"Common sense neva sleeps."


K

Kendrick

Administrator
Staff member
Corrupt System Begs to Be Replaced by a College Football Playoff

By John Feistein
Special to washingtonpost.com


If the college football season had ended this past weekend, the matchup for the national championship game would be Louisiana State against Oregon. At least according to the geniuses at the BCS.

Which is wrong.

The matchup should be 10-0 Kansas vs. 9-0 Hawaii.

Why? One simple reason: neither one of them has lost a game. Quick, name another sport at any level of competition in which you can go undefeated and be told, 'sorry, you can't compete for a championship.'

The answer to that, as we all know, is that there is NO other sport in which that is possible. Only in the Long Lost Land of The BCS Presidents.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/12/AR2007111201489.html

Finally, some rational person out there finally sees the corruption behind the monster we call college football.
 

Click here to visit HBCUSportsShop
jag4life said:
There's no corruption. All the teams agreed to this format.
Click to expand...

Yes, the conference heads and the respective university presidents agreed to the Bowl Alliance and eventually the BCS system with the intent of placing the two best teams in the land in a championship game.

However, most of the teams who were not the Top 15 when the season began were automatically eliminated from title contention even with perfect records.

Like Boise State, Tulane, Auburn and others who started the season in the low teens and high twenties, but did not have enough points to make up for their starting position.

Another criticism of the system is that it is often accused of institutionalized bias towards the six BCS conferences (and Notre Dame) at the deliberate expense of the five non-BCS conferences.

In short, the BCS prevents over 50 NCAA mid-major Division I-A college football teams from ever competing for a national championship.
 
kendrick said:
However, most of the teams who were not the Top 15 when the season began were automatically eliminated from title contention even with perfect records.


In short, the BCS prevents over 50 NCAA mid-major Division I-A college football teams from ever competing for a national championship.
Click to expand...

There should be no polls until after the 2nd week of the season. Schools that get ranked high usually stay up there and those that are ranked lower has so much ground to cover that they never get a fair shot.
 
jag4life said:
Where did S. Florida begin the season in the polls?
Click to expand...

Were not ranked, but it took a whole bunch of teams losing for them to climb to No.2. Plus, USF plays in a BCS conference.

I think we are talking about how teams like Boise State last year who even though went undefeated, still could not play in the title game over a one-loss SEC or a one-loss Pac-10 team.

By them not playing in a major conference it hurts their SOS. That's why they are part of the 50 mid-major teams that are eliminated from the title game.
 
Devil's Gun Trigger Man said:
If those schools would stop having those cupcake schedules they would get more respect. See how long it took Ohio State to get exposed.
Click to expand...

You have to look at this way...A team like Boise State can't win. They don't play in a BCS conference and there is no way the big boys are gonna want to play them after ousting OU last year.

They can only play who they can. Plus, Ohio State beating Wisconsin has more weight than BSU beating San Jose State in conference play.

This is how I would fix this whole thing...

1. Eliminate the polls altogether. (Do you really know who is No.1 and No.2 in the first week of August?)
2. Every conference has to play a championship game.
3. Every team has to play a 10-game sked.
4. The conference champion plays in the playoffs.
(Teams will still get the $15 million for going to the playoffs)
Eliminate those second-tier bowls in December. Time wasters.
5. Using the Rose, Sugar, Fiesta and Orange Bowls for the 2nd, 3rd, semis and championship game. Teams with high seeds play 1st round games at home.
 
kendrick said:
Were not ranked, but it took a whole bunch of teams losing for them to climb to No.2. Plus, USF plays in a BCS conference.
Click to expand...

So does Kansas. BUT USF had a tougher overall schedule than Kansas and they rose from being unranked (this season is the 1st time they have EVER been ranked) to #2, so if they had not lost they'd be #1 right now.
 
kendrick said:
You have to look at this way...A team like Boise State can't win. They don't play in a BCS conference and there is no way the big boys are gonna want to play them after ousting OU last year.

They can only play who they can. Plus, Ohio State beating Wisconsin has more weight than BSU beating San Jose State in conference play.

This is how I would fix this whole thing...

1. Eliminate the polls altogether. (Do you really know who is No.1 and No.2 in the first week of August?)
2. Every conference has to play a championship game.
3. Every team has to play a 10-game sked.
4. The conference champion plays in the playoffs.
(Teams will still get the $15 million for going to the playoffs)
Eliminate those second-tier bowls in December. Time wasters.
5. Using the Rose, Sugar, Fiesta and Orange Bowls for the 2nd, 3rd, semis and championship game. Teams with high seeds play 1st round games at home.
Click to expand...


