The BCS sux. I can't think of one reason it should continue to exist.
Ben Prather
· 7 months ago
The concept of pairing the top two teams in a bowl game has proven to be intractable 80% of the time.
The BCS could have a place as the governing body of the entire bowl structure. Instead of being organized to place the best two teams in a bowl game it should be established to increase the competitiveness and marketability of the entire bowl structure.
That would have to include some form of structure allowing more teams to compete for the title. It would also require other bowls to be tiered in a way that is more consistent and accessible to fans.
1Tomcat
· 7 months ago
I like your ideas Ben- Fans from 117 teams should be in attendance Fla and OU fans and Regan are happy with the current system and need not attend
Regan
· 7 months ago
Well, I've taken up hundreds of thousands of pixels in my arguments against both Playoffs and how the BCS is imperfect.
At this point, I'm going to take a thread or two off and just be sarcastic and enjoy everyone else's frustration. :-)
The BCS does need an overhaul/replacement, but for now, I'm just going to have fun. :0)
1Tomcat
· 7 months ago
Glad you responded - heck Dude- knew you where out there lurking Come on Regan- are your starting to come around? Adios Tomcat
Regan
· 7 months ago
Not really. I've long claimed the BCS has been flawed (since 2004); I'm just anti-playoff...
Zac
· 7 months ago
Actually, Ben makes an exceptional point. The BCS should be working in continuity with the Bowl System; not in control of it, rather side-by-side with it. It should be working with the bowls to generate the best, most entertaining, imaginative, intriguing, and (YES) most lucrative match-ups. Its ability to bring the fans the two "BEST" football teams, worthy of playing for the National Championship, has been inconsistent at best.
For this to work (Relax, Regan; I won't use the "P" word.), all of the conference bowl tie-ins must be abolished. Let the polls, computers, experts, and psychics come up with the Top-25, 30, 40, or what ever number of teams can be accommodated by the bowls, let the BCS generate the match-ups, and let the bowls bid on them.
Now, this won't solve our issues with arriving at #1 & #2. It will, however, prevent a match-up between a 10-2 team and a 7-5 team.
Ben Prather
· 7 months ago
I think the Bowl tie-ins should be relaxed rather than abolished. I actually tackle the role of bowls in my expanded proposal to the BCS.
I defined three tiers of bowls, BCS, Premier and Regional. These are based on tie-in with the three tiers of conferences, premier, automatic qualifying and at-large.
Currently they fall like this: Premier: SEC, Big 12, Big 10 Automatic qualification: ACC, PAC 10, Big East At Large: MWC, WAC, MAC, C-USA, Sun Belt
I suggest bowl records should be added as a forth criterion as the current criterion ignore bowl data entirely. This would drop the Big 10 to automatic qualification status.
BCS bowls The top 10-11 teams would participate in the championship system or BCS bowls depending on whether they meet the eligibility requirements and traditional conference affiliation of the BCS bowls.
I actually define BCS bowls to be the top bowl tie ins to the conferences that warrant an automatic qualification based on current criterion, so if another conference earns automatic qualification status they would either negotiate a tie in for one of the existing bowls or another bowl would become a BCS bowl. This would increase the competitiveness for bowls to forge tie-ins with borderline conferences like the MWC.
This bowl would be put on the end of the current queue to host the national championship game and BCS status would last at least until them. If a conference with a tie in to a BCS bowl reduces in value to where they no longer warrant an automatic qualification they are given provisional status and their payout is reduced if their top team is not in the top 14.
Premier Bowls Any bowl with an at-large conference champion, the #2 tie-in for an automatic qualifying conference or the #2 or #3 tie-in for a premier conference would be a premier bowl. As the #3 Big 10 team and #3 SEC tie in are to the same bowl no ambiguity exists as to which bowls these are.
The current premier bowls are: Las Vegas, Humanitarian, Motor City, Liberty, New Orleans, Capitol One, Outback, Cotton, Gator, Holiday, Sun, Chick-fil-A.
These bowls would fill any at large spots, if they choose to leave some open, before any remaining bowl makes a selection.
This change significantly increases the value of most of these bowls and would allow more flexibility to the bowl structure to produce more evenly matched games. It also reinforces competitiveness between bowl value and recent performance of their conferences tie-ins.
Regional bowls At this point it would be hard to tell if any given conference would consistently have a tie-in left. Even then, the strength of this tie-in would be widely variable as conference parity varies annually and the number of teams from a given conference selected to fill at large spots in BCS and premier bowls change.
This would force the remaining bowls to produce regionally interesting games to reduce travel costs and maintain profitably. Some conference tie-ins may be preserved at this level, especially the #3 spot for a conference vying for premier status, but these would be largely considered if available picks and backup conferences would be in order.
Consider the Hawaii Bowl, with tie-ins to the PAC 10 and a backup tie-in with C-USA. Both failed to generate a team for them, forcing them to take 6-6 Notre Dame. Ok, maybe this is a bad example...
1Tomcat
· 7 months ago
Ben You probably should have been in Washington Friday- interesting reading- However reality check- Washington-does anybody ever comprimise or reach a consenses- no everything is debated- everything is tabled or one side wins and one side loses. I read about it on the ESPN website- the commissoners from WAC and MWC made some valid arguments- of course the ACC commissoner likes it the way it is- nothings wrong-everything is fair. I'm surprized you haven't authored a thread about it. Hookem-Horns BCS is BS
Zac
· 7 months ago
Interesting points all: I would think conferences would be judged as "Premier", "Automatic-Qualifiers", or "At Large" after the regular season. A couple seasons back there, the Big 10 was hardly premier. The same was said in recent years about the Big 12, the Pac 10, and yes - even the SEC. While there are certainly (for the most part) consistently better conferences than others, all too often a particular conference rises to the forefront, just as a specific team does. I think that's justification for reward, IMHO.
