New BCS Qualifying Standards

[colorado_loves_football]

Lets assume that the BCS works well and will always work to perfection. All the woulda coulda shoulda makes my head hurt. Play-offs could be instituted and made to work. Play-offs would be good for the top 8 or 10 teams in the country. Play-offs would be good for the traditional powers of college football because they would have the most chances at the play-offs every year. Play-offs would give you one, true national championship.

Play-offs would kill the bowls because of the money that would have to be paid to support the play-offs. They would kill the bowls because they would have to be played regionally instead of having teams travel across country for one game. They would take needed money and television exposure away from the mid-majors. They would kill recruiting by the mid majors because the top player the mid majors get now would try to walk-on at the bigger programs to get a chance at exposure.

CLF, playoffs wouldn't be set up like you want them to be, they would be set up the exact same way as the BCS is set up now. If they wanted to give wider access to the mid-majors they already would have done it.

Sometimes we don't have one. "true"national champion in CFB. It doesn't hurt the sport not to have one. It creates controversy and gets people interested. CFB is the most popular college sport for a reason.

I would like to address this, along with Mountainman's comment, that every game should matter, in the regular season, and I agree with that statement, they 'should' matter, which really gives more argument toward limiting the BCS 'championship' field to ten teams, all conference champions, but outside of that happening, I'll accept the present model, for selection purposes.
Now, I need to address Spence's argument that somehow the BCS 'playoff' model would necessarily ruin the bowls, financially. I disagree with that, because if that were true, it would have already happened. People wouldn't care about games that aren't part of the BCS, or in other words, they should all 'die' off, financially-speaking, so your premise is unsubstantiated. You even tried, unsuccessfully, to put TCU the 'doghouse' suggesting somehow they wouldn't fill a stadium. Well, I don't have the figures in front of me, but my impression is the Houston Bowl was a sell-out, but I could be mistaken, I never saw the figures. But I"m sure they're available somewhere. TCU sold their allotment, then asked for something like 4,000 more, no that's not OSU figures, but it means they were marketable. Iowa St. I believe, sold their allotment, and any they returned were likely bought by TCU fans, but again I don't have access to the numbers. So, I only ask that you be fair in your analysis, Spence, not that you aren't entitled to your opinion.
But using TCU as a barometer for 'lackadaisicalness' probably won't work very well. I will grant you, however, it was almost like playing in Ft. Worth, or in other words, something of a 'home' game for the Frogs.
That being said, you, nor I have sufficient evidence to suggest somehow TCU wouldn't have filled the Fiesta Bowl, so unless you can provide that kind of evidence, let's ignore it, ok? Fair is fair.
Now, what I propose isn't as much a 'playoff' in the traditional sense of the word, as it is a compromise between the bowl enthusiasts and those who want an 'all-out' playoff, varying from 8 to 64 teams. I prefer utlizing the BCS 'model' which necessitates making it a ten-team field.
Should that ever change, then the model would have to reflect that, or else the BCS is useless.
In effect I propose the BCS implement a 9 game 'format' whereby the most qualified teams 'meet' in the BCS title game. That isn't to say, its' perfect, in fact it's not. More conference championship games would serve to make the BCS 'simpler' to arrange, but as you already mentioned, it wouldn't necessarily guarantee 'quality' in pairings.
So, it is in fact a 'compromise' between a legitimate playoff, and keeping the BCS 'as-is'. So, it shouldn't be viewed as 'infallable'. I imagine there are even more permutations than the one Mountainman imagined.
For example, if it's based entirely on BCS ranking it's possible, although somewhat unlikely, two conference 'runners-up' advance to the title game.
Anyone remember 2003, when Oklahoma made the BCS after losing to KSU? Well, if memory serves, Oklahoma lost, but had an opportunity late in the game to beat LSU, despite being outplayed most of the game.
It's possible, although somewhat unlikely Ohio St. and Oklahoma advance to the title game. But, if nothing else, the championship will be determined by what happens on the field, and won't be settled by an arbitrator.
Tha'ts all I'm getting at. Mountainman wasn't out of line 'dreaming' up an unlikely scenario, that's what good prognosticators do. As unlikely as that may sound, it's likely to happen every 50 years or so, if not more.
So there may be a disadvantage to having a 'playoff' but if that's the only one, I'll take it over what's being used presently. 9 games, would give 'fair' opportunity to ten teams. Teams like Ohio St.(2003) and W. Virginia (2005) might even have won it all, under that arrangement.
And if nothing else, it allows for greater participation, through a BCS rank.

