BCS Rejects Playoff proposal

S

Scooter

250+ Posts
From the AP: "There was no vote taken, the commissioners said, but the leaders of the Big East, Big 12, Pac-10 and Big Ten made it clear they did not want to move the BCS toward a playoff in any way."

Evidently only the SEC and ACC were in favor of a 4-team playoff.
 
The fact that they are in favor of a playoff system in every other sport this just tells you it is all about money.

They need to start by just getting rid of preseason polls and making the coaches ballots public info season long.
 
And in other news, OU sucks
redface.gif
 
I guess the fact that every conference commissioner and school president that I've heard interviewed on the subject says "we won't have a playoff", "we're happy with the current system", "we're not interested in a playoff" etc... wasn't enough to keep people from being surprised by this?
 
There will never be a college football playoff until everyone gets, "theirs." Until all of the decision makers get paid, it won't happen.
hookem.gif
flag.gif
hookem.gif
 
The BCS schools get 90 percent of the money. If there is a playoff, they will get less. They have no incentive to change.

People were sneering when Congress was talking about this... I'm beginning to think there will have to be a law before it gets done.
 
Man I cannot help but think that a real playoff with 16 teams would be crazy-exciting. I never understood the value of the whole "+1" idea though. What is the point?
 
only the SEC and the ACC has felt screwed by the BCS is recent years. Once tOSU gets passed over on their appearance in the annual routine blowout in the bcs title game, and OU or Texas gets screwed, you will start to hear a different tune. ND and USC are not capable of being screwed. if they put up a 1 loss season, they will get in.
 
"Plus-one" is a euphemism for a four-team playoff.

Play the bowls, then one more game.

The original idea was that if there were a couple of "worthy" teams that needed to play, they could play. But there is no way you could set this up without guaranteeing the game. It's not like a pro series, in which the TV partners understand going in that there will be a minimum of four games and a maximum of seven. You may not get seven, but you at least get four.
 
Who deserved to play Texas after Southern Cal in 2005?

No one.

The Plus One format is not the miracle worker some of you think it is.

It's also nice to notice that the AD for the school that hasn't won a bowl game since the Old Testament doesn't want to fiddle with the BCS.
 
bob,
you probably know more about the distribution of funds than i do, but i have been told (by some that should know) that a smaller percentage of a larger pie will ultimately mean more real dollars for the bcs schools. i'm not saying they are right, but what light can you shed on that. thx.
 
^ good point, Bob
A 4 team playoff seeded accordingly makes perfect sense but a plus one does not unless both teams have 1 loss. An undefeated shouldn't have to continue to play.
The only way this will ever happen is if all the mid-majors band together & file suit or boycott or something major along that line.
I'm beginning to think a playoff type deal might not happen in my lifetime.
 
I'd bet that 90% would be equal to a revenue sharing deal for the teams that made a 16 team playoff, since the money would be even larger considering the larger television audience therefore larger television contract. I think more of an issue to those in charge is giving the real opportunity for a Boise St to shine nationally on a regular basis, which would grow those programs, taking away recruits and exposure. They should look at college bball to know this is a ridiculous notion. I guess making a ton of money and knowing its safe > making more money and adding fans?
 
An anomaly?

98 Tenn over FSU
no dispute there

99 FSU over VT
no dispute over those teams

00 OU over FSU
none again

01 UM over Neb
The MNC was right but Nebraska being there was stupid. Chalk one up for BCS not getting it right

02 OSU over Miami
no one complained then either

03
we all know

04 Southern Cal over OU
AU shoulda been in this one, so that makes it 3 bcs goofs

05 Texas over Southern Cal
no complaints there

06 UF over OSU
no complaints there

07 LSU over OSU
only idiots in Georgia complain about this one, especially in the aftermath of LSU annihilating the Buckeyes. I'll be generous and call it a BCS goof.

That's 6 times there was one of your anomalies and 4 times the BCS screwed up one of the competitors and maybe a plus one would rectify it.

They BCS is a decent system. It's not the systems fault that things get screwed up. Over the years, it has gotten the match up right most of the time.

