BCS Changes to be discussed...

[JJReddawg]

On Tuesday as already scheduled. BCS executive director Bill Hancock says, "everything imaginable will be discussed, but protecting the importance of the regular season is important."

Yep, Alabama lost at home to LSU in the regular season and they're still going to say how important the regular season is. :bang:

My guess on possible changes:

1.) No more automatic qualifiers.
2.) No two team conference limit in the BCS bowls.

Any more changes and I will be absolutely stunned.

 

[Marsh01]

On Tuesday as already scheduled. BCS executive director Bill Hancock says, "everything imaginable will be discussed, but protecting the importance of the regular season is important."

Yep, Alabama lost at home to LSU in the regular season and they're still going to say how important the regular season is. :bang:

My guess on possible changes:

1.) No more automatic qualifiers.
2.) No two team conference limit in the BCS bowls.

Any more changes and I will be absolutely stunned.

The SEC just announced it signed a 10 year contract to have at least one team appear in the BCS title game.

 

[BlackKnight76]

They really really really need to about the regular season, especially after this year.

Just convert one of the BCS games into a semifinal (lord knows we don't need another Michigan-VT) and add another semifinal, and then have the winners play. Very simple.

Personally I'd like for 8 teams with the major conferences being represented and two at larges, but that'd be too much like every other sport ever for the NCAA to consider.

 

[Moontan]

Blowing up the BCS and losing the bowl AQ tie-ins would be ironic. The MWC, NBE & NNBE have gone through iterations solely due to those tie in$.

The most realistic change that would at least appease the masses a bit would be to go with a Plus-One model. There are two flavors to this model:

1. straight 4-team playoff... 2 semifinals (1 vs. 4 & 2 vs. 3)
2. return to old-style bowl system (yes, the Rose Bowl will be PAC vs. B1G once again) and run the BCS calculations following those games to choose the BCS Championship Game participants

To keep the $$ levels elevated and allocated to the big conferences, the bowl tie-ins may not disappear. Elevate the Cotton Bowl to BCS status, allow 3 teams from a conference to participate, play those five games around Jan 1, rotate among the five major bowls to host the championship game 2 weeks after the major bowls.

 

[SU2NASA]

lord knows we don't need another Michigan-VT

Michigan-VT was one of the greatest games ever played compared to last night's monstrosity.

 

[orangecuse]

Michigan-VT was one of the greatest games ever played compared to last night's monstrosity.

Agree. Last night proved one thing to me. The excessive & ridiculous amount of down time from when the team's last played assures that both will not be playing at its best or even close to it. LSU was just flat out awful in their execution last night on all levels.

 

[PhatOrange]

On Tuesday as already scheduled. BCS executive director Bill Hancock says, "everything imaginable will be discussed, but protecting the importance of the regular season is important."

Yep, Alabama lost at home to LSU in the regular season and they're still going to say how important the regular season is. :bang:

My guess on possible changes:

1.) No more automatic qualifiers.
2.) No two team conference limit in the BCS bowls.

Any more changes and I will be absolutely stunned.

The silly notion is that somehow a playoff diminishes the importance of the regular season. You'd still be playing for a spot in the playoffs and playing for a high seed.

I can't believe that schools want to maintain the bowls when I think they'd make more money from a playoff and even get home games. Higher seeds play at home. Have the championship at one of the bowl sites – just like the nfl.

The money to televise the playoffs would be unbelievable.

Delany thinks that if he goes to a plus 1 then it’s inevitable that a playoff system will keep expanding. Why the is that a bad thing. Football at every level has a playoff except for D1 college.

The teams who are excluded from the playoff can go play in crappy bowl games if it’s that important.

 

[Marsh01]

The silly notion is that somehow a playoff diminishes the importance of the regular season. You'd still be playing for a spot in the playoffs and playing for a high seed.

I can't believe that schools want to maintain the bowls when I think they'd make more money from a playoff and even get home games. Higher seeds play at home. Have the championship at one of the bowl sites – just like the nfl.

The money to televise the playoffs would be unbelievable.

Delany thinks that if he goes to a plus 1 then it’s inevitable that a playoff system will keep expanding. Why the is that a bad thing. Football at every level has a playoff except for D1 college.

The teams who are excluded from the playoff can go play in crappy bowl games if it’s that important.

The bowl games suck now. How can they get worse? I love that argument. "Well it would diminish the other 107 bowl games...blah blah blah"...I mean who other than the fans of the programs involved are watching these games?
I'd rather sip through a straw while watching a 24 hour Valerie Bertinelli lifetime for women movie marathon.

