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?

I refuse to vote for those shitty options

Where is the ****ing neither option..

Did you guys bother to read the first line of the thread?

I refuse to read such a shitty first line.

Yeah the BCS is better just bc you can get a true national champion if all the cards fall in place like last year. The old system we would have had a tie last year.

Well, the BCS is just slightly less of a joke than the previous Bowl Alliance which was slightly less of a joke than the Bowl Coalition.

However, I will award a few bonus joke points to the BCS for adding that meaningless extra BCS game this year.

Second that motion.

If everything works out the way the powers that be hope for, then you can an undisputed champion in the BCS system.

However, the drawback, IMO, is that it makes all other Bowl games about as relevant as as the postseason NIT in college hoops.

The old system was better.

The NCAA should tie the Bowl system to a playoff system.

The old system was WAY better.

Old system didn't accurately determine a national champion, was a kluge, but had some tradition on it's side.

The BCS is every bad thing the old system was, without the tradition.

Agreed, plus it was always fun to blame the National Champs debate on actual people.

I think the BCS is an upgrade over the old system. However, the BCS is nowhere near a perfect system. I'm in favor of a playoff. Something like the top 8 teams.

I think the BCS is better than the old system, but would still prefer some type of playoff. Players go through playoffs in Highschool, then if they make it, they go through them in the Pros. Why not in college as well?

The existing bowl games could stay in place as playoff sites/games on the way to the championship.

We had a split NC a couple of years ago when Auburn went undefeated, which makes both systems equally worthless.

...and in DI-AA, DII, DIII... :banghead:

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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 $$$.

Which tastes better?

Dirt or Shoe Polish?

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!!

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.

This thread is useless without pics

Like the NCAA Basketball Tourney, it's certainly better to be arguing about who's #64 than who is #1.

Let #1 earn it on the field of play like every other D-I sport and let #8 or #16 bitch. (4 is too few to really resolve anything IMO).

I would vote for a 16 team tournament. Make everyone play through a 12 game schedule with no byes, so you end before thanksgiving weekend.

You say March Madness generates alot of money, but it generates nowhere near what a 16 team college football tournament would. Basketball is cute, but it is nowhere near the moneymaker football is.

4 team playoff? Please. 16 teams.

Rarely do we talk about anyone outside the top 10 being NC contenders, so w/ 16 teams, I feel noone would be left out that truly deserved a shot at it.

Got it. So every game that isn't the national championship game is irrelevant.

Ehh I think you need a bye week.

I also think 8 would be enough since the BCS is only the top 10 teams anyways. It could be called the BCS Tourney I dunno. :p

As they say, nobody remembers who finished second.

We agree on this.

16 team playoff would be perfect, but I'd settle for 8 teams if it came to it.

Ok. Put a bye week in the middle of the season, or stagger them per team. That's fine with me.

You would STILL have enough time for a 16 team tournament, and it would still end before January 8th (BCS national title game).

The BCS is better but i'd love a playoff system.

That pretty much says it all.

16 team playoff would be great. it would give some of those good teams w/ an 8-4 or 9-3 record a chance to knock some one off.

It is 4 weeks till January, case closed.

I agree with this, and have said it should be so for over 20 years.

Still waiting. Maybe the Chiefs will win a Super Bowl before this happens.

Does anyone know how many DI conferenced there are?

OTOH...
6 BCS conferences (Big East, Big XII, Big 10, SEC, ACC, Pac-10)
Mountain West Conference (MWC)
Western Athletic Conference (WAC)
Mid-American Conference (MAC)
Conference USA
Sun Belt
Independents

I would rather see the D1 schools limit reg season games to 10, have an off week before the start of the playoffs, then have a 32 team playoff. Each conference champion gets an automatic bid, we have to have Cinderella invited to this ball game.

There is no drama without a Hoosiers type scenario being possible. Trust me, when our HS upset an all everything big school from Sacramento with a 40 game winning streak to win our sections, it was AWESOME.

Just immagine a Rutgers getting on a roll in this thing.

I'd give the 6 BCS champs an automatic berth. Then, i'd give the Non-BCS conference champs a berth only if they had 10 regular season wins. Then, i'd choose at larges based on win totals, and strength of schedule.

If Notre Dame wants to cry about this, they can join a ****ing conference.

^^

Based on that...OTOH..here would be the tournament -

1. Ohio State
2. USC
3. Florida
4. Rutgers
5. Oklahoma
6. Georgia Tech
7. Boise State
8. BYU
9. Louisville
10. Notre Dame
11. Arkansas
12. Michigan
13. Virginia Tech
14. LSU
15. Wisconsin
16. Auburn

Now tell me that wouldn't be awesome.

Actually, the BCS rankings drop off significantly after 8-10 teams every year, and a playoff eliminates the argument of 3 teams going undefeated. Yes, the teams that don't make it will complain even if they didn't have a legit shot at a NC, just like March Madness, but it's on a lesser scale because you're talking about 0-1 loss teams with very weak schedules or 2 loss teams.

The argument that "it'll never be perfect" doesn't mean you shouldn't make it better.

I would be fine with that, anything to get it going, then we could tweak it and expand it after it is rolling and a huge success.

