BCS' Changes

[Spence]

Notre Dame and the BCS/playoff thing are sure to throw us off subject.

The playoff/bowl system argument is the one that bleeds in the most. Most every argument seems to find it's way back to that.

When the topic is CFB in general Notre Dame coming up wouldn't be off topic IMO.

The board runs pretty well. Almost all who post, do it in a responsible manner. Moving off topic is going to happen and as long as it doesn't get bad I don't think it is a problem. (it hasn't got close to being bad). This is a pretty easy board to moderate. Good people posting makes it that way.

[colorado_loves_football]

I think Rolltide brings up some valid points.
Wouldn't it be much more meaningful, if, in addition to a BCS bid you, as a football program, were also in the 'running' for a national title?
As it is, presently, reward, is monetary, to be divided up equally, among your consistuent teams. Stop to think about this for a second.
That means conferneces that are unequally repersented, are also unequally rewarded. And in the case of the Big Ten this year, doubly rewarded!
Or if you are Notre Dame, you are a conference in yourself, and don't have to share anything with anyone. Next year, they are awarded the same as a conference, not participating in the BCS.
It's time Notre Dame be denied preferential treatment for sake of objectivity. They won their $14 million cash prize this year, so now they ought to be treated just like everyone else.
I believe it's time for competition to have a role in who goes, over special interests.
That's why the proposal for a BCS 'playoff' was rejected. It's not a fair qualifying process. Once that happens, then we can start talking about a playoff, and a concensus national champion.
Baby steps, I guess.

[Spence]

That means conferneces that are unequally repersented, are also unequally rewarded. And in the case of the Big Ten this year, doubly rewarded!

The B-10 didn't get 2 full shares. Penn St. got the big payout and Ohio State got 4.5 mill(I think that was the total).

[colorado_loves_football]

The B-10 didn't get 2 full shares. Penn St. got the big payout and Ohio State got 4.5 mill(I think that was the total).

Not having access to the information, I have to accept that at face value as accurate. But even if Ohio State got a 'reduced' allotment, it's still a lot better than what they would have gotten had they not been select to play in the Fiesta Bowl. So it doesn't refute my argument entirely.
One problem I see with the BCS is it rewards teams disproportionately.
TCU played exceptionally well, regardless, and for that reason ought to have been at least considered for a BCS 'at large' bid.
Losing to SMU ruined their chances, but should it have necessarily denied them an opportunity to play against a sufficiently capable team (Oregon)?
That's my main objection to the BCS as it's presently organized.
It does a good job with it's own selections, but those not selected are left to hope for a good pairing. TCU was cheated, in my opinion by the Houston Bowl. As it was, the game was close, and TCU was maybe even lucky to win, but that doesn't really change the fact they were mismatched, as was Oregon against Oklahoma.
Why reward some teams, and punish others? Make it fair, that's all I'm asking. A TCU vs. Oregon pairing in the Holiday Bowl would have been a fair compromise to both teams, for not being selected by the BCS.
Putting one in the Houston Bowl, and the other in the Holiday wasn't fair to either. And it showed in how they played.

[Spence]

Ohio State would have been in the Cap. One bowl if they hadn't made it into the Fiesta, so they would have made as much either way. The conference did make more because more teams got to play for better money.

Also non BCS conferences do receive money from the BCS, I don't know how much, but I do know they get a cut. Obviously not as much as if they would have been in it.

[Jason G]

I agree with the thought that TCU was short-changed by having to play in the Houston Bowl. I think conference champions, if not automatically in or selected as an at-large into the BCS, should at least get an automatic birth into a January Bowl game like the Gator, Cotton, Outback, or Capital One.
I personally would have enjoyed seeing the Horned Frogs play in the Cotton Bowl against either Texas Tech or Alabama. As for Oregon they were certainly deserving of playing in the new year as well. I have to wonder why the Pac-10 doesn't have any additional January bowl tie-ins. I mean the Big Ten had three and the SEC had four teams playing in January this year, isn't the Pac-10 deserving of two?

[Spence]

PAC 10 teams don't draw as well. Tie-ins are done by contract. Any conference can go after the games, but the conferences that travel the best always win. If it were possible for Tennessee to go to a bowl this year with that record, they still would have packed the house.

[colorado_loves_football]

Irish 88, I'm simply proposing that the BCS utilize a 'qualifying' process whereby any team can legitimately vie for a bid, irrespective of where they play.
This year, outside the BCS, there were several teams, in my opinion, worthy of mention. Coincidentally, most of them were also conference champions, Fresno State being the only exception.
So, what I would prefer happen, would be to allow conference championship games to select a 'field' of teams from which the BCS can choose which are 'most' deserving of a bid.
This year, Ohio State and Penn State 'tied' so a Big Ten title game would be necessary to select one team, between them.
Similarly, if Notre Dame were to align itself in the Big East, a 'title' game pairing them and W.Virginia would likely have selected one team to the BCS.
With two 'at large' positions available, one would likely go to TCU, by virtue of their undefeated record MWC, but perhaps a showdown between them and Tulsa would be better, competitively.
An 'at large' bid would remain in place, and could be awarded by rank, which would give Ohio State the inside track.
So, to answer your question, the BCS might look as follows:
Rose Bowl: Texas vs. USC
Fiesta Bowl:TCU vs. OSU
Sugar Bowl:W.Virginia/ND vs. Georgia
Orange Bowl:FSU vs. Penn State

[mountainman]

Here's some information I've considered when reaching my position on bowls -vs- playoff.

