and players, right? They would probably much prefer practicing daily for 6-7 weeks after the end of the conference tourneys, then having a championship game in early April, with the participants determined by the MMCS (you guessed it....March Madness Championsip Series) computers and some genius sportswriters.

I'm sorry....but if the I-A system is so great, then why does no other sport, at any other level, determine their champion in this manner? Or is it like the crazy person, who is absolutely certain that they are completely sane, while everyone else in the world is a frickin' lunatic?

JDoub · Post by **JDoub** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 3:59 pm

Pete Carroll said it again on ESPN, but lightly, that the right way to decide is a playoff. .......... duh

I spoke at length and many times with Mike Parent, who used to head up the BCS committee when he was AD at Utah State University (he now "just" teaches marketing), while he was a professor I had in an MBA program. His comments were a playoff is absolutely possible, but that the marketing research showed a big outcome was redistribution of revenues to the <Boise State>'s of the 1-A world. That's why there are "BCS" conferences with guaranteed bids and revenue sharing within the conference. The potential bowl revenues (over $1B in 2002) are at risk, not necessarily as the whole pie, but who gets the biggest pieces of the billion$ pie.

He also said the committee did explore possibilities around a playoff while maintaining bowl affiliations, and that the idea could work. A rotating "Fiesta" or "Nokia" bowl sponsoring same venue, same marketing, same revenue contracts, but have the Fiesta Bowl actually be a first round playoff game as well, and so on. He said this is do-able without hurting overall revenue.

The reason why playoffs of any flavor were turned down -- (what I remember in talking to Dr. Parent) -- is the (BCS) University Presidents soundly shot it down. Specifically because the established football programs and conferences of 1-A did not want to risk getting a smaller piece of pie. Their marketing potential and actual revenue shoots way down when the Boise State, Hawaii, or Utah's of 1-A start winning national championships on the field.

I still say the NCAA will feel the shame of their sell-out for decades to come. And 20 years from now when playoffs are the norm, we all will be saying "what took you so long?"

We still claim the Helms Foundation vote of Montana State as national champions of college basketball in 1929, but I don't think anyone wants to argue that the NCAA should scrap the basketball tourney in favor of a Helms Foundation vote.

whizonthegriz · Post by **whizonthegriz** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 4:53 pm

JDoub wrote:Pete Carroll said it again on ESPN, but lightly, that the right way to decide is a playoff. .......... duh

I spoke at length and many times with Mike Parent, who used to head up the BCS committee when he was AD at Utah State University (he now "just" teaches marketing), while he was a professor I had in an MBA program. His comments were a playoff is absolutely possible, but that the marketing research showed a big outcome was redistribution of revenues to the <Boise State>'s of the 1-A world. That's why there are "BCS" conferences with guaranteed bids and revenue sharing within the conference. The potential bowl revenues (over $1B in 2002) are at risk, not necessarily as the whole pie, but who gets the biggest pieces of the billion$ pie.

He also said the committee did explore possibilities around a playoff while maintaining bowl affiliations, and that the idea could work. A rotating "Fiesta" or "Nokia" bowl sponsoring same venue, same marketing, same revenue contracts, but have the Fiesta Bowl actually be a first round playoff game as well, and so on. He said this is do-able without hurting overall revenue.

The reason why playoffs of any flavor were turned down -- (what I remember in talking to Dr. Parent) -- is the (BCS) University Presidents soundly shot it down. Specifically because the established football programs and conferences of 1-A did not want to risk getting a smaller piece of pie. Their marketing potential and actual revenue shoots way down when the Boise State, Hawaii, or Utah's of 1-A start winning national championships on the field.

I still say the NCAA will feel the shame of their sell-out for decades to come. And 20 years from now when playoffs are the norm, we all will be saying "what took you so long?"

We still claim the Helms Foundation vote of Montana State as national champions of college basketball in 1929, but I don't think anyone wants to argue that the NCAA should scrap the basketball tourney in favor of a Helms Foundation vote.

Good post--It is a mockery.

I have not seen anybody post this or say it on tv, but if Hawaii defeats Georgia in the Sugar Bowl we should have a split nat'l championship. Who in their right mind would say that they don't deserve the title over a one-loss team or a two-loss team.

I do not have a beef with Ohio State being in the championship game. In my opinion they were the best of the one-loss teams and a logical choice. But LSU? Should you really get voted into the championship game when you lose to a four-loss Arkansas team at home and on the road to a five-loss Kentucky team? Gimme a break! And don't try and convince me that barely squeeking out wins over so-called tough SEC schools Auburn (4 losses), Alabama (6 losses) and Tennessee (4 losses) make-up for those 2 defeats. It does not give them a better resume than being undefeated.

Continuing my rant....Why is Georgia penalized so much for not being in the SEC championship game? To get to the SEC championship game LSU had to be better than two Mississippi schools, Arkansas, Alabama, and Auburn. Not the elite of college football. Georgia finished with the same record as LSU in conference--but played in a more competitive division.

Coming full circle--if Hawaii beats Georgia. They should be voted a share of the national championship.

Or maybe the BCS will continue to say to these non-BCS schools, we will pacify you by including you in our little bowls (Utah, Boise State, and Hawaii), but you will never have a chance to win the national championship. Even if you go undefeated and beat one of our elite teams (sorry Boise State!). And heaven forbid you lose (Utah), we will always say see I told you so. Never mind teams like LSU get do-overs all the time during the regular season. Good thing they are not just judged on single game performances. The national championship will continue to be a farce.

catatac · Post by **catatac** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 5:28 pm

Just a little more food for thought... if FCS didn't have a playoff system, the Griz most likely would have played in the "National Championship" game or worst case, played for 3rd or 4th. No smack here but I believe the playoffs proved that they were not a top 4 team. Top 10 most likely, but not top 4.

JDoub · Post by **JDoub** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 3:16 pm

whizonthegriz wrote:Coming full circle--if Hawaii beats Georgia. They should be voted a share of the national championship.

More on the mockery -- I'm pretty sure that after USC and LSU shared a national championship the BCS members and the AP agreed to cast their votes for ONLY the BCS winner as NC.

I could be wrong, but I'm going off memory of an ESPN story that indicated there could not ever again be a split championship under the BCS system as it now exists.