So ONLY the conference champs make the playoffs?

Also, that 10 game schedule would NEVER fly EVER. Top teams make more on the extra 2 games than they do on bowl games because they do not have to share their home game revenue like they do the Bowl games.
 
From what I can see, teams are loading up on CUPCAKE games to become bowl eligible. All it takes is 6 wins and if you have 4 non-conference CUPCAKES, then the likelyhood of you getting to 6 win is HIGH. The SEC will probably have 11 out of 12 teams bowl eligible.

I think strength of schedule and margin of victory should be put back into the formula. There was nothing better to me back in the day when "Old Ball Coach" would hang his foot deep in everybody's arse, same with Nebraska.

This way, the polls would mean something and you wouldn't have a Kansas sitting at #4 late in the season having not played anybody. Teams that want to be in the championship hunt, would schedule tougher and teams that simply want to go to a BS bowl game, would load up on cupcakes.
 
kendrick said:
You have to look at this way...A team like Boise State can't win. They don't play in a BCS conference and there is no way the big boys are gonna want to play them after ousting OU last year.

They can only play who they can. Plus, Ohio State beating Wisconsin has more weight than BSU beating San Jose State in conference play.

This is how I would fix this whole thing...

1. Eliminate the polls altogether. (Do you really know who is No.1 and No.2 in the first week of August?)
2. Every conference has to play a championship game.
3. Every team has to play a 10-game sked.
4. The conference champion plays in the playoffs.
(Teams will still get the $15 million for going to the playoffs)
Eliminate those second-tier bowls in December. Time wasters.
5. Using the Rose, Sugar, Fiesta and Orange Bowls for the 2nd, 3rd, semis and championship game. Teams with high seeds play 1st round games at home.
Click to expand...

1. You have to have polls at some point, because any playoff system will need some at large berths, just to make the numbers balance out. Without polls, how would you determine playoff seeding? Polls are a necessity, just not in August.
2. There's no need for every conference to play a championship game, most conferences play 8 conference games, that's plenty to determine the champion.
3. That will never fly.
4. Again, more than the conference champions have to get in. If you go to a playoff system, then every conference will have to be given an automatic bid, so that's 11 bids right there (something nobody ever seems to mention when discussing a playoff format). You'll still need 5 at large berths assuming a 16 team playoff. You wouldn't need to eliminate the lower bowls, those teams weren't in the running for the championship anyway, and they're hardly meaningless for the players that play in them.
5. That idea has been floated around for at least 20 years now, and it has its positives and negatives.

I might be the only person on here who likes the current setup, because it's unique and it creates an extreme importance on the regular season, more than any other sport. On the flipside, it also can punish a team who starts slowly, or has a hiccup along the way. I wouldn't object to a playoff system but it still won't end controversy, just move the argument down.
 
JaguarNation99 said:
I might be the only person on here who likes the current setup, because it's unique and it creates an extreme importance on the regular season, more than any other sport. On the flipside, it also can punish a team who starts slowly, or has a hiccup along the way. I wouldn't object to a playoff system but it still won't end controversy, just move the argument down.
Click to expand...

I too love the setup, because it puts importance on the regular season. The Dallas Mavericks are a perfect example of what a playoff system does to a team who takes care of business in the regular season. Playoffs sometimes gives undeserving teams a NEW SEASON.

I would also like 'Strength of schedule' to play a bigger role. I remember a few years ago when a game being played on the last week of the season between two teams that had no chance at a bowl game had such a determining factor on who would be in the BCS Championship game because the outcome would make a certain team's strength of schedule tougher or easier.
 
JaguarNation99

I too like the current system. In addition to the excellent points you made, I think there is nothing else in sports like the college bowl season. Unlike the NCAA basketball tourny, where the bottom 32 teams basically have no chance to win and except for a few upsets are just a practice game for the top seeds, the bowl season comes about as close as you can to each game being a competitive matchup. Half of the bowl teams end the season winners.

Boise State was mentioned. Do you think Boise would have been undefeated if they were in the SEC. HELL NO!!!!! It took everything they had and then some for them to barely beat Oklahoma. If they would have had to turn around and play another game like that in less than week it would not have been pretty.

Some folks are obsessed with this championship thing. Winning a championship is important, but their is a lot more than that. No matter how we do it, there will only be 1 champion at the end. If they just flipped a coin, only 1 team at then end would win it. A playoff system would not guarantee the best team wins, just who played best that day.

