Gray Avenger Wrote:The truth is that the BCS is afraid to risk losing a national championship game to a school outside the club. Talk about "value" all you want, but I see it as greed and hypocrisy (not to mention being chicken$hit). How is a non-automatic qualifier conference school supposed to recruit a top-caliber player when all the BCS schools are whispering in his ear that he won't ever have a chance to win a national championship at that school? Nothing "inclusive" about that. The ironic thing is that many of the schools using that tactic have yet to play in a BCS bowl, much less play for the championship game, but it is effective anyway.

A Non-BCS school has a shot to win a title. Very slim, but then it's slim for BCS schools as well. You have to be the best of the best to be in national title consideration, and most BCS - and Non-BCS schools - will never get a sniff. That's not the only way to gauge a successful season.

That being said, it's possible for a non-bcs school to do it. BYU has done it. It would take probably a string of special seasons so that the Non-BCS team is rated high enough in the pre-season polls. It would take a schedule tough enough with a couple quality BCS opponents OOC. It would take the chips falling in the right places with other leagues. Not likely, but certainly within the realm of possibility.

It's amazing how much controversy this thread initiated.

bitcruncher Wrote:It's amazing how much controversy this thread initiated.

it's a message board. Everything's controversial

So it seems.

Quote:There is no myth. Michigan is the better program and team 99 out of 100 times, probably more, when they play that APP State game. This is akin to a 16 beating a 1 seed in the NCAAs, no more, no less. It was bound to happen at some point in history.

this may be, but one of the points the article is making is that it is wrong for a team to be shut out of controlling it's own destiny for no other reason other than a preseason presumption. even if people do believe it's a 1-in-a-hundred shot, give them that shot and play the game on the field. at least #16 seeded teams lose on the court instead of being told they can't compete at all due to a presumption that they are bad.

you never know who's going to be good in any given year either. boise state never got a chance to compete for the national title because it was presumed that they weren't good enough. did they deserve to go to the bcs title game?? probably not, but they deserved a chance to control their own destiny, as did everyone else. with a 16 team playoff (11 conference champions and 5 at-larges) everyone would have that chance.

hell, even people that are for the bcs and are sick of hearing the griping from those on the outside looking in would have to understand that. if the teams on the outside lookiing in are given a chance to control their own destiny and lose on the field, then they have nothing to gripe about.

i also like the article pointing out how the idea that a playoff would take away from the regular season is ludicrous. if anything, it would add to the regular season. it's hard to say that every game matters when boise state wins them all, but still gets no shot. that same scenario would be true for over half the teams. imagine how many exciting late season games we'd have with conference titles on the line and five at-large spots on the line. hell, it would make the regular season MORE important, not less. bcs pundits that say otherwise are completely wrong.

I don’t have a problem with the concept of a playoff, and of “proving it on the field” – that’s all well and good. I just don’t think a playoff is feasible.

Asking fans to go to one bowl game during the holiday season – on short notice – is one thing. But asking them to travel to various locations, which you won’t know until the last minute, for 2, possibly 3 games is quite something else. You might be able to use home fields for openings rounds, but then you’re going to have a problem incorporating the bowl games, which is obviously something that’s going to be necessary to do.

1-AA and D-II is able to put on playoff games because the scope of each of them is so much smaller, and the # of fans traveling is so much smaller anyway. They hold their title game in a stadium that seats 20k. It’s a different beast trying to logistically get 40k WVU fans to Jacksonville one week, and then to Phoenix the next, and then to Los Angeles the next…. It’s just not an easy prospect to contemplate.

And would these bowls be excited about the prospect of hosting potentially fewer fans from the opposing teams, since most couldn't travel to all the games, and would the cities be excited about less $$$, since most fans couldn't spend as much going from week to week. It's just hard to imagine logistically.

It’s not just Non-BCS teams that are starting the season with a disadvantage in the polls – most BCS teams do as well. Take USF for instance. What happens if they go undefeated? They are unranked. There is no way they work themselves up high enough to bypass all the 1-loss teams. Do they have a realistic shot at the national title this year? Perhaps, perhaps not…. But they are in no different a boat than most of the top Non-BCS schools as far as ability to make the title game. It's all about winning out, having a good schedule, and seeing where the chips fall with other leagues.

