What was better? BCS or old system? - Page 2

South Dakotan · 11-28-2006, 10:30 PM

I assume a majority of college football fans believe a playoff is an upgrade over the BCS and pre-1995 system, so I don't think there's much suspense in asking that question.

One of the arguments in favor of the BCS today, "it's better than the old system".

Is this true? Did you like the traditional system where it always was Pac-10/Big Ten in the Rose Bowl, Big 8 in the Orange, SEC in the Sugar, SWC in the Cotton? Or do you really think the new system is an improvement even though the computer rankings are bogus?

**Bearcat** · 11-29-2006, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saulbadguy

The BCS is better than the old system, but that doesn't mean jack shit, because D-1A needs a playoff system.

It's all about money. The Big XII rakes in nearly 30 million with 8 bowl tie ins. We would not get near that much under a playoff system. The Big 10, Big East, ACC, Pac-10 and SEC has the same concern. That is why we do not have a playoff system. Nothing else.

I know it's all about money, but I've never understood how it's an argument against a playoff, because you can have both. The 8 teams that make the BCS bowls will be the playoff teams and the other tie-ins will go to the other bowls. The payouts for making the playoffs can be the same as they are now, and I assume since you get more money for making the BCS Championship game than the other BCS bowls, there would be bonuses equal to that difference for advancing. What's the problem?

**Saulbadguy** · 11-29-2006, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bearcat

I know it's all about money, but I've never understood how it's an argument against a playoff, because you can have both. The 8 teams that make the BCS bowls will be the playoff teams and the other tie-ins will go to the other bowls. The payouts for making the playoffs can be the same as they are now, and I assume since you get more money for making the BCS Championship game than the other BCS bowls, there would be bonuses equal to that difference for advancing. What's the problem?

Playoffs would guarantee alot of advertising revenue, but that would have to be split between the conferences that have teams that make the playoffs, plus Notre Dame (****ers).

That would reduce the available amount of advertising money for traditional bowl games, because people would care about the playoffs much much more. The old bowls would quickly become the NIT.

milkman · 11-29-2006, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saulbadguy

Playoffs would guarantee alot of advertising revenue, but that would have to be split between the conferences that have teams that make the playoffs, plus Notre Dame (****ers).

That would reduce the available amount of advertising money for traditional bowl games, because people would care about the playoffs much much more. The old bowls would quickly become the NIT.

They already are the NIT.

**Saulbadguy** · 11-29-2006, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman

They already are the NIT.

To the casual college football fan, maybe.

When the ONLY POSTSEASON that is available is a bowl game, you can't strive for anything further.

milkman · 11-29-2006, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saulbadguy

To the casual college football fan, maybe.

When the ONLY POSTSEASON that is available is a bowl game, you can't strive for anything further.

In the end, the only Bowl game that matters now is the one for the NC.

It doesn't matter to me if Michigan wins their bowl game and finishes as the number two team in the country, or Floida wins theirs and finishes number three.

I enjoy a good football game, but the only bowl game that has any relevance is the BCS Championship.

The rest are just window dressing.

FringeNC · 11-29-2006, 11:08 AM

The amount of money a 16-team playoff could generate is staggering. Usually, money is not left on the table like that...

**Saulbadguy** · 11-29-2006, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman

In the end, the only Bowl game that matters now is the one for the NC.

It doesn't matter to me if Michigan wins their bowl game and finishes as the number two team in the country, or Floida wins theirs and finishes number three.

I enjoy a good football game, but the only bowl game that has any relevance is the BCS Championship.

The rest are just window dressing.

Like I said, to the casual fan, it doesn't matter.

For the college football fan, they are awesome. You get to see matchups that traditionally, you would never see. As a fan of a school, you get to travel and see your team in yet another game, in a city you rarely get to. For the program itself, it's huge. You get added revenue, and you get a month of practice, which is very critical for young teams.

If a playoff system was implemented, you wouldn't get the good matchups of the 7-5, 8-4, and 9-3 teams, because alot of the lower tier bowls would be eliminated, due to lack of interest/revenue. However, I agree that too many teams get in to bowls, and the fact that you can use D-IAA wins is a JOKE.

**Saulbadguy** · 11-29-2006, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FringeNC

The amount of money a 16-team playoff could generate is staggering. Usually, money is not left on the table like that...

I agree, but I don't see the conferences getting the guaranteed money like they are used to.

Hell, maybe the conferences are just too lazy to get it done.

milkman · 11-29-2006, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saulbadguy

Like I said, to the casual fan, it doesn't matter.

For the college football fan, they are awesome. You get to see matchups that traditionally, you would never see. As a fan of a school, you get to travel and see your team in yet another game, in a city you rarely get to. For the program itself, it's huge. You get added revenue, and you get a month of practice, which is very critical for young teams.

If a playoff system was implemented, you wouldn't get the good matchups of the 7-5, 8-4, and 9-3 teams, because alot of the lower tier bowls would be eliminated, due to lack of interest/revenue. However, I agree that too many teams get in to bowls, and the fact that you can use D-IAA wins is a JOKE.