GeauxTigers0107
· 7 months ago
Where do I sign up for the "best food" competition?? LOL
I think it's a good idea as well. The problems will lie in logistics....are people willing and can afford to travel all the way Arizona for it? Especially in the trying economic times we're going through.
The majority's president is supposedly a college football fan right? How's about slicing us off a piece of that "Steal-From-Us" package to cover fan travel expenses? In other words, let our grandkids send us!! It's perfect!!
We'll sign a sub-prime loan agreement with a 30% hidden balloon finance charge that takes effect in 2025. And the best part is....our credit can suck balls!!! We Still Qualify For The Loan!!!
I'm in like Flynn.
Geaux Tigers Geaux SEC
Zac
· 7 months ago
You're a pip; ya know dat?
Actually, I do like your food idea. Tailgating has become such an institution, we gotsta find a way to judge the best. In fact, as inconvenient as it would be, I'll throw myself under the bus and volunteer to be a taste tester.
GeauxTigers0107
· 6 months ago
LOL....a Pip? I've been called worse by better.
Seems like I saw a competition on Food Network that was along those lines though. Something about "Best tailgating food". I think the fans of the Green Bay Packers won it. I'd like to see one with just the universities involved. We'd win it plates down!
Ok, so I'm a bit biased...lol. And I'd go under that same bus with you, as long as cold drinks are permitted ; )
It's going to happen boys and girls. Maybe not this time around or the next but it will. The perverbial cat is out of the bag so it is now a matter of time.
Regan
· 7 months ago
Sure...playoffs are the way of the future...and they always will be. :)
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 7 months ago
Great links. Thanks for sharing!
ksuwild
· 7 months ago
For sure. I forgot this one that I found last year sometime.
Although I don't exactly agree with the 16 team playoff concept, I am on board with the need for change and the reasons behind it this site provides. You guys know by now I'm for the 8 team approach.
Happy FanBlogging!
Kevin @ Fanblogs
· 7 months ago
I'll just add this - the premise is based on the presumption that the BCS needs modification. I don't know if that is supposition of the majority, minority, or plurality... but - at least for now - count me out. :)
ksuwild
· 7 months ago
My appologies to Darth Prather and the rest for turning a light hearted post serious but this is big (and serious) news to me and this is the most relevant post I could find.
As stated in the first link these universities are publically funded with tax payer dollars after all so it is about time someone stepped up and called the BCS out for what it is... a monopoly that controls a sport from both a financial and an inclusional standpoint.
And for all of you who can't stand government/congress getting involved with sports... who else is going to seriously challenge an entity like the BCS but our government? No one. I think the real reason it pisses anti-playoff people off when the idea of government getting involved with college football comes up is that they know that they might actually have enough power to be able to do something to change the strangle hold that is currently on our beloved sport.
Everyone against government involvement needs to step back and ask themselves honestly... do the congressmen involved in this specific inquiry know the way the system works, and ultimately what they are talking about or not??? Unfortunately for the BCS they do... and it was Swafford (and those who support the BCS) who came off looking like a babbling baboon who couldn't give good answers as to the reasons the BCS controls the sport the way it does.
"Kudos to the director in the C-SPAN control room, who switched immediately to the camera trained on Swofford. The ACC commissioner looked as if he'd swallowed a bug."
I love it!
You're right Kev... the BCS doesn't need modification. It simply needs to be replaced. :-)
Zac
· 7 months ago
I've long been a proponent of a play-off system. I believe, if done correctly, it could improve the bowl system as we know it. The debate continues to be how to do it correctly. There's the rub.
Now, if our government is privy to something we aren't, if they're trying to get to the bottom of an investigation into some impropriety, that's one thing. To that extent ONLY can I see their involvement.
Otherwise, I want nothing to do with our government stepping in and taking over. This has nothing to do with whether ot not I like or trust our government. It has everything to do with to what extent do we the people allow our government to take control. If they take control of something as fundamentally American, not to mention private sector, as college football, what's next?
I agree that the BCS needs changed, but it needs to be changed for the better, that teams are ranked from top to bottom based upon their season's performance against other teams no matter with which conference they're affiliated (or not). Said change should at least result in a fairer, more objective & unbiased result. Otherwise, to simply change the BCS because it needs to be changed without any thought to the results (or consequences) is without wisdom. To allow our government to step in and change the BCS will result in consequences so far reaching...I guarantee we as American citizens will rue the day that happened.
ksuwild
· 7 months ago
I think we both agree that a playoff --if done correctly-- can effectively decide a champion (on the field) and still coexist with a healthy bowl system without leaving the regular season in shambles. What playoff format will ultimately achieve that is certainly up for debate.
As far as government involvement let me make it clear that I am not the type that thinks government is the answer to all of our problems. No one I know... including myself... wants change for the sake of change. That is silly and it is a far cry from what is actually taking place right now. You can't throw every government inquiry in the same nifty basket.
In most instances organizations can figure things out on their own. I get that. However, in this particular instance, you are dealing with how taxpayer dollars are spent and a BCS alliance that might as well be called a cartel based off of their immense power and control over every facit of college football.
It's bad enough that teams like Utah 08' can have the kind of unbelievable season they had, capped off with the shellacking of an Alabama team that held the number 1 slot for the majority of the season, and still not get a legitimate shot at playing for the nation title.
But then you throw in...
1. that over 50 teams besides Utah started the season without any legitimate shot at playing for the national title.
2. that the BCS format has consistently misfired since it's inception, leaving deserving teams out with nothing more than a trusty "rule tweak" in response.