I love the bowl season, to me its the best thing in sports. I can do without the playoffs.
 

Click here to visit HBCUSportsShop
Devil's Gun Trigger Man said:
If those schools would stop having those cupcake schedules they would get more respect. See how long it took Ohio State to get exposed.
Click to expand...

There was a rule that a team had to have six wins against division 1-A opponents in an 11 game schedule. I think that rule or something like it needs to return.
jag4life said:
So does Kansas. BUT USF had a tougher overall schedule than Kansas and they rose from being unranked (this season is the 1st time they have EVER been ranked) to #2, so if they had not lost they'd be #1 right now.
Click to expand...

I will give Kansas a lot of credit for playing very well. (Note. Texas A&M is not very good this year.) Sure, USF has fallen. But give them credit for beating West Virginia and Auburn in Jordan-Hare earlier this year.
 
JaguarNation99

I too like the current system. In addition to the excellent points you made, I think there is nothing else in sports like the college bowl season. Unlike the NCAA basketball tourny, where the bottom 32 teams basically have no chance to win and except for a few upsets are just a practice game for the top seeds, the bowl season comes about as close as you can to each game being a competitive matchup. Half of the bowl teams end the season winners.

Boise State was mentioned. Do you think Boise would have been undefeated if they were in the SEC. HELL NO!!!!! It took everything they had and then some for them to barely beat Oklahoma. If they would have had to turn around and play another game like that in less than week it would not have been pretty.

Some folks are obsessed with this championship thing. Winning a championship is important, but their is a lot more than that. No matter how we do it, there will only be 1 champion at the end. If they just flipped a coin, only 1 team at then end would win it. A playoff system would not guarantee the best team wins, just who played best that day.

I love the bowl season, to me its the best thing in sports. I can do without the playoffs.
 
EB said:
There was a rule that a team had to have six wins against division 1-A opponents in an 11 game schedule. I think that rule or something like it needs to return.
Click to expand...

The rule is at least 6 wins, with one allowed against an FCS school. That was a change from the rule that stated that a win against an FCS school could be counted towards bowl eligibility once every 4 years. That change caused an uptick in the number of FCS schools getting money games.
 
JaguarNation99 said:
1. You have to have polls at some point, because any playoff system will need some at large berths, just to make the numbers balance out. Without polls, how would you determine playoff seeding? Polls are a necessity, just not in August.
2. There's no need for every conference to play a championship game, most conferences play 8 conference games, that's plenty to determine the champion.
3. That will never fly.
4. Again, more than the conference champions have to get in. If you go to a playoff system, then every conference will have to be given an automatic bid, so that's 11 bids right there (something nobody ever seems to mention when discussing a playoff format). You'll still need 5 at large berths assuming a 16 team playoff. You wouldn't need to eliminate the lower bowls, those teams weren't in the running for the championship anyway, and they're hardly meaningless for the players that play in them.
5. That idea has been floated around for at least 20 years now, and it has its positives and negatives.

I might be the only person on here who likes the current setup, because it's unique and it creates an extreme importance on the regular season, more than any other sport. On the flipside, it also can punish a team who starts slowly, or has a hiccup along the way. I wouldn't object to a playoff system but it still won't end controversy, just move the argument down.
Click to expand...

1. To determine seeding all you have to do is go by best record.
2. You would have to play a title game because you really want to see what happened last year? All OSU had to do was beat UM and go to the Fiesta Bowl. Florida had to win its last regular season game and then play the SEC title game. USC would have been in the title game if they had not lost to UCLA in the season finale. It would only be fair to have a title game in each conference.
3. The 10-game mandate might be tough to pass, but one of the reasons why presidents have shot down the playoffs is because they say the kids will miss class by playing so many games. At the end of the season some teams would have played 12-14 games. In my system you could still play 13 games, but ladder games would be playoff games.
4. Only conference champs get in because they would have earned the right to do so. Plus, it places an even more importance on how a team plays in its conference. I don?t their should be multiple teams from a conference making the playoffs. I mean you had a whole regular season plus a title game to prove you are the best.
5. Rid second-tier bowls. It rewards average teams. Does a team really deserve to play in a postseason bowl game with a 6-4, 6-5 or 6-6 record? Plus, most of those bowl games are not even sold out and are played in obscure locations.
It takes away from the games we all want to see. Ohio St. had a month lay off before the title game while we waited through the Sun, Canada and Weed-eater bowls to conclude.
 