Quote:Asking fans to go to one bowl game during the holiday season – on short notice – is one thing. But asking them to travel to various locations, which you won’t know until the last minute, for 2, possibly 3 games is quite something else. You might be able to use home fields for openings rounds, but then you’re going to have a problem incorporating the bowl games, which is obviously something that’s going to be necessary to do.

why is that obviously something that has to be done?? it's not obvious to me why the bowls would need to be involved. besides, most of them are nothing more than clusters of corporate sponsorship, and those same corporate sponsors would be sponsoring the playoffs just as they do the bowls. the only difference is that the ncaa would take control of selecting and pairing the teams. what's wrong with that?? i wouldn't mind seeing the universities come together and taking the control away from the bowls.

Quote:And would these bowls be excited about the prospect of hosting potentially fewer fans from the opposing teams, since most couldn't travel to all the games, and would the cities be excited about less $$$, since most fans couldn't spend as much going from week to week. It's just hard to imagine logistically.

again, who gives a crap about the bowls?? but, nevertheless, attendance and overall ratings for bowl games is far below what it is for the regular season. it's not unusual for a bcs bowl to not sell out. most of the bowls don't sell out and some of them don't even come close. playoffs would do much better and make more money.

look at rutgers. ask most general college football fans, and they'll tell you they remember rutgers and what a big year they had, but won't be able to tell you what bowl game they went to or who they even played despite the fact they were one of the greatest stories in college football last year.

i'd say play the opening round and quarterfinals on campus, and then the semifinals and finals at predetermined sites. this would generate more money for the ncaa, and for the schools participating. therer would also be no absence of corporate sponsorship whatsoever. the semifinals and finals would be guaranteed to sell out. it's obvious to me that unlike most of the bowls, the demand for tickets would far outweigh the supply.

the reality is that the leagues are not going to abandon the bowls, so any playoff formula would need to take them into account - otherwise it's pure fantasyland.

L-yes Wrote:I disagree whole heartedly with your premise. I believe in merit based systems which are very much an American idea. The facts are that the majority of the schools outside the BCS don't bring enough to the table in terms of revenue to the pot to be included. There are exceptions on both sides, the Duke's and BYU's of the world. But those are exceptions. As for hard work, UofL is proof in the pudding. I don't feel sorry for a UAB program that is bleeding it's state's educational system to maintain a D1 program, they should be abolished. Same goes for a program like Tualne, the support isn't there, fold up or move to the 'championship division'. Don't beg the successful programs of the world for welfare. If you want welfare go indy and sell all of your games to the road. There is a market for that and a program like Southern Miss has used it to their advantage.

I respect your position. I just don't believe you can call the BCS a "merit system". What have UK, Ole Miss, Mississippi, Duke, Indiana, and Baylor to name a few done to merit the million dollar pay days that they receive from their respective conferences. If you truly believe in a merit based system you can't support an entitlement program like the BCS.
If college football had a true merit system schools like Southern Miss and BYU, that you mentioned, along with TCU, Boise State, Hawaii and Fresno State, to name a few, would be receiving larger BCS pay-outs than the BCS blood suckers I mentioned above.
The BCS is woefully unfair. It is a good ol'boy system where the the rich get richer with the UABs and Tulanes of college football being left to compete as best they can. The BCS is far from a merit system.
It is a geographical birth rite at best.
CJ

Tigeer Wrote:

SO#1 Wrote:Who created the BCS?

Look at the NCAA’s playoff

Which one is more successful?

People that claim playoff would get more interest, well how FCS (division I-AA) doing in their playoff?
Not many people care to experience the great playoff, do they?
It’s only work if those ‘elitist’ programs participate otherwise you got nothing.

It’s always the contents that give value to the system.
Be thankful they exist to draw interest to the sport.

I am not sure you are comparing apples to apples.

A I-A playoff of 4, 8 or 16 teams would be huge at the box office no matter how you slice it.

You think if you change I-AA to I-A more people will care even without the participation of 65 schools.
How about NCCA tournament? Without 65 schools participate, would it be exciting to watch? It would never work without participating from elitist programs. Your only hope is be part of it.

