I am first. The BCS Mess is just fine the way it is
Zac
· 7 months ago
Welp, ya gots one thing right. The BCS is a Mess!
U.of S.C.1978
· 7 months ago
He HE He!!! I once or twice typed in my proposal for an "in season" playoff here. Not only was I ignored, I was universally ignored. You put a lot more effort into your proposal. I feel your pain buddy.
Ben Prather
· 7 months ago
This site has greatly increased my understanding of the complexity of the issues.
An in season playoff would reduce the number of regular season games and disrupt traditional timing of traditional rivalry games.
While the BCS makes a lot of money, it pales befor the money the regular season makes. This is why any championship structure must not diminish the value of the regular season games. It is also why a more profitable playoff is a losing proposition if it even slightly resuces the value of the regular season.
The distilled version still came in at 12 pages, though the ideals achieved are concisely listed in the bulleted points listed in my e-mail posted above.
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 7 months ago
I knew I should have trademarked Darth Prather when I had the chance...
fosterkeats
· 7 months ago
Of course they don't want to change it, for a number of reasons:
1. They make too much money to change it, period
2. This "mess" gets tons of unnecessary TV, radio, and internet coverage. Whining, whining, whining... What would "That Sports Channel" do if they couldn't run the term "BCS Buster" into the freakin' ground every November & December???
3. Changing to a playoff would get the ire of the university academia community, even though all other divisions have playoffs
The only way I could think of to appease everyone is to take 8 teams and put them in a playoff, playing the 4 quarterfinal games the 2nd weekend of Dec, playing the 2 semifinal games the 3rd weekend of Dec at the home stadium of the higher seeded team, then the championship game the first Sat after New Year's at the stadium of one of the rotating bowl games... During those weeks & on New Year's Eve & Day, play all the bowl games...
Now, how do we choose those 8 teams???
Taking the winners of the 6 "BCS" conferences and 2 "wild card" teams is too much like the BCS. You could have a situation like a few years ago when a 4 loss Pitt team got into the BCS just for winning the weak Big East that year. That would also eliminate the Utahs, the Ball States, etc...
So in order to give the lower conferences a shot when one of their teams have a lucky season, you've got to set up some sort of point system like the polls but NOT like the polls, make sense???
I'm thinking about this sooo hard, there's smoke coming out of my ears...
Ben Prather
· 7 months ago
The two team tournament is highly unpopular due to the consistent lack of consensus at the cutoff (2002 and 2005 being 2 exceptions out of 11 years.)
Any fixed number of teams allows the possibility that the teams above and below the cutoff can have an arbitrarily small seperation in opinion. The only way to increase consensus is to use the seperation in the rankings as a criterion rather than a fixed number of teams.
The more teams that are added the greater the uncertainty in the rankings, causing a decrease in consensus. The field must be small. Even 8 is getting too large.
Excluding undefeated teams is a no starter for a significant number of fans, requiring at least 5 spots, see 2004.
The National Championship game is currently set for the second Monday in January. Playing the semifinals on New Year's Day allows the BCS bowls to occationally be included as semifinals. If needed, play-in games before the BCS bowls, hosted by the favored teams, finish the structure of my proposal.
1Tomcat
· 7 months ago
8 teams- using whatever system- is while not perfect by any means- still better than the current system- be it polls whatever- argue over who's #8 and who's #9 instead of who's # 3 and whose #4- polls-computers whatever Limiting a conference to two teams? some conferences may have more than two eligable- while others may not have any- the automatic Qualifiers-Conference Champ thing should be chunked out-sorry guys like a 4 loss Pitt or FSU playing in BSC bowls for example BE Champ 08 Cinn got hammered by OU during regular season Top 8 teams- using BCS bowls as elimination bowls- followed by two more big bowls- then the real NC game- right now- what 30 or 31 bowls- 5 big ones and 26 little ones OK now 4 + 2 + 1= 7 big bowls everybody else 24 little bowls- every body is happy- everybody makes more money- a true Nat Champ is crowned- makes too much sense the length of season stays the same- you dont have 6 or 8 weeks of rest and prepriation- start the process after the Champ games- you got the whole month of December- have the Big Champ game same week as current MNC game- Hookem-Horns
Ben Prather
· 7 months ago
I like the BCS bowls as a place for the top conference champions or runner ups.
