PDA

View Full Version : I think the BCS is good



HuskyFreeNorthwest
11-30-2008, 10:46 AM
I used to be a member of the full-fledged hate the BCS group, however I have swung 180 degrees. I think the BCS is good for college football. Do I think a 12 or 16 team playoff would be better? Yes, I am unsure my feelings about an 8 team playoff.

The arguments against the BCS are that it keeps the money in the power conferences, limited access to all D1 (or FBS) teams, and has not always matched up the two best teams in the country.

I would suggest that the BCS has done a better job of sharing money and access than any other set up in the history of college football. From 1970-1997 a total of 4 teams gained entrance into the bowls that comprise the BCS. One of those being Houston form the SWC in 1976, IMO if the SWC were around today it would be an auto-bid BCS league. Another was Louisville in 1990, which is now a member of a BCS conference. That means that in the 28 years prior to the formation of the BCS taking the 4 would be BCS bowls means there were 224 bowl invites to the Orange, Sugar, Fiesta and Rose, 1.8% of which went to teams from none BCS conferences, or 1.3% went to teams that are not currently in BCS conferences.

Since the formation of the BCS in 1998 season as most know 4 teams have made it from non-BCS conferences. With the addition of the BCS championship game in 2006 there have been 94 BCS invites given out with 4.3% being given to non-BCS conference teams (this includes 1 BCS invite given to a non-BCS team in 2008 season, if 2 non-BCS teams get invites in the 2008 season it is 5.3% of invites). No more BYU in 1983, 1984, 1996, Utah 1994 or Air Force 1985. These teams weren’t even considered to gain access to the elite bowls.

So access to the prestige and money of the big bowl games is far greater now than it ever has been in the past, as well as the interest in bowl games. In 1997 the last year without the BCS there were 20 bowl games, this year there will be 34 bowl games, that means more money and exposure for all of college football. With the requirement being lowered to earning a ranking of 12 or higher I think it is probable to see a team from a non-BCS conference gaining access every season to the BCS games. This is why I am unsure of an 8-team playoff. I think it would resemble the first few years of the BCS when there were many flaws and access was not truly available to all.

Info taken from espn.com and cfbdatawarehouse.com

Coach McGuirk
11-30-2008, 10:50 AM
Money, yes. Access to win a championship? Ask Utah.

HuskyFreeNorthwest
11-30-2008, 10:52 AM
Money, yes. Access to win a championship? Ask Utah.

What access to win a championship would Utah have had from 1970-1997? I did not say it was a perfect system, but I think it is miles of advancement from what was in the past.

Coach McGuirk
11-30-2008, 11:08 AM
What access to win a championship would Utah have had from 1970-1997? I did not say it was a perfect system, but I think it is miles of advancement from what was in the past.

I don't know, but BYU did it and it has not been done since they changed the system. I will agree that an 8 team playoff would be an atrocity for MWC and WAC fans. 16 team playoff is the only better option, that I can agree with.

il Padrino Ute
11-30-2008, 11:11 AM
What access to win a championship would Utah have had from 1970-1997? I did not say it was a perfect system, but I think it is miles of advancement from what was in the past.

There is no way a non-BCS team will ever be able to win the fake championship. The cartel just won't let it happen.

BYU got their championship before the BCS was around. All teams had a chance to do it. How is the BCS possibly better than that?

All-American
11-30-2008, 11:16 AM
The BCS is a step in the right direction. Certainly it is better than 1996, where a 5th ranked BYU was shut out of the bowls. We do forget, though, that we got a better opponent in Kansas State than we would have if we had played against Syracuse or Texas-- both of whom were blown out in their respective games.

The ideal solution, as I have argued before, is a twelve-team playoff, where each conference champion in the top 25 is given a spot. 5-12 play the first round, then 1-4 play the winners of those games. Only two teams (barring huge upsets) will play more than two extra games at the end of the season, no teams with legitimate arguments for the title will be shut out, and with the supreme importance of being ranked in the top 4 over the top 5-12, the importance of the regular season is retained.

il Padrino Ute
11-30-2008, 11:24 AM
The BCS is a step in the right direction. Certainly it is better than 1996, where a 5th ranked BYU was shut out of the bowls. We do forget, though, that we got a better opponent in Kansas State than we would have if we had played against Syracuse or Texas-- both of whom were blown out in their respective games.

The ideal solution, as I have argued before, is a twelve-team playoff, where each conference champion in the top 25 is given a spot. 5-12 play the first round, then 1-4 play the winners of those games. Only two teams (barring huge upsets) will play more than two extra games at the end of the season, no teams with legitimate arguments for the title will be shut out, and with the supreme importance of being ranked in the top 4 over the top 5-12, the importance of the regular season is retained.

BYU got the royal screw job in '96. That was proof right there that the BCS is all about tv ratings. Had there been 5 million residents along the Wasatch Front, BYU would have been in one of those games.

I prefer a 16 team playoff. The champion from each conference and 5 at-large bids, perhaps the top 5 ranked teams that aren't champions.

I realize that most will argue that a team from the Sun Belt would get crushed and therefore doesn't belong, but so what? At least it would give all teams a chance to win a title.

For the BCS conference teams that would gripe about being left out, there would be a simple solution - win your conference title.

Coach McGuirk
11-30-2008, 11:42 AM
BYU got the royal screw job in '96. That was proof right there that the BCS is all about tv ratings. Had there been 5 million residents along the Wasatch Front, BYU would have been in one of those games.

I prefer a 16 team playoff. The champion from each conference and 5 at-large bids, perhaps the top 5 ranked teams that aren't champions.

I realize that most will argue that a team from the Sun Belt would get crushed and therefore doesn't belong, but so what? At least it would give all teams a chance to win a title.

For the BCS conference teams that would gripe about being left out, there would be a simple solution - win your conference title.

I think that some conferences should be desolved. Some teams should be removed from D1 football as well. Then those that are left can compete at the highest level.

For instance, if you can't draw 25,000 to 30,000 fans to your home games, then you shouldn't be playing D1 football.

il Padrino Ute
11-30-2008, 11:51 AM
I think that some conferences should be desolved. Some teams should be removed from D1 football as well. Then those that are left can compete at the highest level.

For instance, if you can't draw 25,000 to 30,000 fans to your home games, then you shouldn't be playing D1 football.

I disagree. As long as those conferences are competing at the D1 level, they should have the same shot at a title. If the NCAA wants to dissolve conferences and require a minimum attendance, it should do that, but until then there is no reason to not allow all teams the same access to a championship.

Basketball does it right. Every team in Div. I has a chance to win the national title. Football should do the same.