[Spence]

TCU didn't sell out many if any home games this year going 11-1. They may have sold their allotment to the bowl game, but what if they had to sell their allotment to 3 or 4 bowl games in 3 or 4 weeks. They had a month to sell these. I'm not picking on TCU, just using them as an example, TCU is close to several very large programs and are in the same situation as a lot of MAC teams up against. It isn't their fault, but it doesn't change the fact that they don't fill their own stadium.

If there were to be a playoff there would be no bowls. Play-offs would have to be done regionally, like they are in every other sport, for economic reasons. Ohio State draws as well as any team in the country and they couldn't get enough get fans to travel for 3 separate bowl games. The only way to do a playoff would be to do it regionally, where it would be a day trip to see the games for fans. If the playoff games would be done regionally, then the bowls would be of no use and would go away.

You aren't accounting for the economics involved in a playoff when you say the bowls could be used. A playoff could be done economically, but it couldn't be done in the context of a bowl system. Also how would teams like having to travel to Ann Arbor in December for a regional playoff. Same goes for Columbus, Happy Valley, Morgantown, Lincoln, Iowa City, Madison, Blacksburg, Evanston, or any number of possible playoff sites. They would have to do the games based on "home field advantage" much like the NFL does to keep them fair. It wouldn't be fair to play a southern team in the south every year in a playoff situation.

The final game could be held at a bowl site, but that would be about it. Northern teams would love to have a team from the south come up to play them in the middle of the winter, but from a competitive standpoint how fair would that be to a team that has never even practiced in the cold.

[Spence]

Yeah, it is how it works in the NFL and it does come down to playing football. My point was that you can't incorporate playoffs into the bowl system because it doesn't work economically. Then I kind of got lost.

Still given that CFB talent isn't close to NFL talent and the fact that teams that are built for speed can't go "big" because of the 85 scholarship rule, it creates problems for a lot of teams. Also the 1-AA playoffs are over by the middle of december. Toward the end of the month the weather gets bitter in a lot of places.

Good point though, it brought me down off my horse for a minute.

[Derek]

Guys, the BCS is not about fairness, it's about correctness. And there's a bunch of interests and perspectives to consider to get it correct. Fair would be the easiest thing to do, but getting it correct is the difficult part.

That is exactly right. The BCS tries to get the best teams into the best games. Whether or not they achieve that goal is a matter of opinion, but they try. All teams know what the do to get in, ts just a matter of if they ccan get it done or not. That doesn't mean that if a team doesn't get in they aren't good enough, it means they didn't do what they had to do to get in.

Even Auburn going undefeated a couple of years ago didn't do what was necessary to make it. They played a 1-AA team and sunk their chances right there if two other teams went undefeated. If you decide to play a weaker schedule and no one else goes undefeated, you made a good decision. If it goes the other way it only takes one look in the mirror to find someone to blame.

The same thing could be said for the USC/LSU/Oklahoma fiasco.

[Derek]

I still say Notre Dame should be forced to play in a conference in order to be eligable for a BCS bowl game.

[Spence]

I still say Notre Dame should be forced to play in a conference in order to be eligable for a BCS bowl game.

I don't know if I would go that far, I don't think they should have any special automatic in though. I think it should be the same for them as the other non-member schools.

[colorado_loves_football]

TCU didn't sell out many if any home games this year going 11-1. They may have sold their allotment to the bowl game, but what if they had to sell their allotment to 3 or 4 bowl games in 3 or 4 weeks. They had a month to sell these. I'm not picking on TCU, just using them as an example, TCU is close to several very large programs and are in the same situation as a lot of MAC teams up against. It isn't their fault, but it doesn't change the fact that they don't fill their own stadium.

If there were to be a playoff there would be no bowls. Play-offs would have to be done regionally, like they are in every other sport, for economic reasons. Ohio State draws as well as any team in the country and they couldn't get enough get fans to travel for 3 separate bowl games. The only way to do a playoff would be to do it regionally, where it would be a day trip to see the games for fans. If the playoff games would be done regionally, then the bowls would be of no use and would go away.