I think the 2 team limit should be lifted in cases where the current rules would extend the eligibility lower in the standings. #14 is already to low unless team is undefeated.
My concept has the Championship Game the second Monday of January (Current date) and the BCS bowls and semi finals on New Year's Day. If more than 4 teams qualify an additional round would be added for those teams as needed to kick off the bowl season December 19th, hosted by the favored team.
Bowl games with the 2nd or third tie in to an automatic qualifying conference or the #1 for an at large conference would be given the title of premier bowls. These would make their selections before any other bowls make get even conference tie-ins. This would allow more flexibility to pair equally matched teams based on each years performance and conference variations.
The remaining bowls would be left to make compelling regional match ups that do not normally occur. By focusing on geographic regions over rigid conference tie-ins travel costs to these bowls could be reduced, increasing the profitability for the traveling schools and increasing the ability of schools to sell tickets.
Zac
· 7 months ago
You sure got #1 in "one".
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 7 months ago
But Ben, I thought you promised us change we could believe in?
Regan
· 7 months ago
There is No Spoon, only Zuul...
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 7 months ago
Matrix?
Ramblin' Gator
· 7 months ago
Sounds like Matrix and Ghostbusters.
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 7 months ago
Yea- GB 2...
Porcine
· 7 months ago
Be, Be, Be, Benny and the Jets!
Ben Prather
· 7 months ago
A New Idea:
Divide the nation into three regions for football only, North, South and West. Take the top 12 teams from each region and make them all play each other each year. One game is reserved for each of the top 12 teams to host a lower team of their choice.
Based on the last our years we get:
North: Ohio State, Penn State, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Michigan, Boston College, Notre Dame, Cincinnati, Rutgers, Northwestern, Michigan State, Pittsburgh
25 others
South: Florida, LSU, Virginia Tech, Georgia, Auburn, Alabama, Louisville, Georgia Tech, Tennessee, Miami (FL), Clemson, Wake Forest
The south gets two teams for the final four next year since the current champion, Florida, is guaranteed a spot and the south hosts the championship game. The west and north will host the semi-finals.
Each of the remaining 32 elite teams will play in a regional bowl against one of the top remaining teams, with the lowest elite teams vs. the highest remaining team, with the winners of these bowl games being the elite league members the next year.
That's a lot of good games right there ... and the teams playing in the elite leagues are settled on the field instead of the boardrooms.
Zac
· 7 months ago
"BCS Meets, No Change"
The title tells it all. Sorry, Ben. But seriously, did you really expect anything different? Nuff said.
All Comments
An in season playoff would reduce the number of regular season games and disrupt traditional timing of traditional rivalry games.
While the BCS makes a lot of money, it pales befor the money the regular season makes. This is why any championship structure must not diminish the value of the regular season games. It is also why a more profitable playoff is a losing proposition if it even slightly resuces the value of the regular season.
The distilled version still came in at 12 pages, though the ideals achieved are concisely listed in the bulleted points listed in my e-mail posted above.
1. They make too much money to change it, period
2. This "mess" gets tons of unnecessary TV, radio, and internet coverage. Whining, whining, whining... What would "That Sports Channel" do if they couldn't run the term "BCS Buster" into the freakin' ground every November & December???
3. Changing to a playoff would get the ire of the university academia community, even though all other divisions have playoffs
The only way I could think of to appease everyone is to take 8 teams and put them in a playoff, playing the 4 quarterfinal games the 2nd weekend of Dec, playing the 2 semifinal games the 3rd weekend of Dec at the home stadium of the higher seeded team, then the championship game the first Sat after New Year's at the stadium of one of the rotating bowl games... During those weeks & on New Year's Eve & Day, play all the bowl games...
Now, how do we choose those 8 teams???