Fans of the teams that make the NIT could make the same argument.

As a fan of Kansas, would a matchup between Miami and Oregon St. really hold that much interest for you?

**Saulbadguy** · 11-29-2006, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman

Fans of the teams that make the NIT could make the same argument.

As a fan of Kansas, would a matchup between Miami and Oregon St. really hold that much interest for you?

Miami - Oregon State? Not so much. Nebraska - Michigan (last years Alamo Bowl)? You betcha. Oklahoma - Oregon (last years Holiday Bowl)? Yes. Notre Dame - Ohio State (last years Fiesta Bowl)? Uhm..yes.

CoMoChief · 11-29-2006, 11:29 AM

I think the BCS can be modified a little bit.

The NCAA knows how much money they generate over March Madness (Men's) so they should do this...

Take the top 8 BCS ranked teams and put them in a tourney. This would last one month, many people would see upsets, it would be a great thing to do. There's really no reason why they shouldnt do this. They claim that it would prolong the season and players would get hurt. Tough shit its football and a lot of the players playing in those games will go on to the next level. A couple more games won't hurt.

But there lies 2 problems...

-It's just too easy to do
-BCS and NCAA are all about $$$.

**banyon** · 11-29-2006, 11:32 AM

Which tastes better?

Dirt or Shoe Polish?

Chief Chief · 11-29-2006, 11:38 AM

For you play-off lovers:

OK, let's say they go with a 4-team play-off and they use the BCS (or any other) rankings to determine the top 4 teams: There are still those #5-/#6-/#7-(etc.)-ranked teams and their fans who will say that the play-off system sucks!! Bottom line: Ya'll will still whine about it! It's not like these team's players, coaches, etc., are gonna lose their jobs over it! SO STOP WHINING!!

milkman · 11-29-2006, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saulbadguy

Miami - Oregon State? Not so much. Nebraska - Michigan (last years Alamo Bowl)? You betcha. Oklahoma - Oregon (last years Holiday Bowl)? Yes. Notre Dame - Ohio State (last years Fiesta Bowl)? Uhm..yes.

You specifically used 7-5, 8-4 (9-3) matchups.

I used two teams that had those kind of records as an example.

Those other matchups that you mention are good football games, but the point is, at the end of the day, they are irrelevant.

Great games that, in the big picture of things, mean absolutely nothing.

Calcountry · 11-29-2006, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JBucc

I refuse to read such a shitty first line.

This thread is useless without pics

View Poll Results: College football was better with what system in place?
Old system	7	25.93%
BCS	20	74.07%
Voters: 27. You may not vote on this poll

11-28-2006, 10:30 PM
South Dakotan Banned Join Date: Oct 2006 Casino cash: $10004900	What was better? BCS or old system? I assume a majority of college football fans believe a playoff is an upgrade over the BCS and pre-1995 system, so I don't think there's much suspense in asking that question. One of the arguments in favor of the BCS today, "it's better than the old system". Is this true? Did you like the traditional system where it always was Pac-10/Big Ten in the Rose Bowl, Big 8 in the Orange, SEC in the Sugar, SWC in the Cotton? Or do you really think the new system is an improvement even though the computer rankings are bogus?
Posts: 28

11-29-2006, 11:08 AM	#21
FringeNC MVP Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: NC Casino cash: $-1753986	The amount of money a 16-team playoff could generate is staggering. Usually, money is not left on the table like that...
Posts: 10,234

11-29-2006, 11:29 AM	#26
CoMoChief Mahomes Dynasty Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Parts Unknown Casino cash: $7672254	I think the BCS can be modified a little bit. The NCAA knows how much money they generate over March Madness (Men's) so they should do this... Take the top 8 BCS ranked teams and put them in a tourney. This would last one month, many people would see upsets, it would be a great thing to do. There's really no reason why they shouldnt do this. They claim that it would prolong the season and players would get hurt. Tough shit its football and a lot of the players playing in those games will go on to the next level. A couple more games won't hurt. But there lies 2 problems... -It's just too easy to do -BCS and NCAA are all about $$$.
Posts: 39,245

11-29-2006, 11:32 AM	#27
banyon Supporter Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Hermosa, SD Casino cash: $10176551	Which tastes better? Dirt or Shoe Polish? __________________ “When war breaks out people say: 'It won't last, it's too stupid.' And war is certainly too stupid, but that doesn't prevent It from lasting.” ~Albert Camus, The Plague.
Posts: 44,355

11-29-2006, 11:38 AM	#28
Chief Chief Veteran Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Kansas City MO Casino cash: $10004900	For you play-off lovers: OK, let's say they go with a 4-team play-off and they use the BCS (or any other) rankings to determine the top 4 teams: There are still those #5-/#6-/#7-(etc.)-ranked teams and their fans who will say that the play-off system sucks!! Bottom line: Ya'll will still whine about it! It's not like these team's players, coaches, etc., are gonna lose their jobs over it! SO STOP WHINING!!
Posts: 3,072