You aren't accounting for the economics involved in a playoff when you say the bowls could be used. A playoff could be done economically, but it couldn't be done in the context of a bowl system. Also how would teams like having to travel to Ann Arbor in December for a regional playoff. Same goes for Columbus, Happy Valley, Morgantown, Lincoln, Iowa City, Madison, Blacksburg, Evanston, or any number of possible playoff sites. They would have to do the games based on "home field advantage" much like the NFL does to keep them fair. It wouldn't be fair to play a southern team in the south every year in a playoff situation.

The final game could be held at a bowl site, but that would be about it. Northern teams would love to have a team from the south come up to play them in the middle of the winter, but from a competitive standpoint how fair would that be to a team that has never even practiced in the cold.

Spence, with respect to the various bowl's attendance figures, I was able to find a summary of the numbers & ratings:
http://www1.ncaa.org/membership/governa ... Supp_2.xls
That should help you in your 'analysis' of how the bowls compare from year-to-year, 2004-2005.

The Houston Bowl, prior to being EV1.net Houston Bowl, was called the GalleryFurniture Bowl, and was played in the Alamodome. The previous attendance record was 33,000, and that was eclipsed this year, 37,286. That's significantly higher than last year's crowd of 27,235 (37%). The only other bowl that did better, statistically was the Las Vegas Bowl, up 38% from last year (BYU vs. California).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your 'argument' is that a pairing of 'mid-majors' won't attract a crowd, isn't that your claim? So your 'hypotheis' is that a Mountain West team, paired against say, a relatively 'unheralded' team from a distant conferece, geographically wouldn't sell out. Probably not by a long shot, after all, we're talking about a 'mid-major'. Well, the evidence refutes that, last year's Fiesta Bowl was in fact a sell-out and I have the numbers to support it. There were more people in attendance this year, some 3000 more, approx. But we were also at 103% capacity, so it was a sell-out regardless.
Would those two teams have filled the Rose Bowl? Not likely, but your argument isn't about if they would fill the Rose Bowl, it's whether they would fill the Fiesta Bowl, since that's likely where TCU would be placed.
The evidence would seem to support my side more than it supports yours, at any rate. More people attended this year's Ohio St vs. Notre Dame 'marquis' pairing, 2677 more to be exact, not exactly what I would call 'overwhelming' evidence to support your side of the debate, but more people, at any rate, 3.6% more to be exact.
Now, let's compare the Houston Bowl, 37,286 people in attendance. Up 37% from last year's Colorado vs. UTEP pairing 27,235. Second only to the Las Vegas Bowl in terms of percentages. That says something in my opinion. The stadium was only 54% to capacity, but 'rounding' it to 40,000, and approximating 60% TCU fans would suggest 24,000 were in attendance, and I think that's probably accurate. at least, if not more would likely attend a Fiesta Bowl game. And that doesnt' take into account the people who likely attend the Fiesta Bowl, every year, locals, visitors, media, and whatever other special interests (businesses often buy allotments of seats, regardless). So the likelihood the Fiesta Bowl wouldn't sell out is actually fairly small really. And it's not entirely about who's playing, either.
If I'm not mistaken the Colorado vs. Oregon game didn't appear to be a sell-out, but likely was, anyway, because I think any unclaimed seats are 'bought-up' by sponsors. I could be wrong about that, but I think that's partly one reason that Tostitos has an interest, they buy into the marketing of the game and likely 'eat' any inherent losses. I attended a game between Penn St, and Texas, and after half-time there were a lot of empty seats, partly because Penn St. dominated, but partly also because those games are assured sell-outs anyway. So your concern, while legitimate, is likely unfounded.