3. the GUARANTEED pay outs that these BCS alliances receive EVERY YEAR, including the one Swafford's ACC champion Virginia Tech secured... a team that would have gotten SMOKED by Utah... a lowly non BCS school.
4. the multiple times the BCS has been pushed and prodded to consider a different format with nothing more than a patronizing internal snicker and a bunch of scare tactics and excuses in response.
5. the fact that MOST athletic departments are not self sufficient and receive tax payer dollars EVERY YEAR (the bail out that keeps on giving!!!). This money is needed across the nation and it is quite ridiculous how it is being split up.
6. that NO ONE except our government can force this cartel to adopt real change and everyone knows it. Including our Congress.
If you read through the links I posted (if you haven't please do) earlier and look into what these congressmen are presenting you will quickly learn they understand precisely what is going on in college football, and their intentions are to change to sport for the better... not change it for the sake of change.
These guys are asking the right questions, and will not be hushed up, or brushed off by the normal scare tactics, misinformation, and excuses of the past. They want striaght answers, and a fair system, and this time it seems like they aren't going to settle for less. Finally..
I truly believe the reason they are pushing so hard for this change is because they know no one else can. They are dealing with the use of taxpayer dollars so they have every right to be interested in how they are spent whether anyone likes it or not.
Any time an organization like the BCS has the kind of control it does I think the government has a responsibility to keep a close eye out, especially when it there is no other viable opposition. After all they are here to protect and serve the people, and that includes the universities and all involved who continue to get the BCS shaft every year.
Regan
· 7 months ago
Stewart Mandel - "Bowls, Polls, and Tattered Souls" Chapter 1.
Read it. It will help you get a grasp on the issues at hand.
Ben Prather
· 7 months ago
One of the chief issues in the way is the lack of any agreement on what ideals a proposal should value.
Before any talk of specific structures is seriously undertaken this groundwork will need to be undertaken by those with an interest in the system.
I have an outline of how a fairly robust set of ideals can be achieved, but if other ideals are found to be of greater importance the design is useless.
Here is a time line of what needs to happen:
2009-2010: A public statement clarifying what would happen if the MWC should exceed the standards designed by the BCS to determine future automatic qualifications before 2014
2010-2011: Collection of all ideals expressed by BCS constituents
2011-2012: Conflicting ideals identified and priorities determined among BCS constituents
2012-2013: Structures identified that best meet the identified ideals
2013-2014: Rules and contracts redesigned to implement the new structure
2014-2015: Implement the new championship system
Kevin @ Fanblogs
· 7 months ago
Kudos to the committee chairman for calling a "hearing" and then leaving in the middle. Yeah... this congressional thing is *really* going to work. Puh-leez.
Regan
· 7 months ago
Or, teams could man up and admit they lost a game... :)
LOL sorry, couldn't help myself...
ksuwild
· 7 months ago
Were you talking about Utah? Oh, whoops... I forgot, they didn't lose a game. Darn it!
Regan
· 7 months ago
Nope. In case you've missed it the last ten thousand times, AUB 04 and UTAH 08 got hosed; no one else has...
I know, I know, as soon as you think you have a zinger on someone, you can't help but forget stuff they've said ad nauseum. :-)
ksuwild
· 7 months ago
Yep, you're soooooo right Regan... NO ONE else has gotten hosed in the history of College Football except Auburn 04 and Utah 08 - Holy $#!+, I just saw a pig fly by and he tried to crap a bunch of nonsense on me. Sorry, that was close.
I guess it is nauseating when people point things out that dismantle your line of reasoning huh. :-)
Maybe if you didn't keep brain washing yourself with "Bowls, Polls, and Tattered Souls" you would realize that even though there is no front office for the BCS, and even though the NCAA doesn't control the post season... our government can still force college football to change. Don't think so??? Just you watch and see. I'll be sure and ask what kind of grasp you have on the way college football works when legislation starts to pass.
Regan
· 7 months ago
ksuwild, we get into fun debates year in-and-out and it's all good.
Please don't resort to personal attacks and whining about my views; respectful debate is fun. Sorry if you took my 'zinger' comment out of context; I have stated a bazillion times that the BCS needs to be changed, but you never seem to acknowledge that...
Having said that, the reason I recommend Mandel's book is that Chapter 1 goes into the way things are the way they are, the powers that be, and the agendas they have. If it makes you feel better, Mandel did say that he thought a version of a Playoff was inevitable.
The point of my suggestion is simply this: if you're going to debate the issue, you need to know the facts.
I want the BCS to be changed; I have since 2004. I have been looking forward to someone coming up with a way to make things more fair while keeping CFB the exciting way it is. That person could be you for all I know or care. But that's never going to happen if you're going to be closed-minded about where I'm coming from.
ksuwild
· 7 months ago
When you make comments to people like
"Read it. It will help you get a grasp on the issues at hand."
it comes off very condescending and implies that I don't have a "grasp" on what what I'm talking about. Or your whole "zinger" post... ending with "ad nauseum" is another perfect example.
You know Regan, It seems to me like you want to be able to take your shots at people and get nothing in response.
It's all good buddie. I blog tongue and cheek and I'm not going to lose sleep over anything said on this site.
I enjoy our debates... and I know you stopped supporting the BCS in 2004, I have never argued that you didn't. But for future reference, if you want to take shots you can expect them to come right back from ksuwild.
loogy
· 7 months ago
What about Oregon 2001? What about USC 2003? They were definitely hosed too.
Regan
· 7 months ago
They each lost a game. Man up; this is CFB...you lose a game, you throw your destiny to the winds of fate. Lose two and (barring exceptional circumstance) you're done.
That's the way it has been since long before any of us were born.