Heck, I would take a 4 team playoff just to get it started.

Couldn't they split the money between the 8 teams and their conferences the same way regardless of the format?

There would be more focus on the playoffs, obviously, but I think the smaller bowl games would have as much recognition as they have now, which isn't a lot. The fans of the teams would still care, and the hosting city would care... just like now though, I pay attention to matchups during the bowls, and those matchups would matter no less if there was a playoff. Just like someone said, it's already the NIT... you can strive for a bowl or a BCS bowl, so there's already a difference. We're just changing the format.

In a 16-team playoff, the big conferences' championship game could be part of the first round of the playoffs...

The smaller bowls still get televised. Before the Final Four of the NIT, none of it gets televised.

I'm not sure they can agree on a way to split the money.

Here's my system: There's twelve conferences, Each one would be split into two divisions, North and South, East and West, A and B, whatever it doesn't really matter. The Winner of each would be seeded and put in a 12 team playoff with the top four seeds getting a bye. Playoffs commence and a true Champion is decided. This way there's no whining about being left out. Didn't win your conference? Tough luck. Play better next year. The conferences may have to be reorganized and the independents would have to join. Also the season would be cut to 10 or 11 games, 7 being conference games (4 from your division, 3 from the other) to prevent any ties. The Non-conference games would not matter as far as winning a division, but would be considered in seeding.

edit: To keep the BCS people happy, I guess the first four games could be called bowl names, then the next four more prominent bowls, then the next two probably the Sugar and Rose Bowl, then the Championship game. An NIT like playoff for conference runner ups could be a possibility for even more football fun.

The only way you could get a playoff is have the champion from all conferences in it. That would be 11 plus 5 at large bids. I would rather see all BCS schools but the only way you get it passed by the NCAA is do that way.

First Round - Campus Sites
Second Round - 2 BCS bowl spots + Cotton and Capital One Bowl
Semi Finals - 2 BCS bowl spots
Championship - rotate through 4 BCS bowl spots

Not true, ESPN televises a few NIT games. I know Missouri State had two games on ESPN in last year's NIT.

I think they still would get televised... ESPN has nothing better to do.

Yeah, and that will always be the issue.. not what's best for the players or fans :deevee:

I agree that 16 teams would be too many, but..HEY!..HOW ABOUT THIS: an 8-team DOUBLE-ELIMINATION tournament! Nobody could even think about bitchin' 'bout that!

Normally I'd agree with you on this plan, but it's obvious you didn't waste enough brain cells in devising it. Put a little more thought-process into it..y'know, mix in some 1-AA teams, add some byes, etc.,..then get back to me on it over lunch next week. That's right: Have your people call my people!

I don't agree with the all-conference theory, and not just because the big conferences wouldn't ever approve....

Ohio State
USC
Notre Dame
Florida or Arkansas




Wake Forest or Georgia Tech
Nebraska or Oklahoma
Louisville
Boise State
BYU

Southern Miss or Houston
Ohio or Central Michigan
Middle Tennessee

Not only does the first round of this playoff have the same feel as the pre-Christmas bowl games, it leaves out 5 of the BCS top 12.

Saul's bracket looks much better.

Not that any of it matters... I'm just bored at work :shrug:

1-AA has their own playoffs.

Too complicated. Just have the Champions get an automatic bid, then have a certain number of at large bids. If 16 teams, then 4 bids go out.

If 32 teams, then 20 bids. I don't see why this would be difficult. 5 weeks from thanksgiving to New Years is easily managable.

Each University could decide for itself, how to or whether or not they want to allow flexibility on their Student athletes academic schedules.

So how can there truly be only ONE national champion if there really are TWO (or more) national champions?

I'm tellin' ya: Ya gotta mix in them 1-AA teams. Now burn some brain cells and get-R-dun!

:LOL:

It would be fun to have a 16 team tourney, but it will never happen.

One way to have a true Champ is to take the top 4 teams and have them play in (1 vs 4) and (2 vs. 3.) The winners go to the BCS Champ game the following week.

They already have the newly created BCS Champ Game so it would work well. They would only have to add 1 game.

If you're #5 then you can complain all you want but you should have been ranked in the top 4. This can be accomplished by not losing, and scheduling a tough, non conference schedule.

I really think this has a shot in the future. It wouldn't disrupt the current Bowl system and would only add 1 game, which has already been created.

I agree I'll give BCS a slight nod but both are ridiculous.

Dave

A playoff would be great, and I can't believe people who talk about how lucrative bowls are don't realize that you can have each game in the playoff be a different "bowl". Still get the ad money but with better matchups.

Well..DUHH!! Under the current system, if you're #3 then you can complain all you want but you should have been ranked in the top 2. No matter how many teams you have in the tournament, there's always gonna be several teams left out who feel they should be included.

And just how does one go about scheduling a so-called "tough" schedule when games are lined up 5 or more years ahead of time? Who knows the quality of the 2011 team at USC, Ohio State, Notre Dame, Michigan, etc.? Who knew 5 years ago that Bobby Bowden and his 2006 FSU team would suck big-time?

Where is the Gaz option in the polls?