Top 8 of the BCS standings go to a playoff which start AFTER the rest of the bowl games are completed. If 4 teams from one conference make it in...fine. This isnt hard to figure out a way.

Jesus HC on a popsicle stick...

 

[Chip]

I heard this morning that a likely scenario is to let the bowls pick who they want, or affiliate with whatever conference they want. And then after the bowls are complete, there would be a vote on #1 and #2, who would play a week later.

Of course, this doesn't make everyone happy, but might be the best compromise. The bowls all get to feel relevant (as the double hosting bowl site's first game has become a joke that gets little local interest). The fans, at the very least, get a 1 vs 2 after all the bowls are played, so a bunch of de facto semi finals.

If this happens, inevitably a #3 team after the bowls will be a controversy, but those that are making these decisions are so used to controversy by now, I'm not sure they even care, or notice.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

I heard this morning that a likely scenario is to let the bowls pick who they want, or affiliate with whatever conference they want. And then after the bowls are complete, there would be a vote on #1 and #2, who would play a week later.

Of course, this doesn't make everyone happy, but might be the best compromise. The bowls all get to feel relevant (as the double hosting bowl site's first game has become a joke that gets little local interest). The fans, at the very least, get a 1 vs 2 after all the bowls are played, so a bunch of de facto semi finals.

If this happens, inevitably a #3 team after the bowls will be a controversy, but those that are making these decisions are so used to controversy by now, I'm not sure they even care, or notice.

Big10 vs Pac10 in the Rose.

SEC Champ to the Sugar.

SEC Runner-up to the Orange.

Big12 Champ to the Fiesta.

Everyone else is on their own.

 

[Marsh01]

I heard this morning that a likely scenario is to let the bowls pick who they want, or affiliate with whatever conference they want. And then after the bowls are complete, there would be a vote on #1 and #2, who would play a week later.

Of course, this doesn't make everyone happy, but might be the best compromise. The bowls all get to feel relevant (as the double hosting bowl site's first game has become a joke that gets little local interest). The fans, at the very least, get a 1 vs 2 after all the bowls are played, so a bunch of de facto semi finals.

If this happens, inevitably a #3 team after the bowls will be a controversy, but those that are making these decisions are so used to controversy by now, I'm not sure they even care, or notice.

I still dont see how this solves the problem. If anything it just makes it more controversial.

 

[BlackKnight76]

Michigan-VT was one of the greatest games ever played compared to last night's monstrosity.

I just meant that neither of those teams deserved a BCS bowl.

 

[Chip]

I still dont see how this solves the problem. If anything it just makes it more controversial.

Probably will. But like I said, do they really care? One thing it will do is make the big bowls more interesting. Orange Bowl, Sugar Bowl, Rose Bowl, Fiesta Bowl, maybe Cotton Bowl will all position themselves to take a team that could be playing in the +1 if they win. Whereas now, each of them hosts a game that simply doesn't matter. I think that's first priority for the powers that be.

 

[ImperialOrange]

If the regular season is so important then they should be announcing LSU as the national champions.

Wins over Oregon, Miss State, WVU, Florida, Auburn, Alabama, Arkansas & Georgia > Wins over PSU, Arkansas, Florida, Auburn & LSU.

Beating 8 Ranked teams > Beating 5

13-1 > 12-1

 

[Moontan]

Big10 vs Pac10 in the Rose.
SEC Champ to the Sugar.
SEC Runner-up to the Orange.
Big12 Champ to the Fiesta.
Everyone else is on their own.

No thanks.

Issues:

1. a runner-up shouldn't get an auto-bid
2. you forgot to mention "no special ND provision"
3. this doesn't solve the problem... unless you get top teams playing each other, you can still end up with 3, or more, undefeated teams. Having each champion go to a separate bowl game (other than Rose) would only work if you had a 4-team playoff following these bowls.

The more I think about it the more I'm convinced that on a rotating basis, possibly excluding the Rose Bowl, two of the major bowls must be set up as semi-finals (1 vs 4, 2 vs 3). I'd consider adding the Cotton to the rotation and providing a berth for the ACC champion. You'd end up with 3 meaningful games... a 200% increase from today.

 

[SU2NASA]

I just meant that neither of those teams deserved a BCS bowl.

And who did instead? An overrated Kansas State team that was shellacked by Arkansas (who couldn't go to a BCS game as a 3rd team from the SEC) or a Michigan State that while they beat Michigan, had the same record and lost to two teams that Michigan beat.

