Bo Bounds on the BCS

[FlabLoser]

WTF is his deal with the BCS? Lately he's been saying he likes the BCS. After years of bitching about it like everybody else.

Now the BCS is probably going to change and he's too cool to be in support of it. Now the BCS is good as is. Now it can do no wrong. Now playoffs are boring, yes boring.

 

[FlabLoser]

WTF is his deal with the BCS? Lately he's been saying he likes the BCS. After years of bitching about it like everybody else.

Now the BCS is probably going to change and he's too cool to be in support of it. Now the BCS is good as is. Now it can do no wrong. Now playoffs are boring, yes boring.

 

[JxnDawg39211]

but it doesn't work logistically . No one has enough disposable income to travel, to say Atlanta fora semi final game, then Phoenix for the national championship game except for the very weathly and elite donors.

So you would have to do the semi final matchups on campus - which I think is stupid. If we would have done it last year do you think Stanford could have gone into Baton Rouge and beaten LSU or Oklahoma State go into Tuscaloosa and beat Alabama? No.

I don't think a playoff is what college football needs, but I think a +1 would work if they could figure out how to do it so it could draw big crowds and produce revenue. I dont like the idea of postseason games on campus either. So maybe the bowl system is the best way to do it ? I dont know .

 

[patdog]

I like the idea of giving the top 2 seeds a little advantage. They've earned it. The NFL playoffs are all at the home of the higher seeded team until the finals. Nobody's ever said that was stupid? Why should college be any different?

 

[ColMuldrow]

I've decided I'm against a playoff. It would water down the value of the the most exciting and pertinent regular season in sports. As it is now, every game counts. With a playoff - even a four-team playoff or the regular season games are watered down. I know this isn't the most popular view but the debate and controversy every fall amongst the fans, pundits, talking heads, etc., makes each game more meaningful and adds to the excitement.

 

[EmoryBellard]

[No message]

 

[patdog]

How many more would we need? Sure, you'd lose some revenue when teams with smaller stadiums host, but the difference between a 40,000 seat stadium and a 90,000 seat stadium would only be about $4M. That's a drop in the bucket compared to the TV money the game would generate.

 

[patdog]

any more than adding Alabama did?

 

[GloryDawg]

Each game would still be meaningful. Your playing to get into the top 4 of the BCS. Now everyone is playing to get into the top 2. If anything they are making the games more meaningful and giving the chance for four teams to win the NC rather then just two.</p>

 

[JxnDawg39211]

The NFL playoffs are all at the home of the higher seeded team until the finals. Nobody's ever said that was stupid? Why should college be any different?

Why do you think "SpyGate" and "BountyGate" exist? Because any slight advantage in the NFL is HUGE because of the balance of the league. College football is unfortunately unbalanced. There are about 25 teams out there that can realistcally win a national championship in college football, and NO MSU is not one of them .

 

[patdog]

I agree that college football is more unbalanced than the NFL. But if 25 teams really could legitimately win a national title in college football (which I strongly disagree with) that would mean that college football was more balanced than the NFL, not that it is unbalanced. And I have no idea why any of this makes any difference as to whether or not the top seeds in college should play at home.

BTW, we've had "SpyGate" in college football at least dating back to 1980 when Florida assistant coaches were caught hiding in the bushes with binoculers at one of our practices.</p>

 

[ColMuldrow]

They wouldn't have mattered.<div>
</div><div>As it stands now, losses do matter. That means every game counts. You know the saying in other sports that once the playoffs start its a new season. Well, its not that way in college football.


</div>

 

[patdog]

Why didn'tthat matter? What about every other team that's ever played in the BCS title game with a loss (or even 2 losses)? Why didn't those losses matter? I'm all for not cheapening the regular season. That's what makes Div. I-A college football superior to every other sport in America. But having a 4-team playoff is not going to cheapen the regular season one bit. All it's going to do is eliminatemost of the fairly legitimate controversy. There will still be controversy over why #5 didn't get in instead of #4, butvery few people aregoing to seriously believe that #5 was the best team in the country when it's all said and done. In a lot of years #3 may have a fairly legitimate case (like the year Auburn was undefeated).</p>

 

[JxnDawg39211]

<span class="post-title">

<span class="post-title">We have enough to fill up our stadium every game the last 2 years</span>

for the national semifinal game? </span>

 

[rabiddawg]

WTF is his deal with the BCS? Lately he's been saying he likes the BCS. After years of bitching about it like everybody else.

