Mark Cuban and the BCS
- Thread starter aTotal360
- Start date
He has been great for the NBA in my opinion. I don't really care what he has to say about the BCS, though.
I've always found him to be rather entertaining to say the least. Regardless.. I'm always open to ideas that will get rid of the BCS.
The biggest obstacle to a playoff happening has always been that those in charge of the bowls had a monopoly on college football.
If an outsider comes in and puts up big money to fund a playoff, the BCS bowls are going to get antsy. If someone threatens to take away the top teams from their bowls and relegate their bowls to match ups between teams ranked No. 15 and No. 18, instead of a couple Top 10 teams, and the national title game every 4 years, they are going to push the presidents to institute something to keep it from happening, and that might well be a playoff that includes the big bowls in its format.
Good for Cuban. Down with the BCS.
If an outsider comes in and puts up big money to fund a playoff, the BCS bowls are going to get antsy. If someone threatens to take away the top teams from their bowls and relegate their bowls to match ups between teams ranked No. 15 and No. 18, instead of a couple Top 10 teams, and the national title game every 4 years, they are going to push the presidents to institute something to keep it from happening, and that might well be a playoff that includes the big bowls in its format.
Good for Cuban. Down with the BCS.
futaba said:
My theory on why to include those leagues is the same reason you include everyone in the NCAA tournament. It keeps up the value of the regular season by making your seeding in the tournament very important.
If the difference in the 2 seed and the 6 seed is the difference between facing Central Florida or Florida, that's major motivation to still try to put together an undefeated season.
Hypothetically, let's take the SEC championship games from 2008 and 2009. In both cases, they were pretty much 1 vs. 2 match ups or 1 vs. 3 at least, can't remember. The argument would be that a 12 or 16 team playoff would render that game meaningless. Well, if you don't include automatic bids, that would be correct, because the route to the title game for the No. 1 overall seed wouldn't be much different than for the No. 5 or 6 seed.
That's also why being able to incorporate home games at least for the first round of games would be important. If playing well in the regular season means you could lock up a home game, then just getting in the playoff wouldn't be enough. You'd still put emphasis on each and every game.
For an example of that, think of the baseball postseason. Just getting in the field isn't the goal. You want to host and be a national seed, because that makes your road to Omaha much easier. The regular season is still very important for that reason.
ETA: I still think it would be great to see a team like Florida have to play a team like UCF in the first round or a team like Alabama have to play Troy in a given year, because those are match ups those schools typically don't get.
which makes it like a monopoly.
Take a look at the Big 10/Pac-10 for example. When the BCS idea was first created, around 1992 I believe, they didn't get buy in from the Big 10/Pac-10. The Bowl Alliance or whatever was formed in 1995 I believe, by the other 4 major conferences. By the end of the 1997 season when Nebraska and Michigan split a title, the Big 10 and Pac-10 saw the writing on the wall, and they were all but forced to join.
It may not be a true monopoly, but it's a political party where you really don't have a whole lot of choice in whether or not you leave as a program or conference, if you like money.
Take a look at the Big 10/Pac-10 for example. When the BCS idea was first created, around 1992 I believe, they didn't get buy in from the Big 10/Pac-10. The Bowl Alliance or whatever was formed in 1995 I believe, by the other 4 major conferences. By the end of the 1997 season when Nebraska and Michigan split a title, the Big 10 and Pac-10 saw the writing on the wall, and they were all but forced to join.
It may not be a true monopoly, but it's a political party where you really don't have a whole lot of choice in whether or not you leave as a program or conference, if you like money.
Nobody's watching big games to see if UNC or Duke can keep their 1 seed.
An 8 team playoff would usually have the #1 team facing the Big East champ. That's reward enough.
I think in the next 5 years the NCAA will go to a plus one scenario (aka 4-team playoff), especially since the 5th BCS game is already in place. That was the first domino towards a full scale playoff.Eventually you'll probably see them go to 8 teams with the first round being early-December home games.
An 8 team playoff would usually have the #1 team facing the Big East champ. That's reward enough.
I think in the next 5 years the NCAA will go to a plus one scenario (aka 4-team playoff), especially since the 5th BCS game is already in place. That was the first domino towards a full scale playoff.Eventually you'll probably see them go to 8 teams with the first round being early-December home games.
I still think 12 or 16 would be better.
Basketball's postseason is probably too big. Part of the reason basketball's regular season doesn't carry the weight that football's does is the length of it.
If you lose a game, you've got 29 other games to make it up. If you lose one in football or 2, it's a much bigger deal, and it would be the same way even if you had an 8 or 16 team playoff.
The difference between 3 and 4 losses in college basketball isn't that big of a deal. Even the difference between 8 and 9 losses isn't that big of a deal. In football, even with a 16 team playoff, the difference between 1 and 2 losses and the difference between 2 and 3 losses would still be HUGE, which is why every regular season game would still be huge.
For example, this year if you did a 16 team playoff with auto-bids to all leagues, LSU would've come into the last game of the season at 10-1 looking like a lock for the playoff. Losing to Arkansas bounced them from what would've been the playoff field. That's a huge difference between 11-1 and 10-2 for them.
Or in Arkansas's case, holding on in OT against MSU would've meant the difference between 10-2 and in the playoff or 9-3 and playing a consolation bowl game. The length of the season, NOT the postseason format, has a much bigger role in the emphasis you place on the regular season.
If the NFL goes to 18 games, then they will be cheapening their regular season games. Going back to 12 would put a huge emphasis on their regular season, and it would greatly increase the meaning of each game.
Basketball's postseason is probably too big. Part of the reason basketball's regular season doesn't carry the weight that football's does is the length of it.
If you lose a game, you've got 29 other games to make it up. If you lose one in football or 2, it's a much bigger deal, and it would be the same way even if you had an 8 or 16 team playoff.
The difference between 3 and 4 losses in college basketball isn't that big of a deal. Even the difference between 8 and 9 losses isn't that big of a deal. In football, even with a 16 team playoff, the difference between 1 and 2 losses and the difference between 2 and 3 losses would still be HUGE, which is why every regular season game would still be huge.
For example, this year if you did a 16 team playoff with auto-bids to all leagues, LSU would've come into the last game of the season at 10-1 looking like a lock for the playoff. Losing to Arkansas bounced them from what would've been the playoff field. That's a huge difference between 11-1 and 10-2 for them.
Or in Arkansas's case, holding on in OT against MSU would've meant the difference between 10-2 and in the playoff or 9-3 and playing a consolation bowl game. The length of the season, NOT the postseason format, has a much bigger role in the emphasis you place on the regular season.
If the NFL goes to 18 games, then they will be cheapening their regular season games. Going back to 12 would put a huge emphasis on their regular season, and it would greatly increase the meaning of each game.
But I would still rather watch 1 regular season game where a slot in the BCS championship game is on the line than watch 10 games where a shot at a playoff or better seeding is on the line.
I think people who are really adamant about a playoff simply won't admit to themselves how much you will lose from the regular season.
I think people who are really adamant about a playoff simply won't admit to themselves how much you will lose from the regular season.