Those "elitist" teams earned that misnomer for winning tournament games usually.

wvucrazed Wrote:Rice is routinely pathetic and can’t draw fans – they got 11k in their season opener. TCU can’t even get 30k when they’re a Top 20 team. Memphis has how many winning seasons over the last 30 years?

While teams like Cincy draw just over 25K for a game against Oregon State. Plus, TCU got 35k+ against Baylor last weekend. So much for your can't even get 30K statement. BTW TCU drew more than Cincy's 25k for a game last year against a 1-aa team from across the country, UC Davis.

I have nothing against Cincy being BCS, and actually like their program and style of play. But using attendance for a reason to say TCU does not deserve a BCS conference is stupid.

wvucrazed Wrote:it's possible for a non-bcs school to do it. BYU has done it.

BYU's national championship was long before the BCS was formed. I don't necessarily want a playoff (I like bowls), but arbitrarily shutting schools out on the mere basis of conference affiliation is wrong (and GREED is the motive). Like the article suggests - the public will eventually see that "the king has no clothes".

L-yes Wrote:I don't feel sorry for a UAB program that is bleeding it's state's educational system to maintain a D1 program, they should be abolished.

UAB is not "bleeding it's (sic) state's educational system to maintain a D1 program".

We aren't giving away tickets anymore either, but you feel free to keep making stuff up, dumb***.

Oh..and P.S. Nice defense last night. My dead grandmother could have scored at will on you guys! :domokun:

tcufrog86 Wrote:

wvucrazed Wrote:Rice is routinely pathetic and can’t draw fans – they got 11k in their season opener. TCU can’t even get 30k when they’re a Top 20 team. Memphis has how many winning seasons over the last 30 years?

While teams like Cincy draw just over 25K for a game against Oregon State. Plus, TCU got 35k+ against Baylor last weekend. So much for your can't even get 30K statement. BTW TCU drew more than Cincy's 25k for a game last year against a 1-aa team from across the country, UC Davis.

I have nothing against Cincy being BCS, and actually like their program and style of play. But using attendance for a reason to say TCU does not deserve a BCS conference is stupid.

Attendance is an important measuring stick of a program’s overall health and success. UC and a handful of other BCS schools have room for improvement in those areas, sure. But if TCU averages about 31k for a season when they are as good as they will ever be, what benefit and upside do they have long-term? UC is just beginning to realize their potential in the Big East. We’ll see what happens with fan support. TCU on the other hand has been a top non-BCS program for several years, and still doesn’t draw well. If you’re playing teams from Texas every week, sure – that will help attendance. How many of the 35k were Baylor fans?

Regardless, as I said before, there are a handful of teams on both sides of the BCS ledger that could go either way. I didn’t say TCU didn’t deserve a BCS bid, but I don’t get to make those decisions unfortunately. Those who hold the invites in their hands get to choose who they want to be associated with. Had TCU been anything other than abysmal when the SWC fell apart, they may have landed in the Big 12 instead of Baylor.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/...22e33.html

Gray Avenger Wrote:

wvucrazed Wrote:it's possible for a non-bcs school to do it. BYU has done it.

BYU's national championship was long before the BCS was formed. I don't necessarily want a playoff (I like bowls), but arbitrarily shutting schools out on the mere basis of conference affiliation is wrong (and GREED is the motive). Like the article suggests - the public will eventually see that "the king has no clothes".

Oh yeah, the public is in an uproar because teams like Memphis and other non-BCS schools are somehow being treated unfairly by the big, bad BCS teams.

Don’t kid yourself.

“The public” is interested in LSU vs. VPI. Ohio State vs. Michigan. USC vs. UCLA. The public, by and large, are interested in 1) their teams, and 2) the major BCS league teams with a national following.

There has ALWAYS been a disparity in major college football. BYU won before the BCS was in existence, but the disparity was certainly present. The BCS has only formalized something that has been in place for decades in reality.

tcufrog86 Wrote:

wvucrazed Wrote:Rice is routinely pathetic and can’t draw fans – they got 11k in their season opener. TCU can’t even get 30k when they’re a Top 20 team. Memphis has how many winning seasons over the last 30 years?