Why it should change now is a testament to the modern ability to whine.
Kevin @ Fanblogs
· 7 months ago
Well said.
loogy
· 6 months ago
Disagree.
ksuwild
· 6 months ago
Second that.
loogy
· 6 months ago
That makes no sense, considering the teams that BENEFITED lost games too.
Oklahoma LOST THE LAST GAME OF THE SEASON in 2003, whereas USC lost a game in triple OT. Each team lost a game, Oklahoma losing late in the season but still got to play for it all. USC got hosed.
Nebraska also lost their last game of the season in 2001 to Colorado (a team that Oregon ended up dominating in their bowl game). I just don't understand how you can be defending the BCS's obviously flawed system as opposed to calling for changes to make things more equitable.
I mean, we all want to know which team is REALLY the best in the nation, right?
ksuwild
· 6 months ago
And Nebraska didn't lose a game in 2001???
We all know OU got dismantled (35 unanswered points in case anyone forgot) in the Big XII Championship in 2003.
So explain to me why it's ok for those teams to make it and not Oregon 01' or USC 03'.
Sorry I just like hearing you justify things that don't make sense.
Winds of fate because that's the way it is if I remember right, but please refresh me.
CouchQB
· 6 months ago
Agree with you completely kdub. We shouldn't be content to accept the way things are in the BCS when it's painfully obvious to all that there are flaws. "Manning up" because "that's the way things are" is NOT good enough.
1Tomcat
· 7 months ago
Regan other than 2000 and 2005 every year a lot of teams got hosed. except this as fact- even so-called undisputed Nat titles are open for debate because the system used is seriuosly flawed- If you can't see it then I can't help you. If it aint broke then don't fix it- hey its broke- it needs fixing. Its really easy to except the status quo- it takes hard work and determination and maybe an act of congress to bring forth much needed change. BCS=BS
Regan
· 7 months ago
UTAH 08 and AUB 04 were undefeated. Everyone else could have won all their games, but they didn't. Whose fault was that?
Ben Prather
· 7 months ago
Screwed class 1: Undefeated teams, including bowl games, that have been excluded by the BCS:
Screwed class 3: Teams undefeated prior to bowl games left out of championship game:
Boise State 2008, Hawaii 2007, Boise State 2004
Auburn was double screwed in 2004. Utah has been screwed twice, 2004 and 2008. Boise State has been screwed three times, but 2 of those are diminished by bowl losses.
2002 and 2005 are the only years the truly BCS worked.
1Tomcat
· 7 months ago
Ben didn't OU go undefeated and won the NC in 2000? Maybe there were others that deserved I shot I don't remember off hand
Ben Prather
· 7 months ago
2000 was a class 2 screwing, some could argue that OU should have beaten Miami instead of FSU.
#3 Miami (FL) was close to #2 FSU and had beat FSU earlier that year.
As we all know, the BCS favors the losing team in a close call if they played head to head earlier in the year.
This does make some sense mathematically, but will never appeal to the masses.
1Tomcat
· 7 months ago
Thanks Ben I know they had a hell of a team that year and whuped the H-ll outa Texas BTW I picked up some scratch on that OU team-after they beat UT- I figured they would go all the way-bet OU against the feild
Regan
· 7 months ago
Yup. The 'Canes were the odd team out. They manned up and beat Spurrier's FLA team.
Did they deserve whining rights? Maybe - but they LOST to WASH. Had they won, they would have been there.
And this was one of MY teams. Way it is... :)
Regan
· 7 months ago
Yeah, Ben, I could back those classifications.
I'd just point out that with the undefeated teams that there was nothing more they could have done to get a berth in the NC game, unlike the other teams.
[Sarcasm] LOL...besides, don't you need to put 2007 Hawaii in there too? I mean how many games did LSU need to lose before an undefeated WAC champ gets a chance to play for the MNC? :)
Kevin @ Fanblogs
· 7 months ago
No system is 100% fair, 100% of the time. Hell, playoffs aren't fair because it doesn't matter when you lose during the regular season, but one loss in the playoffs is infinitely more severe.
It is just as easy for advocates to argue that the BCS has worked EVERY year in that it has accomplished its mission - to pair what is the consensus #1 team by a uniform standard under which all teams operate against the consensus #2 team by a uniform standard under which all teams operate.
To argue fairness is a subjective argument. Fair to one can be unfair to another. The BCS is an empirical system that measures every team under the same uniform calculations. The only way the BCS could be unfair IMO is if the system changed within the course of the season and that has never happened.
One of the ((giggle)) moments I always have is when the playoff talk turns to seedings. What system would be used to seed the MWC champ? Could that ever be "fair"? At some point, folks, you have to statistically or theoretically measure the teams and conferences. Can't wait for that great debate to begin.
Quite simply, the BCS does its job. It's puts a system in place to measure a #1 against a #2.
Ben Prather
· 7 months ago
Your point that the BCS puts a system in place to measure who #1 and #2 are and put them in a bowl game is valid but for this point...
"It is just as easy for advocates to argue that the BCS has worked EVERY year in that it has accomplished its mission - to pair what is the consensus #1 team by a uniform standard under which all teams operate against the consensus #2 team by a uniform standard under which all teams operate."
This is only valid if a consensus #1 and #2 exist. This only happened in 2002 and 2005. You need to eliminate the two uses of the word consensus to make that argument work.
What is consensus? It is reaching an agreement as to which teams truly are better. This agreement has proven to be intractable more often than not. The BCS has failed to generate consensus.
The current BCS formula can actually be used to measure consensus, if it is treated as a sample of some population of opinions and consensus is defined to be the probability that a random opinion in that population agrees with the conclusion.