The Sugar Bowl chose schools that would sell tickets and turn on TV sets, and if they picked either of those schools, they would have done worse.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

If the BCS Bowls are free to pick whomever they choose ... AQ's won't matter.

Top ranked teams that travel well will always get the best bowls.

Just like things used to be 30 years ago.

 

[SU2NASA]

If the BCS Bowls are free to pick whomever they choose ... AQ's won't matter.

Top ranked teams that travel well will always get the best bowls.

Just like things used to be 30 years ago.

Think Boise State would have some buyer's remorse then?

 

[phil77]

Big10 vs Pac10 in the Rose.

SEC Champ to the Sugar.

SEC Runner-up to the Orange.

Big12 Champ to the Fiesta.

Everyone else is on their own.

The ACC will not lose the Orange bowl. They have a tie in there.

The conference this hurts the most is the Big East as they do not have a tie in with any major bowl.

 

[Marsh01]

And who did instead? An overrated Kansas State team that was shellacked by Arkansas (who couldn't go to a BCS game as a 3rd team from the SEC) or a Michigan State that while they beat Michigan, had the same record and lost to two teams that Michigan beat.

The Sugar Bowl chose schools that would sell tickets and turn on TV sets, and if they picked either of those schools, they would have done worse.

Michigan State beat Michigan AND Played in the Big 10 championship game yet michigan went to the Sugar Bowl. Yep, makes sense.

 

[Scooch]

The "regular season needs to stay important" argument makes me want to kick puppies. Cute puppies.

In week 17 of the NFL season 13 of the 16 games had playoff implications, either for teams to get in, or for seeding. Cowboys/Giants on that Sunday night produced the largest regular season rating NBC has even seen for a prime time game.

Then a week later Pittsburgh/Denver racks up the largest wild card rating since 1987!!!

But yeah, having a playoff really ruined the importance and interest in the regular season. We wouldn't want an 8-team playoff where the last 2 weeks of the college football season is littered by a couple dozen games that would determine who gets in and who gets home field. It's much better to have like 3 games matter to decide #1 vs. #2.

Argh, where the hell is that puppy?!

:bang:

 

[SWC75]

Blowing up the BCS and losing the bowl AQ tie-ins would be ironic. The MWC, NBE & NNBE have gone through iterations solely due to those tie in$.

The most realistic change that would at least appease the masses a bit would be to go with a Plus-One model. There are two flavors to this model:

1. straight 4-team playoff... 2 semifinals (1 vs. 4 & 2 vs. 3)
2. return to old-style bowl system (yes, the Rose Bowl will be PAC vs. B1G once again) and run the BCS calculations following those games to choose the BCS Championship Game participants

To keep the $$ levels elevated and allocated to the big conferences, the bowl tie-ins may not disappear. Elevate the Cotton Bowl to BCS status, allow 3 teams from a conference to participate, play those five games around Jan 1, rotate among the five major bowls to host the championship game 2 weeks after the major bowls.

A third option: after the bowls and the 1 vs. 2 game, run a poll of the fans to see if there's one more game they would like. If 75% of the responses ask for the same match-up, ask the schools if they want to play an extra game, (for a lot of $$$$). If they agree, play it. That's your "plus one".

That's not better than a playoff but it would avoid an extra game when there is no demand for it.

 

[shantydaze]

The silly notion is that somehow a playoff diminishes the importance of the regular season. You'd still be playing for a spot in the playoffs and playing for a high seed.

I can't believe that schools want to maintain the bowls when I think they'd make more money from a playoff and even get home games. Higher seeds play at home. Have the championship at one of the bowl sites – just like the nfl.

The money to televise the playoffs would be unbelievable.

Delany thinks that if he goes to a plus 1 then it’s inevitable that a playoff system will keep expanding. Why the is that a bad thing. Football at every level has a playoff except for D1 college.

The teams who are excluded from the playoff can go play in crappy bowl games if it’s that important.

For Delaney and the Big Ten (as well as the SEC) it is a bad thing because in recent years, both conferences seem to lock up to BCS bids. In addition, the conferences have lucrative bowl tie-ins that would be lost with a play-off system. These conferences likely benefit more than any other conferences by the status quo. Why share the benefit if you do not have too?

 

[SU2NASA]

Michigan State beat Michigan AND Played in the Big 10 championship game yet michigan went to the Sugar Bowl. Yep, makes sense.

And yet they're still Little Brother.

 

[Scooch]

And yet they're still Little Brother.

More Michigan measuring, please!

:bang:

Oh Lord