Yet another game of significance is the Liberty Bowl, pairing two fairly 'unheralded' teams in Fresno St. and Tulsa. That, in your opinion ought to have been an example of a 'bust', correct? After all, it's two 'mid-majors' playing far away from home. But for all intents and purposes it was a sell-out, also. Interesting to me is how the attendance figures compare fairly well with last year's 'record' crowd of 58,355. 54,894 were in attendance. A difference of 3461, not that different from the Fiesta Bowl, in terms of percentages. So that refutes that concern.
.
You make a lot of 'blanket' statements, Spence, most of which have ablsolutely no basis in fact, whatsoever. You imply TCU can't sell out their home stadium, yet the evidence supports my supposition more than it supports yours. 36,284 were in attendance for the CSU game. TCU likely has 45,000 capacity, that's close to being a sell-out although with some 'wiggle' room. TCU isn't Ohio State, and they play in the Mountain West Conference so, for them 36,000 is a pretty good crowd.
Fresno State has 41,000 capacity and they sell out every game, so it's all relative, I suppose.
Put TCU in the Big XII they likely sell-out every home game. Colorado doesn't sell out, in fact I recall when they played Texas A&M they had a lot of empty seats, a stadium I believe that accomodates over 50,000.
So you can't base your entire argument on how many people TCU seats.
Othe teams that do well, accomodation wise: Boise St, I believe sells out their games. BYU, I believe sells out a majority of their home games, and they play in a 70,000 seat stadium, so that's getting close to Ohio St. numbers. TCU plays in the Mountain West Confernece, so if they can attract 36,000 per game, that's doing pretty good. Putting 37,000 in the Houston Bowl wasn't that bad, either. We havent' seen them in the Fiesta Bowl yet, but since Utah sold it out, along with Pittsburgh, you need to revise your 'facts' to suit the situation, something you are pretty good at.
My 'guess' is one reason TCU wasn't selected for the Holiday Bowl, is they likely wouldn't have been as bid a 'draw' financially as Oklahoma was. I think maybe its' even 'good' that TCU played a game a lot closer to home, this year. Sort of like getting your feet wet. They probably weren't quite ready to take center stage, but they played a fairly-good opponent in Iowa St. and managed to win, albeit in a close game.
Whether or not they would have beaten Oregon I don't honestly know.
But TCU did beat Oklahoma, and Oklahoma beat Oregon. It would seem likely that TCU might beat Oregon, but we'll have to wait and see.

[Spence]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your 'argument' is that a pairing of 'mid-majors' won't attract a crowd, isn't that your claim?

Your wrong, that isn't what I said at all. We were talking about play-offs. TCU would have to sell their allotment of tickets 3 or 4 times if the were successful. TCU didn't sell out three consecutive games at home during the regular season. I don't believe they sold out at all, but I am not sure about that. I used TCU as an example, but it is likely if the playoffs were held at bowl sites that Ohio State wouldn't sell their allotment to all three games and Ohio State travels as well as any one in the country.

My point was that economically they would have to regionalize the games to make them work if they went to a playoff. It wasn't a shot at TCU. I used TCU as an example because they don't draw very well at home during the regular season. Miami(Fla.) doesn't travel well either, it has nothing to do with the strength of the team.

You did take a shot at the Ohio State - Notre Dame Fiesta Bowl, I will leave you with this. This years Fiesta bowl was the largest non championship crowd in the Fiesta Bowl history. The stadium will only hold what it will hold. Check out the TV ratings between this years Fiesta and Last years. That should open your eyes a little.

You make a lot of 'blanket' statements, Spence, most of which have ablsolutely no basis in fact, whatsoever. You imply TCU can't sell out their home stadium, yet the evidence supports my supposition more than it supports yours. 36,284 were in attendance for the CSU game. TCU likely has 45,000 capacity, that's close to being a sell-out although with some 'wiggle' room. TCU isn't Ohio State, and they play in the Mountain West Conference so, for them 36,000 is a pretty good crowd.

I make a lot of blanket statements that have no basis in fact? How is almost selling out a few games, selling out? How's that for a little reality check?

[Spence]

I went ahead and looked it up. This years Fiesta Bowl TV rating was 12.2, last years Fiesta Bowl television rating was 4.1.

What is that you say? It was because of Notre Dame was in the game? Well that had something to do with it, so lets look at the 2004 and 2003 Fiesta Bowl.

2004 Ohio State - Kansas State - TV rating 8.7
2003 Ohio State - Miami(Fla.) - TV rating 17.9 *

* This game was the national championship game. 17.9 was the highest rated championship game since the BCS started until this year when Texas - USC blew it out of the water with a 21.

So to say their wasn't much difference between the two games is doing a lot of what use just accused me of doing.