This measure is strongly related to the size of the gap between the teams in question. It is also related to the uncertainty measure of the teams in question.
The gaps nearly follow a Poisson distribution and the uncertainty measure is found to increase as the square root of the ranking value. The result is that the consensus is mathematically stronger near the largest gaps in at the top of the standings. This strongly resonates with intuition and strongly supports the claim that 2-8 teams is the ideal size.
Often undefeated teams do not meet this criterion. They should be afforded an opportunity to play in enough games to prove their merit.
For a top 4 undefeated team a win over #1 is enough. For a top 10 undefeated team wins over #1 and #2 or #3 would likely do the trick. For a team lower than #10 three wins over top 5 teams would convince anyone.
As for the seeding, the BCS standings are sufficient once the true consensus teams are found.
2008: Oklahoma, Florida, Texas; Utah, Boise State
Utah hosts Boise State in a play-in game to face Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl Florida plays Texas in a neutral site Wildcard game.
The winners of the Fiesta Bowl and Wildcard Game meet in the National Championship Game.
See? Not to bad eh?
ksuwild
· 7 months ago
Now that was well said.
1Tomcat
· 6 months ago
Agreed under the new Regan plan- did I say that Utah vs Bois st = undisputed National Champ since both teams won all their games BTW B-12 coaches agreed to keep tie-breaker rules the reasoning being that the conference would have a better chance of a team getting in the MNC game based upon BCS rankings-which is the way the system works now- lets say a 4 loss team wins the CCG game and knocks off a higher ranked 1 loss team- the 4 loss team goes to a BCS game, but not the MNC game I will guarentee you one thing for sure, that is if OU beats Texas no way in H-ll will Texas appear in the MNC game, but OU can lose to Texas and still appear in the MNC game- thats the way it works Hookem-Horns
1Tomcat
· 7 months ago
You mean like the 1964 Bama team who lost to Texas who's only loss was to an undefeated Arkansas- look from the begining there as been debate over the NC and only a few years was there an undisputed champ- now with BCS I think they got it right 2 outa 12 or 6% of the time and 94% of the time they were wrong or others weren't given the opportunity-even undefeated teams Regan- man up how many games did LSU lose in 07 ? it was like a dang cake walk at the fair on who would play in the big one-jeese Florida beat OU in 08 by 10 points- so what so did Texas by 10 points in 08 Utah beat Org st the team that beat USC Utah beat TCU- close one OU beat TCU close Utah beat Bama in other years they didnt play anybody in 08 they danged sure did- they beat some top ten teams- didn't get a shot USC had a heck of a team and beat a OSU & Penn St No one will ever know could Utah beat Texas ? or could Texas beat Florida? head to head on the feild, not selected by computers,polls and media propaganda
The case that BYU, TCU and Boise State have been shorted financially is a much stronger argument than the case for Utah.
I would rather see a class action lawsuit involving several states. I believe, based on attendance figures, the smaller conferences are shorted about 10 million per year. The SEC is shorted about 2.
I reolized I don't have the marketing skills needed to pull something like this off, but am in the process of testing the water to see if any advertizing firms can see the value this idea could offer thier clients.
Kevin @ Fanblogs
· 7 months ago
Last year's BCS protest, organized by Deadpsin, had 134 people show up. I'm not sure if anyone read about it or not, because... dude... 134 people showed up.
Ben Prather
· 7 months ago
Did they attempt to get any sponsors to put their name on the event and become "An Official Sponsor of a new Championship System"? Such a sponsor would be able to advertise on TV during games...
All Comments
Something wrong? :)
The BCS could have a place as the governing body of the entire bowl structure. Instead of being organized to place the best two teams in a bowl game it should be established to increase the competitiveness and marketability of the entire bowl structure.
That would have to include some form of structure allowing more teams to compete for the title. It would also require other bowls to be tiered in a way that is more consistent and accessible to fans.
Fla and OU fans and Regan are happy with the current system and need not attend
At this point, I'm going to take a thread or two off and just be sarcastic and enjoy everyone else's frustration. :-)
The BCS does need an overhaul/replacement, but for now, I'm just going to have fun. :0)
Come on Regan- are your starting to come around?
Adios Tomcat
For this to work (Relax, Regan; I won't use the "P" word.), all of the conference bowl tie-ins must be abolished. Let the polls, computers, experts, and psychics come up with the Top-25, 30, 40, or what ever number of teams can be accommodated by the bowls, let the BCS generate the match-ups, and let the bowls bid on them.
Now, this won't solve our issues with arriving at #1 & #2. It will, however, prevent a match-up between a 10-2 team and a 7-5 team.
I defined three tiers of bowls, BCS, Premier and Regional. These are based on tie-in with the three tiers of conferences, premier, automatic qualifying and at-large.
Currently they fall like this:
Premier: SEC, Big 12, Big 10
Automatic qualification: ACC, PAC 10, Big East
At Large: MWC, WAC, MAC, C-USA, Sun Belt
I suggest bowl records should be added as a forth criterion as the current criterion ignore bowl data entirely. This would drop the Big 10 to automatic qualification status.
BCS bowls
The top 10-11 teams would participate in the championship system or BCS bowls depending on whether they meet the eligibility requirements and traditional conference affiliation of the BCS bowls.
I actually define BCS bowls to be the top bowl tie ins to the conferences that warrant an automatic qualification based on current criterion, so if another conference earns automatic qualification status they would either negotiate a tie in for one of the existing bowls or another bowl would become a BCS bowl. This would increase the competitiveness for bowls to forge tie-ins with borderline conferences like the MWC.
This bowl would be put on the end of the current queue to host the national championship game and BCS status would last at least until them. If a conference with a tie in to a BCS bowl reduces in value to where they no longer warrant an automatic qualification they are given provisional status and their payout is reduced if their top team is not in the top 14.