kendrick said:
1. To determine seeding all you have to do is go by best record.
2. You would have to play a title game because you really want to see what happened last year? All OSU had to do was beat UM and go to the Fiesta Bowl. Florida had to win its last regular season game and then play the SEC title game. USC would have been in the title game if they had not lost to UCLA in the season finale. It would only be fair to have a title game in each conference.
3. The 10-game mandate might be tough to pass, but one of the reasons why presidents have shot down the playoffs is because they say the kids will miss class by playing so many games. At the end of the season some teams would have played 12-14 games. In my system you could still play 13 games, but ladder games would be playoff games.
4. Only conference champs get in because they would have earned the right to do so. Plus, it places an even more importance on how a team plays in its conference. I don?t their should be multiple teams from a conference making the playoffs. I mean you had a whole regular season plus a title game to prove you are the best.
5. Rid second-tier bowls. It rewards average teams. Does a team really deserve to play in a postseason bowl game with a 6-4, 6-5 or 6-6 record? Plus, most of those bowl games are not even sold out and are played in obscure locations.
It takes away from the games we all want to see. Ohio St. had a month lay off before the title game while we waited through the Sun, Canada and Weed-eater bowls to conclude.
Click to expand...

:xeye:
 
Fiyah said:
There should be no polls until after the 2nd week of the season. Schools that get ranked high usually stay up there and those that are ranked lower has so much ground to cover that they never get a fair shot.
Click to expand...

I agree. Those preseason polls in my opinion are worthless. How are you gonna determine how good a team is BEFORE the season starts? Nobody expected Michigan to lose to Appalachain State. Who expected USF or Kentucky to ever be ranked as high as they were at one time?
 
kendrick said:
1. To determine seeding all you have to do is go by best record.
2. You would have to play a title game because you really want to see what happened last year? All OSU had to do was beat UM and go to the Fiesta Bowl. Florida had to win its last regular season game and then play the SEC title game. USC would have been in the title game if they had not lost to UCLA in the season finale. It would only be fair to have a title game in each conference.
3. The 10-game mandate might be tough to pass, but one of the reasons why presidents have shot down the playoffs is because they say the kids will miss class by playing so many games. At the end of the season some teams would have played 12-14 games. In my system you could still play 13 games, but ladder games would be playoff games.
4. Only conference champs get in because they would have earned the right to do so. Plus, it places an even more importance on how a team plays in its conference. I don?t their should be multiple teams from a conference making the playoffs. I mean you had a whole regular season plus a title game to prove you are the best.
5. Rid second-tier bowls. It rewards average teams. Does a team really deserve to play in a postseason bowl game with a 6-4, 6-5 or 6-6 record? Plus, most of those bowl games are not even sold out and are played in obscure locations.
It takes away from the games we all want to see. Ohio St. had a month lay off before the title game while we waited through the Sun, Canada and Weed-eater bowls to conclude.
Click to expand...

Wow, where do I begin....

1. That might be the most foolish thing I've heard all month, but it's only the 13th. On that scenario, an 11-0 team from the MAC could end up as the top seed. Record alone doesn't indicate how good you are, which is why a team like Hawaii rightfully won't be anywhere near the title picture.
2. Nobody forced the SEC (and subsequently other conferences) to go after the money grab that is a conference championship game. Conferences had champions long before those came along, that's kind of the purpose of the regular season.
3. The presidents will not go along for losing money at the sake of a few schools that make the postseason. It's fiscally irresponsible.
4. Since when has a team had to win its conference to play in the playoffs. I don't know of any sport on any level that only allows conference/district/division champions to be in the playoffs. Even baseball has a wildcard now. Besides, the champ of a conference like the Sun Belt wouldn't be a mid tier team in most conferences.
5. Those bowl games prevent nothing. Even if a playoff was going on, I fail to see how a bowl game on TBS gets in the way of a playoff matchup. If selling out games is a requirement, we might as well shut down 90% of college programs.
 
Thank You JaguarNation99, Couldn't have said it better myself.

kendrick, if you don't like the other bowl games, no problem. Use that button on your remote. No reason to deprive those kids a chance to play in the bowl games because you don't want to see it. The game is for the kids, not for your old arse. Those kids love them bowl games. Just because you are not playing for a national championship doesn't mean you should cancel the season.
 
The schools love the 2nd tier bowls. Many will probably lose money for attending the game because those bowls pay each school about $750K, but expenses eat it up pretty quick.

But back to the point, it gives those schools extra practices and one more extra game that they would not have had. The local communities love those games also.

Someone made a great point in that BOWL GAMES matchup talent for talent. There is not #1 vs #16, which makes almost every game very entertaining.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top