[Spence]

This is Paul Brown Tiger Stadium in Massillon, Ohio where Massillon High School plays football. In the 1990s the longtime Ohio powerhouse boasted one of the largest high school football stadiums in the country and was drawing more than 30,000 fans to some of its games. The Tigers of Massillon traditionally imported class football opponents from far and wide â€â€

[Jason G]

It is high school programs like these that make me wish more guys stayed at home to play their college football. After all the closest Division 1-A (all of Division 1 in fact) school to Massillon, Canton, and the city of Cleveland is the University of Akron.

[Spence]

I believe Anthony Pittman and Chris Wells are both from inside Akron. Wells, I know, went to Garfield. Massillon has put tons and tons of players into D-1.

[colorado_loves_football]

I went ahead and looked it up. This years Fiesta Bowl TV rating was 12.2, last years Fiesta Bowl television rating was 4.1.

What is that you say? It was because of Notre Dame was in the game? Well that had something to do with it, so lets look at the 2004 and 2003 Fiesta Bowl.

2004 Ohio State - Kansas State - TV rating 8.7
2003 Ohio State - Miami(Fla.) - TV rating 17.9 *

* This game was the national championship game. 17.9 was the highest rated championship game since the BCS started until this year when Texas - USC blew it out of the water with a 21.

So to say their wasn't much difference between the two games is doing a lot of what use just accused me of doing.

Spence, now you are modifying your view to suit the situation. Should I be surprised that the ratings would be higher this year? You yourself admitted the Utah vs. Pittsburgh pairing was less than 'perfect'. 'Worst' was your assessment of it, yet it was a sell-out. And you were the one who made 'attendance' the standard, not me, so now you modify it so that you have a leg to stand on.
Honestly, I don't really care about ratings, I'm more interested in the game, itself, but you may have a valid point but you had to go searching for one, to justify your position. The bottom line, is both games were 'successful' from a marketing standpoint. I might have preferred a better pairing of teams, but you live with it. TCU's game vs. Iowa State didn't garner as high a television rating as Colorado vs. UTEP, so I lose on that one, too, but I"m not sure I 'lose' in the bigger picture.
My argument doesn't live and die on TCU alone, if that's what you are hoping. I simply utilize them for the fact they were the most deserving 'non-BCS' team not to be selected, this year. Previous years it was another team, Louisville for example, 2004.
But, to imply somehow a team wouldn't draw a crowd is presumptuous at best. Given the nature of the bowl they played in I thought TCU fared pretty well, myself. A 37% increase in gate revenue isn't something to sneeze at. The Fiesta Bowl between Notre Dame & Ohio St. was something like 4% greater than the previous year, gate receipts. Sure, it was a bigger television draw, but that wasn't your argument, at least not initially. A lot more people will likely watch a Notre Dame vs. OSU game, and that matters to the networks, and the sponsors, so it's not a trivial matter, but long-and-short of it is, both were profitable. I'm not sure you can argue it any other way. Some might contend that the television market is greater than the 'local' market, but I think they go hand-in-hand. Part of the reason the Fiesta Bowl had a poor rating likely was due to the fact Utah dominated the game. People don't like to watch blowouts. Good games ususally equate to good ratings, which probably explains the rather 'slanted' ratings favoring the Miami vs. OSU and USC vs. Texas games. Even the KSU vs. OSU game in some respects isn't a very good direct comparion, but if you think that a t.v. rating is the be-all end-all, then go work for ABC. They don't even have the BCS anymore, so that ought to tell you something.
Television obviously is'nt the 'final straw' if it were, we'd be talking about a playoff now, because that's what ABC wanted, and didn't get, and I for one am glad, because it wouldn't have been a fair arrangement.
Now, getting back to your position that somehow a 'mid-major' wouldn't draw a crowd there is already sufficient evidence to refute that argument. I used the Houston Bowl, partly because TCU was represented, but a better comparison would be the Liberty Bowl. This year's crowd was close to last year's record crowd, 55,000 of a 62,000 capacity. Last year was 58,000. Some stadiums don't sell out, ever. The Liberty Bowl is likely one of those stadiums, so 60,000 probably ought to be viewed as capacity, so they were within 5,000 of a sell out.
Similarly, the Houston Bowl for all intents and purposes is the GalleryFurnitureBowl. I don't know what the capacity is for the Alamodome, but that would be a 'better' reference than the Reliant Dome. It was built to accomodate an NFL-sized audience, and my guess is it was moved to the Houston Bowl, for practical reasons.
The Alamo Bowl would likely be better served in Houston, and vice-versa, and that likely woudl have resulted in closer-to-capacity crowds for both games. I'm not making excuses, those are facts, and regardless, the crowd for the Houston Bowl was a record crowd. And that was likely due to TCU's fan base. Iowa State doesn't really travel that well, in general. I"m not sure they even filled their allotment.
Now, if you want to make a case for TCU not being a 'draw' go right ahead, but use facts to support your argument.
They drew 36,000+ for a game against Colorado State, a game, to my knowledge that had little, if any bearing on TCU's MWC conference championship. But I could be wrong. I believe if CSU hasn't lost a game or two it might have been a 'championship' of sorts, but CSU didn't.
So, it wasn't what many would call a 'draw' yet it filled to 75% capacity.
That's not bad, by most people's standards. Certainly not a sell-out but I'd be interested in learning how many teams sell-out consistently.
Probably not too many, but I could be wrong.
2003 would have been a good point of reference had TCU beaten S. Mississippi. Then we would know for sure if TCU could have filled a stadium. As it was, they played Boise St, in the Ft. Worth Bowl, to a capacity crowd, I'm guessing. This year, the Reliant Dome was filled to about 55% capacity. Playing there was an advantage, for recruiting purposes, but probably wasn't good for overall numbers.
I believe the Alamodome would likely have been a sell-out, but that's just my opinion. As your your argument that TCU would have to 'fill' 4 stadiums, that's just not true.
You completely ignore the fact that each succeeding game would have more drama, likely have better quality in play, and likely more people interested, irrespective of which two teams are playing.
The BCS bowls, to my understanding sell-out consistently. Maybe you have access to data I don't but show me where that doesn't happen, and I'll listen. Miami, FL doesn't travel well, but I specifically remember seeing them play to a capacity crowd in Tempe, Arizona against UA.
Perhaps, that was due to Arizona's fan base, but a sell-out is a sell-out regardless. In fact, I have yet to witness a Fiesta Bowl that wasnt' one.
There are other things I could apply here in my defense, but suffice for now that you haven't produced sufficient evidence to support your claim that TCU (or any other team) outside the BCS wouldn't fill a stadium.
If anything, you are left grasping at straws, relying on televison ratings, which have nothing at all to do with the attendance of any bowl I can think of.
Make an argument and stand by it, but you can't I guess. You have to modify your position to suit the situation. That's not what I call a very solid arugument, by any definition. And even if your claim is that somehow a 'non-BCS' pairing of teams wouldnt' be a 'draw' I'm sure I can find sufficient evidence to the contrary, in fact I already have, the Liberty Bowl. Tear that one apart, if you dare.