Premier Bowls
Any bowl with an at-large conference champion, the #2 tie-in for an automatic qualifying conference or the #2 or #3 tie-in for a premier conference would be a premier bowl. As the #3 Big 10 team and #3 SEC tie in are to the same bowl no ambiguity exists as to which bowls these are.
The current premier bowls are:
Las Vegas, Humanitarian, Motor City, Liberty, New Orleans, Capitol One, Outback, Cotton, Gator, Holiday, Sun, Chick-fil-A.
These bowls would fill any at large spots, if they choose to leave some open, before any remaining bowl makes a selection.
This change significantly increases the value of most of these bowls and would allow more flexibility to the bowl structure to produce more evenly matched games. It also reinforces competitiveness between bowl value and recent performance of their conferences tie-ins.
Regional bowls
At this point it would be hard to tell if any given conference would consistently have a tie-in left. Even then, the strength of this tie-in would be widely variable as conference parity varies annually and the number of teams from a given conference selected to fill at large spots in BCS and premier bowls change.
This would force the remaining bowls to produce regionally interesting games to reduce travel costs and maintain profitably. Some conference tie-ins may be preserved at this level, especially the #3 spot for a conference vying for premier status, but these would be largely considered if available picks and backup conferences would be in order.
Consider the Hawaii Bowl, with tie-ins to the PAC 10 and a backup tie-in with C-USA. Both failed to generate a team for them, forcing them to take 6-6 Notre Dame. Ok, maybe this is a bad example...
I read about it on the ESPN website- the commissoners from WAC and MWC made some valid arguments- of course the ACC commissoner likes it the way it is- nothings wrong-everything is fair.
I'm surprized you haven't authored a thread about it.
Hookem-Horns BCS is BS
I think it's a good idea as well. The problems will lie in logistics....are people willing and can afford to travel all the way Arizona for it? Especially in the trying economic times we're going through.
The majority's president is supposedly a college football fan right? How's about slicing us off a piece of that "Steal-From-Us" package to cover fan travel expenses? In other words, let our grandkids send us!! It's perfect!!
We'll sign a sub-prime loan agreement with a 30% hidden balloon finance charge that takes effect in 2025. And the best part is....our credit can suck balls!!! We Still Qualify For The Loan!!!
I'm in like Flynn.
Geaux Tigers
Geaux SEC
Actually, I do like your food idea. Tailgating has become such an institution, we gotsta find a way to judge the best. In fact, as inconvenient as it would be, I'll throw myself under the bus and volunteer to be a taste tester.
Seems like I saw a competition on Food Network that was along those lines though. Something about "Best tailgating food". I think the fans of the Green Bay Packers won it. I'd like to see one with just the universities involved. We'd win it plates down!
Ok, so I'm a bit biased...lol. And I'd go under that same bus with you, as long as cold drinks are permitted ; )
Geaux Tigers
Geaux SEC
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705300771/BC...
It's going to happen boys and girls. Maybe not this time around or the next but it will. The perverbial cat is out of the bag so it is now a matter of time.
http://www.bcsreform.org/Default.aspx
Although I don't exactly agree with the 16 team playoff concept, I am on board with the need for change and the reasons behind it this site provides. You guys know by now I'm for the 8 team approach.
Happy FanBlogging!
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/a...
http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/ar...
As stated in the first link these universities are publically funded with tax payer dollars after all so it is about time someone stepped up and called the BCS out for what it is... a monopoly that controls a sport from both a financial and an inclusional standpoint.
And for all of you who can't stand government/congress getting involved with sports... who else is going to seriously challenge an entity like the BCS but our government? No one. I think the real reason it pisses anti-playoff people off when the idea of government getting involved with college football comes up is that they know that they might actually have enough power to be able to do something to change the strangle hold that is currently on our beloved sport.
Everyone against government involvement needs to step back and ask themselves honestly... do the congressmen involved in this specific inquiry know the way the system works, and ultimately what they are talking about or not??? Unfortunately for the BCS they do... and it was Swafford (and those who support the BCS) who came off looking like a babbling baboon who couldn't give good answers as to the reasons the BCS controls the sport the way it does.
"Kudos to the director in the C-SPAN control room, who switched immediately to the camera trained on Swofford. The ACC commissioner looked as if he'd swallowed a bug."
I love it!
You're right Kev... the BCS doesn't need modification. It simply needs to be replaced. :-)
Now, if our government is privy to something we aren't, if they're trying to get to the bottom of an investigation into some impropriety, that's one thing. To that extent ONLY can I see their involvement.
Otherwise, I want nothing to do with our government stepping in and taking over. This has nothing to do with whether ot not I like or trust our government. It has everything to do with to what extent do we the people allow our government to take control. If they take control of something as fundamentally American, not to mention private sector, as college football, what's next?
I agree that the BCS needs changed, but it needs to be changed for the better, that teams are ranked from top to bottom based upon their season's performance against other teams no matter with which conference they're affiliated (or not). Said change should at least result in a fairer, more objective & unbiased result. Otherwise, to simply change the BCS because it needs to be changed without any thought to the results (or consequences) is without wisdom. To allow our government to step in and change the BCS will result in consequences so far reaching...I guarantee we as American citizens will rue the day that happened.
As far as government involvement let me make it clear that I am not the type that thinks government is the answer to all of our problems. No one I know... including myself... wants change for the sake of change. That is silly and it is a far cry from what is actually taking place right now. You can't throw every government inquiry in the same nifty basket.
In most instances organizations can figure things out on their own. I get that. However, in this particular instance, you are dealing with how taxpayer dollars are spent and a BCS alliance that might as well be called a cartel based off of their immense power and control over every facit of college football.
