<a href='http://espn.go.com/ncf/bowls02/s/fiesta_bcstalks.html' target='_blank'>http://espn.go.com/ncf/bowls02/s/fiesta_bcstalks.html</a>

The BCS can't do this on its own. If they try to push this through the NCAA -- a playoff system resting on the results of the BCS bowls -- I think conferences like the MAC have no choice but to sue.

Who cares? Any playoff proposed by the BCS will be limited to 8 teams (max) and thus the non-BCS conferences "need not apply".

We've been discussing this over on the Broncos Illustrated board for a few days now. I'm not going to get started because I get pretty revved up at the arrogance of these guys. So I'll just post the link over the BI board

<a href='http://citadel4.ezboard.com/fwesternmichiganfrm2.showMessage?topicID=3120.topic' target='_blank'>Broncos Illustrated discussion on this topic</a>



<!--EDIT|klordway|Jan 6 2003, 06:17 PM-->

RochesterFalcon Wrote:The BCS can't do this on its own. If they try to push this through the NCAA -- a playoff system resting on the results of the BCS bowls -- I think conferences like the MAC have no choice but to sue.

NOW you're talking! The only way this gets fixed properly (to include the "others not recieving votes") is to sue. They'll never include the other conferences if they aren't forced to by a court ruling.

I like this idea of playing the bowls then having a one game playoff to determine the National Champion. In addition to this they plan to add a BCS game featuring the top Non-BCS school versus an at-large.

Let's say for example Marshall finishes the season ranked #10 BCS with rankings of #5 in the ESPN/AP poll. They play a Bowl game against an at-large top 10 BCS game and win. Then they would be able to use this BCS Bowl victory in the power ratings for the championship game. That might be enough to push them to #2 BCS so they could play in the championship game.

Playing the Bowls and then deterimining the National Championship game is better for the MAC than playing off the top 4 or 8 teams.

KC

Quote:I like this idea of playing the bowls then having a one game playoff to determine the National Champion.

This is Special Treatment for the Big Boys and, therefore, Very Bad Indeed.

KC, I get your point.

In some years, a NC game after the bowls might work out -- especially if you have more than two undefeated teams going into the bowls. However, this year, it would have just confused matters. What would you have done? Would Ohio State have to play Georgia?

Scattered thoughts on the BCS system vs. playoffs:

There are too many games.

If you have to have playoffs, which I'm against for reasons I'll note in a moment, go back to an 11 game season and allow for 1-2 playoffs games and if neccessary, one more for the last two teams. I don't think it works, though.

Playoffs so diminsh the value of the regular season and reward too much those teams who are hot at the end of the year. Game #1 should be as important to not lose, generally, as the last regular game.

To me, USC's claim be deserving of a nat'l championship bid held no water. You might argue they were the best of the 2 loss teams.

Conference playoff games should not excluded from the max # teams can play. If you are in the SEC or Big 12, you need to schedule fewer games and if you don't make your conf. playoff, you will simply have fewer games.

In football, there is no way to determine a true national champion in either BCS or playoffs. Either way of getting to the champ. game has holes in it. The BCS worked this year. But had Georgia or Iowa etc. not lost their one games, it would have been a mess again. In a playoff, a 3 loss team could conceivably make the playoffs and beat 1 or 2 previously undefeated teams and become "national champion." Assume comparable schedules, even common opponents, should a team who had 3 breakdowns in the year be deserving over teams who had only 1, just because they played better in 1 or 2 games? I know it's the way we do it in other sports, but for football playoffs are just too unwieldy because of the number of games. Even in basketball, you get your flukes--was NC State or Villanova the best team in the year each won the NCAA? Of course not. They were streaky at the right time. A 64 team tournament after 25 or so games works reasonably well. An 8 team tournament after 12 games has many inherent problems. Three more games after 13 is a significant drain for a football team in a way that 6 more after 25+ for a basketball team is not.

And whatever happens, it needs to end by January 1.
And it shouldn't start in August.
If it's about the money, as it usually is, BCS bowls may be the closest to optimum as it can get. In a playoff system, non-playoff bowls would vanish in short order, I believe.

I'll go back to sleep now. :snore:

Dodo Wrote:KC, I get your point.

In some years, a NC game after the bowls might work out -- especially if you have more than two undefeated teams going into the bowls. However, this year, it would have just confused matters. What would you have done? Would Ohio State have to play Georgia?

What would happen is that all the BCS bowl games would go back to their traditional rivalries. The Rose Bowl would always be the Big 10/PAC 10 e.g. OSU would of played WashingtonSt in the Rose, with Iowa lining up against Georgia in the Sugar. MiamiFL would have Florida St in the Orange, and Oklahoma vs. USC in the Fiesta. After these games are played, you then do another BCS ranking to determine the top 2 schools. Would OSU have beaten Washington St and Miami over FSU? Maybe, Maybe not. If either OSU or MiamiFl lost their bowl game, an USC or a Georgia could of taken their place in the Championship game.

KC

Kit-Cat Wrote:MiamiFL would have Florida St in the Orange, and Oklahoma vs. USC in the Fiesta. After these games are played, you then do another BCS ranking to determine the top 2 schools. Would OSU have beaten Washington St and Miami over FSU? Maybe, Maybe not. If either OSU or MiamiFl lost their bowl game, an USC or a Georgia could of taken their place in the Championship game.

KC

The Orange Bowl had a Big 8 tie in, which would have sent Okla vs UCG. Better than the UCG v FSU rematch you pose. Get a clue Kit Kat, you know nothing about football!

Kit-Cat Wrote:I like this idea of playing the bowls then having a one game playoff to determine the National Champion. In addition to this they plan to add a BCS game featuring the top Non-BCS school versus an at-large.

Let's say for example Marshall finishes the season ranked #10 BCS with rankings of #5 in the ESPN/AP poll. They play a Bowl game against an at-large top 10 BCS game and win. Then they would be able to use this BCS Bowl victory in the power ratings for the championship game. That might be enough to push them to #2 BCS so they could play in the championship game.

Playing the Bowls and then deterimining the National Championship game is better for the MAC than playing off the top 4 or 8 teams.

KC

I like this idea a lot better than the current system, but it is still skewed toward the big boys since this leaves 52 teams in 5 conferences including 5 indy's attempting to get one spot. I say do what every other division does, get these schedules under control, and go to a16 team play-off and give all 11 conferences an automatic bid like every other NCAA sport. Maybe limit teams to 11 games (if conference championships were even included we could drop a cross divisional game and play the championship as a "cross-over" game where E1 and W1 play for the championship and w2-e2 play, e3-w3 play etc.). Whatever the BCS does if it excludes us we need to have one of our teams go undefeated and take the BCS to court. The conference and the victim school could go in jointly as lawsuit, maybe even the rest of the non-BCS as a class action.