I do not try or expect to change anyone's mind when these discussions come up. Everyone is entitled to have their own thoughts about a issue. I do enjoy discussing, debating and arguing the merits of an issue, but only for the purpose of helping myself to make up my own mind about what position to take. I came across this site and its information influenced my decision to support the bowl system as well as the BCS.


http://www.footballbowlassociation.com


The position that many playoff advocates take as the reason for a playoff is that a playoff will provide us a clear-cut national champion is true. My problem with that approach is all that must be given up and sacrificed for the sake of one team being determined to be the national champion.

Hopefully you will enjoy the site and it will provide useful information for consideration.

[Spence]

The first paragraph says it all. Most that advocate playoffs don't understand what would be lost under that system. Right now, with the TV coverage of most conferences, good players will take a chance on teams not considered powerhouse teams. They take the big fish, small pond attitude. If they institute a playoff all that goes away. 10 or 15 teams in the country will collect all of the players. They will wait in line to play, instead of going some place they could start immediately. Parity, as it exists right now in CFB, will be over.

A lot of mid-majors scream for playoffs, but playoffs would benefit the traditional powers much more then the current system does. More access is granted to the mid-majors now then ever, playoffs will erode the progress they have made.

[colorado_loves_football]

With respect to W. Virginia, I"m aware they are an outstanding football team, and I've even felt at times they were maybe the best football team in the country, but have yet to prove it, conclusively.
But give them credit for being good, consistently good, over many years.
Don Nehlen, I recall was their coach, and took them to a national championship in 1988, against University of Notre Dame, in the Fiesta Bowl. It was pre-BCS, but for all intents and purposes, it was the BCS 'championship' before it existed.
Even this year, I believe they, along with Penn State have a 'claim' upon the national title, since both were victorious in BCS pairnigs, and neither lost to Texas. I think to select a 'unanimous' national champion requires teams play head-to-head, to settle the matter.
W.Virginia lost to Va. Tech, a team that almost won the ACC. Penn State lost to Michigan, a team that nearly beat OSU, to earn a BCS bid.
A playoff of BCS champions, I believe would settle any debate as to which team is legitimate national champions, although this year it was fairly clear Texas was #1.

[Spence]

I think I know what's behind your position, it's called bias, because OSU obviously is a preferred team in a BCS bowl.

Ohio State usually finishes among the top 16 teams in the country. They would make the playoffs most every year. So that comment is silly. Ohio State will be included under any system.

If you think there would be more then 16 teams included in a playoff situation, you are kidding yourself. It would probably be more like 8 teams.

There would be no bowls other then playoffs. The NIT has tried that in basketball and they are going broke. If you think that the mid majors have a better chance at making the playoff, I hope you get your wish. Then I hope you can stomach the consequences.

There is no disadvantage either way to a team like Ohio State. A playoff would give Ohio State more opportunity to win a playoff every year, not less.

[mountainman]

Just for the record:

At the end of the 2003 regular season West Virginia was a co-champion of the Big East Conference.

Again, at the end of the 2004 regular season West Virginia was a co-champion of the Big East Conference.

As you may recall, at the end of the 2005 regular season West Virginia was the champion of the Big East Conference.

During the bowl season for the 2003 and 2004 seasons the Mountaineers were not selected for an at large bid to the BCS bowls because they did not meet the selection standards. Teams other than the Mountaineers that met the standards went instead.

Finally, in 2005 the Mountaineers met the BCS standards for selection and were selected to go to a BCS bowl.

During all this time, and a long time before, my tune has always been the same ........ 'Country Roads'

*************************************************************
Just for the record to an edited post:

The Mountaineers also won the Big East Conference outright during the 1993 season.

*************************************************************

[Spence]

CLF, I don't hold the position I have concerning playoffs because it would help of hurt Ohio State. Ohio State is one of the few teams that a playoff wouldn't hurt at all. My position is and will always be that playoffs would hurt the sport. It would kill the current bowl system and replace it with a system in which just a few teams would grow stronger and the rest would not. A lot of much needed money rolls in to all conferences from the bowl system. Ohio State is one of five schools in the country whose athletic program runs in the black. Money isn't an issue for Ohio State, but what would happen to the MAC, C-USA, WAC, or any other small conference who didn't even get a team into a playoff. No Money.

If you think that they would include a conference champion from all conferences in a 16 team play off, you are kidding yourself. Basketball fields 64 teams, they can afford to put in champions and teams from all conferences. In an 8 or 16 team playoff that just wouldn't happen. You maybe be able to construct a situation where this is possible, but you aren't the one who would be setting this up. Any playoff devised by the NCAA would be done so it could maximize the amount of money they could make off of it. TV wouldn't let a 11-1 team from a big conference stay home when a 8-4 conference winner from C-USA goes to the playoffs.

[colorado_loves_football]

I need to address two separate matters in this post.
First of all, I do agree that W. Virginia was a legitimate representative to the BCS this year, but probably not last year, and I for one am glad they weren't selected. I also know that there have been other years where they have been competitive, and that they were deserving of a BCS bid, just as they were in 1988, when they played in the Fiesta Bowl, as an independent.
I guess what we are witnessing is an 'evolution' of how college football is played. What would appear to me to be happening, is there is more of a desire to have the national championship decided on the football field.
That's why I believe, in due time, there will be a playoff, of sorts, which allows greater access, while maintaining the integrity of the BCS.
As it is now, there is competition, in games, without the 'glory', so to speak, of the results. The BCS has done a good job, competitively-speaking of pairing teams together. What's missing is the 'payoff' or the satisfaction of a unanimous national champion, every year.
I believe that will change, partly because I think that's how most people would prefer it be done, in general.
Competition would allow for a single national champion every year, within the BCS.