Now the BCS is probably going to change and he's too cool to be in support of it. Now the BCS is good as is. Now it can do no wrong. Now playoffs are boring, yes boring.

after finding out that Bobby Petrino was cheating on him with that blond chick. He hasn't been thinking straight

 

[Hector.sixpack]

Now that college football is going to have a 4 team "playoff", the regular season won't matter. Its just like NCAA Basketball....only with 64 fewerteams.

Are you retarded?

 

[rabiddawg]

Sure, there will not be a whole lot of students there, but they aren't needed to ensure a high energy and exciting game.Students are the "welfare recipients" of the seats. Stands full of alum and families of players is all you need to ensure that the players know you have their backs.

 

[FlabLoser]

Each game would still be meaningful. Your playing to get into the top 4 of the BCS. Now everyone is playing to get into the top 2. If anything they are making the games more meaningful and giving the chance for four teams to win the NC rather then just two.</p>

Exactly.

Today, every game is meaningful to undefeated teams.

With +1, every game is meaningful to 1-loss teams. Therefore, there are a lot more meaningful games out there.

 

[Optimus Prime 4]

[No message]

 

[ColMuldrow]

As I said, I'm not exactly the biggest fan of the BCS but it is what it is. It tries to quantify something that is entirely subjective.<div>
</div><div>The controversy is not going away because there will always be 1 loss teams who are on the cusp of getting into the 4-team playoff. If there had been a 4-team playoff last year, you would have heard people clamoring about whether other 1 loss teams (Houston or Boise State?) got left out. Its college football. There will always be controversy. Somebody is going to get their feelings hurt.</div>

 

[ColMuldrow]

Now that college football is going to have a 4 team "playoff", the regular season won't matter. Its just like NCAA Basketball....only with 64 fewerteams.

Are you retarded?

Did I say the regular season wouldn't matter? I said it would be watered down. Having just one loss wouldn't be nearly as big a deal as it is now if you have a playoff.

 

[TUSK.sixpack]

it just didn't matter as much as: (week 15) #3 Okie State's loss to Iowa State, #5 Oregon's losses to LSU & USC, or #4 Stanford's loss to Oregon.<div>
</div><div>I honestly didn't think Bama had a chance to get back into the NC Game, but due to a series of crazy upsets they "backed-in" ala LSU in 2007 (only LSU getting in was even "wilder").</div>

 

[Hector.sixpack]

One loss is only going to matter to the Boise's and TCUs of the world. The rest of big boys (Esp SEC schools) will be in the hunt with only one loss. Its not going to change much of anything really except we will get to see matchups we've all wanted to see and the little guys will get their chance.

 

[patdog]

I specifically said so in my post. But the difference is that a Stanford or an Oklahahoma St. might possibly have a legitimate gripe about last year. I don't think they do, but I can see that some people would. Very few people would buy an argument that Houston or Boise had a legitimate claim that they were the best team in college football last year.

 

[windcrysmary]

nt

 

[windcrysmary]

the regular season..nobody seemed to agree...everybody was clamoring for a 16 team, neutral site playoff. I'm glad to see folks are starting to wise up...

I also said the 1st round of a 4 or 8 team playoff should be at home sites so the host team gets rewarded for their higher seed earned during the regular season... I'm no longer sure about that after thinking further about it.. let's say you lose your playoff game after the regular season....what happens next?... do you go play in a bowl game after losing a game like that?...who the 17 would want to go to a bowl game after you've lost your playoff game?

I say let's go ahead and have the bowl games as usual then top it off with a championship game after the bowl games... basically go into the bowl games with 4 teams picked after the regular season and let them play each other to determine the final championship game

 

[patdog]

Link

 

[windcrysmary]

nt

 

[QuaoarsKing]

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaaf--potential-four-team-playoff-not-perfect--but-it-s-a-start.html

<div>
</div><div>His points:</div><div><div>1. The playoff should feature the top four teams overall, not the top four conference champions.</div><div>
</div><div>2. The semifinals should be played on campus; the title game should be open for bidding to any neutral site in the country.</div><div>
</div><div>3. If you must hate on-campus games, at least open this up to bid and not engage in the obvious cronyism of using only certain bowl sites.</div><div>
</div><div>4. The non-mathematically valid BCS formula has to go</div></div>

