Bcs

[Wildabeast]

So, how do you folks feel about the BCS really dropping the ball on this one?

[formermarcher]

Thank the god of football for making this the last year they'll use it!

[Hostrauser]

Not quite, formermarcher. The BCS is locked in THROUGH the 2004 season. We get to put up with it for at least one more year.

Division 1A College football is the only sport in the WORLD without an efficient way of determining a champion. Hockey (Pro and College), Basketball (Pro and College), Baseball (Pro, Semi-pro, and College), and every other team sport has an efficient and inarguable playoff system. 'Nuff said. I don't mind the BCS in principle, but we still need a playoff system involving the top four (or eight) teams.

Phantom's Proposal
The BCS and college football in general is all about the almighty dollar. That's why they're loathe to give up bowl games (with big payouts). So why can't we combine the two?

Here's what you do: you take two of these smaller, crappy bowl games (like the Houston Bowl, San Francisco Bowl, Wet-Nap Bowl, etc. etc.) that feature 6-6 and 7-5 teams who have NO BUSINESS playing in a Bowl game (Rule #1 - A winning percentage of .667 or above is needed to qualify for a bowl game. 8-4 is in, 7-5 is out). These two smaller bowl games become your playoff games. BCS #1 vs. #4 in one, and #2 vs. #3 in the other. This year, we'd get to see Michigan vs. Oklahoma and USC vs. LSU.

The winners of those two games plays in the BCS Championship (this year, the Sugar Bowl), the losers of those two games face off in another BCS bowl (say, the Fiesta), and the other two BCS bowls are for the #5-#8 BCS spots (much like they are now).

The fans win: We'd get four UNBELIEVABLE Bowl games over the course of two or three weeks: Michigan-Oklahoma, USC-LSU, USC-Oklahoma, and Michigan-LSU.

The schools win: the Top four BCS teams would get TWO bowl payouts each (one huge and one smaller), instead of only one.

Everybody wins: There would be no argument as to who was the best when the dust settled.

So, why aren't we doing this?

[TrumpetsRule17]

because of a lame contract with bcs
o well

[clusknay]

So, why aren't we doing this?

Having a playoff format? That would be too easy.
The BCS is just there to complicate things that much more. Initially created to eliminate ties for the national title it has created yet more problems within the system.

Problem#1. Nebraska receiving a national title shot, after loosing two games, and being ranked #4 (I believe), over a much more qualified team in Colorado. Result (not that it really matters): Nebraska is blown out in the championship game.

Problem#2. This years debacle with the #1 team in the country, both in the AP, and ESPN poll...DOESN"T get to play for the BCS title, but for the AP title instead.
How is it possible that the #1 team in the country is not playing for the outright title? What will be interesting are the BCS standings after the dust has cleared...What IF...USC blows out Michigan, and Oklahoma, or LSU lose an extremely close battle....guess we'll just have to wait and see.

Here's a question: If this scenario were to play out, USC slams U Mich., and LSU slips past OU...Do you split the title with USC, and LSU? Or will they go with the raw numbers that the computers will generate...Tie? is that possible???

YIKES. What a MESS!

I agree with Phantom whole heartedly though...a Playoff would be absolutely AWESOME. Those would guarantee $$$, for the networks, stadiums, and SCHOOLS. Not to mension would be great entertainment for the fans!!!

[formermarcher]

They actually were talking about that on Sportscenter...and how it would look this year, if a playoff mode were to be done. Assuming the higher seeded teams (1-8) win, we'd have a LSU/Oklahoma semi with a LSU/USC final.