While teams like Cincy draw just over 25K for a game against Oregon State. Plus, TCU got 35k+ against Baylor last weekend. So much for your can't even get 30K statement. BTW TCU drew more than Cincy's 25k for a game last year against a 1-aa team from across the country, UC Davis.

I have nothing against Cincy being BCS, and actually like their program and style of play. But using attendance for a reason to say TCU does not deserve a BCS conference is stupid.

There are several teams that aren't in a BCS conference that should be. I personally think if the best 10 teams from the WAC, CUSA West, and MWC decided to become a conference they'd have BCS status. Let's say BYU, Utah, TCU, Houston, Air Force, Colorado State, Wyoming, Hawaii, Boise State, Fresno State. That's a BCS conference I'd say and probably better than the ACC as it is now and certainly more balanced than the Big 12. 9 Conference Games so everyone plays everyone.

tcufrog86 Wrote:

wvucrazed Wrote:Rice is routinely pathetic and can’t draw fans – they got 11k in their season opener. TCU can’t even get 30k when they’re a Top 20 team. Memphis has how many winning seasons over the last 30 years?

While teams like Cincy draw just over 25K for a game against Oregon State. Plus, TCU got 35k+ against Baylor last weekend. So much for your can't even get 30K statement. BTW TCU drew more than Cincy's 25k for a game last year against a 1-aa team from across the country, UC Davis.

I have nothing against Cincy being BCS, and actually like their program and style of play. But using attendance for a reason to say TCU does not deserve a BCS conference is stupid.

frog, I suspect you're well aware that Cincy is last in the Big East by a mile in attendance. I'm fine saying attendance shouldn't preclude someone from BCS membership if they can play to that level on the field.

However, between you, me, and the rest of the board, can you really argue against my premise that TCU's attendance is pretty sad in of itself? For the teams they've had this decade, and their population center, drawing in the low 30's or worse is pretty down. The only times TCU seems to get more than the low 30's is when playing a Big 12 opponent or a bowl there.

CollegeCard Wrote:

tcufrog86 Wrote:

wvucrazed Wrote:Rice is routinely pathetic and can’t draw fans – they got 11k in their season opener. TCU can’t even get 30k when they’re a Top 20 team. Memphis has how many winning seasons over the last 30 years?

While teams like Cincy draw just over 25K for a game against Oregon State. Plus, TCU got 35k+ against Baylor last weekend. So much for your can't even get 30K statement. BTW TCU drew more than Cincy's 25k for a game last year against a 1-aa team from across the country, UC Davis.

I have nothing against Cincy being BCS, and actually like their program and style of play. But using attendance for a reason to say TCU does not deserve a BCS conference is stupid.

frog, I suspect you're well aware that Cincy is last in the Big East by a mile in attendance. I'm fine saying attendance shouldn't preclude someone from BCS membership if they can play to that level on the field.

However, between you, me, and the rest of the board, can you really argue against my premise that TCU's attendance is pretty sad in of itself? For the teams they've had this decade, and their population center, drawing in the low 30's or worse is pretty down. The only times TCU seems to get more than the low 30's is when playing a Big 12 opponent or a bowl there.

I am aware the Cincy is last in the Big East in attendance, I was just making a point that attendance should not be one of the first things considered for BCS inclusion. I do agree that TCUs attendance needs to improve, and a lot of that is actually the fault of TCUs sports marketing department who does not do a very good job selling the product. TCU does a fine job of selling the product to people affiliated with the University somehow (students, faculty, staff, alums), but are unable to sell to the general Fort Worth public very well. The population center thing really does not hold true though, because if you look at a lot of programs that do struggle it is those in major population centers. Miami, Boston College, and TCU all have poor attendance when compared to the product they put on the field. SMU and Rice struggle in major metro areas. Cincy struggles in a major metro area. San Diego State and UNLV struggle in major areas. Washington's attendance is pretty sad when they are not good.

What is even worse are the schools that cannot average more fans per game than they have students. How big is Cincy, 35,000?. How about South Florida, I assume that they are 40,000+. TCU is about 8000 students.

In short, there is really a lot more to consider than raw attendance numbers.