Taking the winners of the 6 "BCS" conferences and 2 "wild card" teams is too much like the BCS. You could have a situation like a few years ago when a 4 loss Pitt team got into the BCS just for winning the weak Big East that year. That would also eliminate the Utahs, the Ball States, etc...
So in order to give the lower conferences a shot when one of their teams have a lucky season, you've got to set up some sort of point system like the polls but NOT like the polls, make sense???
I'm thinking about this sooo hard, there's smoke coming out of my ears...
Any fixed number of teams allows the possibility that the teams above and below the cutoff can have an arbitrarily small seperation in opinion. The only way to increase consensus is to use the seperation in the rankings as a criterion rather than a fixed number of teams.
The more teams that are added the greater the uncertainty in the rankings, causing a decrease in consensus. The field must be small. Even 8 is getting too large.
Excluding undefeated teams is a no starter for a significant number of fans, requiring at least 5 spots, see 2004.
The National Championship game is currently set for the second Monday in January. Playing the semifinals on New Year's Day allows the BCS bowls to occationally be included as semifinals. If needed, play-in games before the BCS bowls, hosted by the favored teams, finish the structure of my proposal.
Limiting a conference to two teams? some conferences may have more than two eligable- while others may not have any- the automatic Qualifiers-Conference Champ thing should be chunked out-sorry guys
like a 4 loss Pitt or FSU playing in BSC bowls
for example BE Champ 08 Cinn got hammered by OU during regular season
Top 8 teams- using BCS bowls as elimination bowls- followed by two more big bowls- then the real NC game-
right now- what 30 or 31 bowls- 5 big ones and 26 little ones
OK now 4 + 2 + 1= 7 big bowls
everybody else 24 little bowls- every body is happy- everybody makes more money- a true Nat Champ is crowned- makes too much sense
the length of season stays the same- you dont have 6 or 8 weeks of rest and prepriation- start the process after the Champ games- you got the whole month of December- have the Big Champ game same week as current MNC game-
Hookem-Horns
I think the 2 team limit should be lifted in cases where the current rules would extend the eligibility lower in the standings. #14 is already to low unless team is undefeated.
My concept has the Championship Game the second Monday of January (Current date) and the BCS bowls and semi finals on New Year's Day. If more than 4 teams qualify an additional round would be added for those teams as needed to kick off the bowl season December 19th, hosted by the favored team.
Bowl games with the 2nd or third tie in to an automatic qualifying conference or the #1 for an at large conference would be given the title of premier bowls. These would make their selections before any other bowls make get even conference tie-ins. This would allow more flexibility to pair equally matched teams based on each years performance and conference variations.
The remaining bowls would be left to make compelling regional match ups that do not normally occur. By focusing on geographic regions over rigid conference tie-ins travel costs to these bowls could be reduced, increasing the profitability for the traveling schools and increasing the ability of schools to sell tickets.
Divide the nation into three regions for football only, North, South and West. Take the top 12 teams from each region and make them all play each other each year. One game is reserved for each of the top 12 teams to host a lower team of their choice.
Based on the last our years we get:
North: Ohio State, Penn State, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Michigan, Boston College, Notre Dame, Cincinnati, Rutgers, Northwestern, Michigan State, Pittsburgh
25 others
South: Florida, LSU, Virginia Tech, Georgia, Auburn, Alabama, Louisville, Georgia Tech, Tennessee, Miami (FL), Clemson, Wake Forest
28 others
West: USC, Oklahoma, Texas, Boise State, Oregon, Texas Tech, Missouri, TCU, BYU, Kansas, Utah, ASU
31 others
The south gets two teams for the final four next year since the current champion, Florida, is guaranteed a spot and the south hosts the championship game. The west and north will host the semi-finals.
Each of the remaining 32 elite teams will play in a regional bowl against one of the top remaining teams, with the lowest elite teams vs. the highest remaining team, with the winners of these bowl games being the elite league members the next year.
That's a lot of good games right there ... and the teams playing in the elite leagues are settled on the field instead of the boardrooms.
The title tells it all. Sorry, Ben. But seriously, did you really expect anything different? Nuff said.