It's bad enough that teams like Utah 08' can have the kind of unbelievable season they had, capped off with the shellacking of an Alabama team that held the number 1 slot for the majority of the season, and still not get a legitimate shot at playing for the nation title.
But then you throw in...
1. that over 50 teams besides Utah started the season without any legitimate shot at playing for the national title.
2. that the BCS format has consistently misfired since it's inception, leaving deserving teams out with nothing more than a trusty "rule tweak" in response.
3. the GUARANTEED pay outs that these BCS alliances receive EVERY YEAR, including the one Swafford's ACC champion Virginia Tech secured... a team that would have gotten SMOKED by Utah... a lowly non BCS school.
4. the multiple times the BCS has been pushed and prodded to consider a different format with nothing more than a patronizing internal snicker and a bunch of scare tactics and excuses in response.
5. the fact that MOST athletic departments are not self sufficient and receive tax payer dollars EVERY YEAR (the bail out that keeps on giving!!!). This money is needed across the nation and it is quite ridiculous how it is being split up.
6. that NO ONE except our government can force this cartel to adopt real change and everyone knows it. Including our Congress.
If you read through the links I posted (if you haven't please do) earlier and look into what these congressmen are presenting you will quickly learn they understand precisely what is going on in college football, and their intentions are to change to sport for the better... not change it for the sake of change.
These guys are asking the right questions, and will not be hushed up, or brushed off by the normal scare tactics, misinformation, and excuses of the past. They want striaght answers, and a fair system, and this time it seems like they aren't going to settle for less. Finally..
I truly believe the reason they are pushing so hard for this change is because they know no one else can. They are dealing with the use of taxpayer dollars so they have every right to be interested in how they are spent whether anyone likes it or not.
Any time an organization like the BCS has the kind of control it does I think the government has a responsibility to keep a close eye out, especially when it there is no other viable opposition. After all they are here to protect and serve the people, and that includes the universities and all involved who continue to get the BCS shaft every year.
Read it. It will help you get a grasp on the issues at hand.
Before any talk of specific structures is seriously undertaken this groundwork will need to be undertaken by those with an interest in the system.
I have an outline of how a fairly robust set of ideals can be achieved, but if other ideals are found to be of greater importance the design is useless.
Here is a time line of what needs to happen:
2009-2010: A public statement clarifying what would happen if the MWC should exceed the standards designed by the BCS to determine future automatic qualifications before 2014
2010-2011: Collection of all ideals expressed by BCS constituents
2011-2012: Conflicting ideals identified and priorities determined among BCS constituents
2012-2013: Structures identified that best meet the identified ideals
2013-2014: Rules and contracts redesigned to implement the new structure
2014-2015: Implement the new championship system
LOL sorry, couldn't help myself...
I know, I know, as soon as you think you have a zinger on someone, you can't help but forget stuff they've said ad nauseum. :-)
I guess it is nauseating when people point things out that dismantle your line of reasoning huh. :-)
Maybe if you didn't keep brain washing yourself with "Bowls, Polls, and Tattered Souls" you would realize that even though there is no front office for the BCS, and even though the NCAA doesn't control the post season... our government can still force college football to change. Don't think so??? Just you watch and see. I'll be sure and ask what kind of grasp you have on the way college football works when legislation starts to pass.
Please don't resort to personal attacks and whining about my views; respectful debate is fun. Sorry if you took my 'zinger' comment out of context; I have stated a bazillion times that the BCS needs to be changed, but you never seem to acknowledge that...
Having said that, the reason I recommend Mandel's book is that Chapter 1 goes into the way things are the way they are, the powers that be, and the agendas they have. If it makes you feel better, Mandel did say that he thought a version of a Playoff was inevitable.
The point of my suggestion is simply this: if you're going to debate the issue, you need to know the facts.
I want the BCS to be changed; I have since 2004. I have been looking forward to someone coming up with a way to make things more fair while keeping CFB the exciting way it is. That person could be you for all I know or care. But that's never going to happen if you're going to be closed-minded about where I'm coming from.
"Read it. It will help you get a grasp on the issues at hand."
it comes off very condescending and implies that I don't have a "grasp" on what what I'm talking about. Or your whole "zinger" post... ending with "ad nauseum" is another perfect example.
You know Regan, It seems to me like you want to be able to take your shots at people and get nothing in response.
It's all good buddie. I blog tongue and cheek and I'm not going to lose sleep over anything said on this site.
I enjoy our debates... and I know you stopped supporting the BCS in 2004, I have never argued that you didn't. But for future reference, if you want to take shots you can expect them to come right back from ksuwild.
That's the way it has been since long before any of us were born.
Why it should change now is a testament to the modern ability to whine.
Oklahoma LOST THE LAST GAME OF THE SEASON in 2003, whereas USC lost a game in triple OT. Each team lost a game, Oklahoma losing late in the season but still got to play for it all. USC got hosed.
Nebraska also lost their last game of the season in 2001 to Colorado (a team that Oregon ended up dominating in their bowl game). I just don't understand how you can be defending the BCS's obviously flawed system as opposed to calling for changes to make things more equitable.
I mean, we all want to know which team is REALLY the best in the nation, right?
We all know OU got dismantled (35 unanswered points in case anyone forgot) in the Big XII Championship in 2003.
So explain to me why it's ok for those teams to make it and not Oregon 01' or USC 03'.
Sorry I just like hearing you justify things that don't make sense.
Winds of fate because that's the way it is if I remember right, but please refresh me.
except this as fact- even so-called undisputed Nat titles are open for debate because the system used is seriuosly flawed- If you can't see it then I can't help you. If it aint broke then don't fix it- hey its broke- it needs fixing. Its really easy to except the status quo- it takes hard work and determination and maybe an act of congress to bring forth much needed change.