 

[FlabLoser]

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaaf--potential-four-team-playoff-not-perfect--but-it-s-a-start.html


<div>
</div><div>His points:</div><div><div>1. The playoff should feature the top four teams overall, not the top four conference champions.</div><div>
</div><div>2. The semifinals should be played on campus; the title game should be open for bidding to any neutral site in the country.</div><div>
</div><div>3. If you must hate on-campus games, at least open this up to bid and not engage in the obvious cronyism of using only certain bowl sites.</div><div>
</div><div>4. The non-mathematically valid BCS formula has to go</div></div>

1. The playoff will never be seeded. Period. Conferences will demand spots (money) in the bracket.

2. Nearly as influential as the conferences are the current bowls. They will demand spots (money) in the bracket. Playoff games will never be played on campus. Period.

3. See point #2.

4. Sure, but we'll end up with point #1 - which I can live with. Every major sport's playoff is essentially a system to match up the best teams from 2 or more different organizations, whether those are divisions, conferences, or whatever. I am OK with the best teams from 4 conferences having a playoff. That said, I doubt this will happen either (see minor conferences' lawsuits and congressional hearings which resulted in the NCAA adding at-large BCS bids).

 

[dawgs.sixpack]

it's not that difficult for the media to stay in jackson, memphis, or birmingham, since they'd most like fly into one of those airports and rent a car and drive over. or they can stay in tuscaloser or tupelo.

sure it's not gonna be perfect set up like a championship game or the super bowl with thousands of hotel rooms within footsteps of the stadium, but if it's between a true home field advantage with an insane home crowd but the media is a little inconvenienced and a sterile mixed crowd muted by thousands of corporate seats but played in NOLA or atl or dallas or pasedena or tempe or miami so the media has a fun trip, then give me the true home field advantage. the media can have fun at the championship game, the semis are for the fans.

 

[dawgs.sixpack]

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaaf--potential-four-team-playoff-not-perfect--but-it-s-a-start.html

<div>
</div><div>His points:</div><div><div>1. The playoff should feature the top four teams overall, not the top four conference champions.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div></div>

i really liked the idea delaney mentioned yesterday. it's the top 4 conference champs, but only if they are in the top 6 of whatever formula is used to determine the final rankings. if only 2 or 3 conference champs are in the top 6, then you go to non conference champs. <div>
</div><div>for instance last year would have been lsu (sec champ), okla st (big 12 champ), oregon (pac 12 champ - jumps stanford, who oregon beat, doesn't penalize oregon for the lsu game and reward stanford for playing a crap OOC team instead), and bama (wild card/at large).</div><div>
</div><div>i think that rule balances the importance of the regular season (if you finish in the top 6, at worst you are a 2 loss team with a comparable resume to most of the rest of the top 6), gives big time importance to conf CGs, but also safe guards against a 3 or 4 loss conference champ who might be the 4th highest rated conf champion, but doesn't deserve to a playoff shot (like clemson last year).</div>

 

[patdog]

The playoff is ALREADY seeded. The top 2 seeds get in. And from all indications, the conferences are starting to wake up to all of THEIR money that's currently going to the bowls and are starting to get tired of it. The bowls at this point are just begging to be able to hang on to something. They may get the semis, but the conferences are about ready to rake in the huge payday that opening the title game up for bids will bring.

 

[Hector.sixpack]

Would teams do it or conferences?

 

[patdog]

The money would then be distributed to the conferences however they agree to, just like the current BCS bowl money is distributed to all the conferences by agreement. I'm sure there would be a certain percentage for the champion, runner-up, and the 2 semi-finalists, then a certain percentage would be distributed to every BCS conference.</p>

 

[QB1MattSaracen]

Shop at The Rogue.

 

[engie]

http://www.outkickthecove...-plan-makes-no-sense.php

Clay Travis absolutely nails this one... In a way the B1G can't even argue with...

 

[QuaoarsKing]

In a 16 team playoff, yeah there should be 11 champions and 5 at larges. Maybe some kind of protection for some amount of conference champions in an 8-team playoff. In those cases, there would no chance of the best team getting left out, even if a team like 2011 Clemson slips into the field.<div>
<div>But with 4 teams only, it's got to just be the 4 best teams.</div> </div>