[Spence]

Sorry man, I have always given real facts. I can back up every one of them. If I haven't checked it out I always follow it with "i think" or something of that sort. You on the other hand accuse me of not having my facts straight and then tell me that a sellout is 80% capacity. Then after that you tell me that Fort Worth, Texas is in a smalller TV market then Ohio. The Fort Worth/Dallas market is the seventh largest market in the United States. Columbus, Ohio is 32 or 34 depending on which source you use. I suggest that you have some clue to what the facts are before you call me on "blanket statements" and false facts.

Attendence and television(mostly television) are the reason why there are bowl games(or playoffs). Without this money none of the schools would be able to fund their programs. You "not caring" about that fact changes nothing.

[Jason G]

You are correct. They are both from Akron as well as the starting tailback at Northwestern whose name escapes me right now. There have been a lot of guys from the Akron area (not to mention Canton, Massillon, or Cleveland) that have made their way down here to Columbus. Some guys from the Akron/ Summit County area that immeadately come to mind are Antione Winfield and Mike Vrabel.

It is my hope though with the new indoor football practice facilities and fieldhouse built on the Akron campus (ranked in the top 5 facilities nationally from all accounts) that the Zips will be able to keep a lot of northeast Ohio high level prospects from playing elsewhere in college. It may be starting to pay off in unexpected ways though already. Akron did have an impressively large number of commitments from guys who played their high school ball in Florida on signing day.