BCS=BS
Utah 2008, Boise State 2006, Auburn & Utah 2004, Marshall 1999, Tulane 1998
Screwed class 2: Teams with a BCS ranking close to the #2 team:
Texas 2008, Michigan 2006, Auburn 2004, USC 2003, Colorado & Oregon 2001, Miami (FL) 2000
Screwed class 3: Teams undefeated prior to bowl games left out of championship game:
Boise State 2008, Hawaii 2007, Boise State 2004
Auburn was double screwed in 2004. Utah has been screwed twice, 2004 and 2008. Boise State has been screwed three times, but 2 of those are diminished by bowl losses.
2002 and 2005 are the only years the truly BCS worked.
Maybe there were others that deserved I shot I don't remember off hand
#3 Miami (FL) was close to #2 FSU and had beat FSU earlier that year.
As we all know, the BCS favors the losing team in a close call if they played head to head earlier in the year.
This does make some sense mathematically, but will never appeal to the masses.
BTW I picked up some scratch on that OU team-after they beat UT- I figured they would go all the way-bet OU against the feild
Did they deserve whining rights? Maybe - but they LOST to WASH. Had they won, they would have been there.
And this was one of MY teams. Way it is... :)
I'd just point out that with the undefeated teams that there was nothing more they could have done to get a berth in the NC game, unlike the other teams.
[Sarcasm] LOL...besides, don't you need to put 2007 Hawaii in there too? I mean how many games did LSU need to lose before an undefeated WAC champ gets a chance to play for the MNC? :)
It is just as easy for advocates to argue that the BCS has worked EVERY year in that it has accomplished its mission - to pair what is the consensus #1 team by a uniform standard under which all teams operate against the consensus #2 team by a uniform standard under which all teams operate.
To argue fairness is a subjective argument. Fair to one can be unfair to another. The BCS is an empirical system that measures every team under the same uniform calculations. The only way the BCS could be unfair IMO is if the system changed within the course of the season and that has never happened.
There's a lot of suggestion within yet another BCS thread (gotta patent YABCST©) that playoffs are the answer.
One of the ((giggle)) moments I always have is when the playoff talk turns to seedings. What system would be used to seed the MWC champ? Could that ever be "fair"? At some point, folks, you have to statistically or theoretically measure the teams and conferences. Can't wait for that great debate to begin.
Quite simply, the BCS does its job. It's puts a system in place to measure a #1 against a #2.
"It is just as easy for advocates to argue that the BCS has worked EVERY year in that it has accomplished its mission - to pair what is the consensus #1 team by a uniform standard under which all teams operate against the consensus #2 team by a uniform standard under which all teams operate."
This is only valid if a consensus #1 and #2 exist. This only happened in 2002 and 2005. You need to eliminate the two uses of the word consensus to make that argument work.
What is consensus? It is reaching an agreement as to which teams truly are better. This agreement has proven to be intractable more often than not. The BCS has failed to generate consensus.
The current BCS formula can actually be used to measure consensus, if it is treated as a sample of some population of opinions and consensus is defined to be the probability that a random opinion in that population agrees with the conclusion.
This measure is strongly related to the size of the gap between the teams in question. It is also related to the uncertainty measure of the teams in question.
The gaps nearly follow a Poisson distribution and the uncertainty measure is found to increase as the square root of the ranking value. The result is that the consensus is mathematically stronger near the largest gaps in at the top of the standings. This strongly resonates with intuition and strongly supports the claim that 2-8 teams is the ideal size.
Often undefeated teams do not meet this criterion. They should be afforded an opportunity to play in enough games to prove their merit.
For a top 4 undefeated team a win over #1 is enough. For a top 10 undefeated team wins over #1 and #2 or #3 would likely do the trick. For a team lower than #10 three wins over top 5 teams would convince anyone.
As for the seeding, the BCS standings are sufficient once the true consensus teams are found.
2008: Oklahoma, Florida, Texas; Utah, Boise State
Utah hosts Boise State in a play-in game to face Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl
Florida plays Texas in a neutral site Wildcard game.
The winners of the Fiesta Bowl and Wildcard Game meet in the National Championship Game.
See? Not to bad eh?
Utah vs Bois st = undisputed National Champ
since both teams won all their games
BTW B-12 coaches agreed to keep tie-breaker rules
the reasoning being that the conference would have a better chance of a team getting in the MNC game based upon BCS rankings-which is the way the system works now- lets say a 4 loss team wins the CCG game and knocks off a higher ranked 1 loss team- the 4 loss team goes to a BCS game, but not the MNC game
I will guarentee you one thing for sure, that is if OU beats Texas no way in H-ll will Texas appear in the MNC game, but OU can lose to Texas and still appear in the MNC game- thats the way it works
Hookem-Horns
in 08 Utah beat Org st the team that beat USC
Utah beat TCU- close one OU beat TCU close
Utah beat Bama in other years they didnt play anybody in 08 they danged sure did- they beat some top ten teams- didn't get a shot
USC had a heck of a team and beat a OSU & Penn St
No one will ever know could Utah beat Texas ? or could Texas beat Florida?
head to head on the feild, not selected by computers,polls and media propaganda
I hope he get's the support he's looking for.
I would rather see a class action lawsuit involving several states. I believe, based on attendance figures, the smaller conferences are shorted about 10 million per year. The SEC is shorted about 2.
I reolized I don't have the marketing skills needed to pull something like this off, but am in the process of testing the water to see if any advertizing firms can see the value this idea could offer thier clients.
Then the turnout might not be so negligible.