This year's tumult is fresh in everyone's mind and only exacerbates the furor. There was nothing like this in a majority of the years.

For example, in 03, it shoulda be LSU and Southern Cal. Southern Cal didn't make it because Oklahoma was still high in the polls. Which polls? Human polls. The same polls the media contributes to. The same media that couldn't wouldn't get off of their knees in their felating of OU. OU gets crushed by K State. What happens? The not even conference champ drops to 3. Three. It's the medias fault, and the poll's fault, that OU wasn't punished and moved down the polls more (because that would make the MSM wrong, and they can't have that) thus elevating Southern Cal and LSU into the top spots. The media gets off light and has a frenzy attacking the BCS. The BCS does what we told it to do.

You want to fix things? Fix the media. Start the polls later. Make them actually watch the games instead of Gameday and Sportscenter highlights. Then we will get a better evaluation. You and I could do as well or better. As it is, look at the preseason polls and the final polls. There's your problem and solution.
 
Put me in the "happy" camp. No playoff. Playoffs don't decide who the best team is (ie. Pittsburgh 2005, New York 2007), they just provide closure.

In the BCS era, while the matchups have not always been perfect, I'd say the best team has won the MNC every year.

1998 - Tennessee (only undefeated team)
1999 - Florida State (only undefeated team)
2000 - Oklahoma (only undefeated team, but should have played Miami)
2001 - Miami (best team by far, should have played Oregon)
2002 - Ohio State (only undefeated team)
2003 - LSU (f USC, LSU was better)
2004 - USC (only year I think it's iffy b/c of Auburn)
2005 - Texas (duh)
2006 - Florida (destroyed consensus #1)
2007 - LSU (kinda by default, last year was a CF)

Obviously this is open for debate...hence the debate. But I like the current system. Makes for a great regular season, and I've always been a sucker for bowl games.

I know I'm in the minority, but that's fine with me. At least I'll have a chance at being a conference comissioner one day.
biggrin.gif
 
True, you made a point I wasn't willing to make considering the lynching I woudl take for it and that is that we've had the best team win just about every year, except we'll never know about Southern Cal/AU and Miami and Oregon.

Besides making the polls start later, if we implement a rule that you must be a conference champ to play for the MNC, that fixes it.
 
The only problem with starting the polls later is that if you start them say 3 or 4 weeks into the season & the teams that load up w/ OOC cupcakes (a'hem) then they will be rewarded for playing patsies because they're undefeated.
You'd have to start a poll in the middle of the season to actually get it right & that'll probably never happen.
They need to have a system when SOS & wins vs. that schedule is the main if not the only thing that matters.
 
I don't think a team should be able to lose a game and play its way back into a Championship. Anything less than going undefeated is a tainted Championship. If Texas wins every game we will be National Champions and that's all I care about.
 
The only time there is not controversy is where there are exactly two teams as consensus #1 & #2. And, when exactly two powerhouse programs finish undefeated. Your analysis and examples revises history, and demonstrates the bias and dogma against a fair playoff system.

Given the unbalanced schedules (no home & aways in same year; very large range in SOS), voter bias & outright corruption, the impossibility that almost half of the competitors have a chance to win (see non-BCS schools), the BCS lacks competitive integrity.
 
CAD, that's my point. LSU, Southern Cal, and cfb fans everywhere were denied a fantastic game because the media effed it up, not the BCS.

All they had to do was admit they were wrong about OU, push OU down in the polls, and the BCS spits out the game we wanted and deserved. But no, OU drops to 3 because they have to be somewhat good, they spent all season slobbering all over them so they couldn't be a grown up and admit it and make it happen.

I distinctly remember the Gameday crew (with an AP vote amongst them) saying that Saturday before OU lost that even if OU somehow lost and pigs flew, that OU should still play for the title. It happened, the BCS happened and the Gameday crew were ******* irate that OU was actually in.

The media is the problem here, not the system. Start the polls after 4 weeks (say 1st weekend of October) and require conference champs for the MNC game and we're good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top