Non-AQ's better watch their P's and Q's

[TripletDaddy]

My criticism of the BCS (and the NCAA for allowing it) is that they created a half-assed solution the the problem at hand and didn't fix the problem they purported to be fixing.

Whether I am "undercutting all football teams" from the past is debatable. Obviously the bowl and polling system is the past and they did what they could with it. But really, why would they put a new system in place to ostensibly determine a champion but only put two teams in a playoff? And after almost 15 years, you've seen that it creates as much controversy as it solves, so why not use the lessons learned and fix it?

8 teams seems like too few. 12 or 16 makes more sense.

As far as I know, the BCS was put into place to ensure that #1 played #2. That is about it. When the Bowl Alliance was formed, there were no claims that the new system would alleviate all problems.

[TheBYUGuy]

As far as I know, the BCS was put into place to ensure that #1 played #2. That is about it. When the Bowl Alliance was formed, there were no claims that the new system would alleviate all problems.

I agree about the Bowl Alliance, but I was never referring to that. See my edit above.

[Coach McGuirk]

This is the other argument that makes little sense to me (along with the "but for the BCS we would have a playoff" argument).

The prior method...the one that has been in place basically since the beginning of college football and all of Western Civilization, was no more decisive at crowning a "true national champion" (not even sure how you define that). At least during the BCS era, we have, for the most part, a #1 team playing a #2 team. There may be a few candidates left out each year, but under the prior regime, the top teams rarely, if ever played each other. Doesnt anyone remember waiting for the final polls to come out to "verify" the national champion? It was ridiculous.

Unless I am misunderstanding your logic, you are asserting that college football has never crowned a "true national champion?"

Was it? I thought it was fun. I also would spend all day from morning till night watching Jan 1 bowl games, which I loved. Although espn can probably take mug of the blame on that. I liked the regional and traditional match ups. Now, sure they match 1-2 but I am not sure that is the best thing to do. In the old system 1 might play 10 and win but not very close, while 2 took out 4 convincingly and would jump 1. if you are going to be subjective all season, don't change the last game of the year.

[TripletDaddy]

Was it? I thought it was fun. I also would spend all day from morning till night watching Jan 1 bowl games, which I loved. Although espn can probably take mug of the blame on that. I liked the regional and traditional match ups. Now, sure they match 1-2 but I am not sure that is the best thing to do. In the old system 1 might play 10 and win but not very close, while 2 took out 4 convincingly and would jump 1. if you are going to be subjective all season, don't change the last game of the year.

Sorry, good point let me clarify.

Like you, I also loved the bowl system the way it was. I was referring specifically to the wait for the final vote...that part was ridiculous. A champ waiting a few days to read in the paper whether they are the national champ. Seems silly.

The bowl season was great, though, I agree.

[Hot Lunch]

Was it? I thought it was fun. I also would spend all day from morning till night watching Jan 1 bowl games, which I loved. Although espn can probably take mug of the blame on that. I liked the regional and traditional match ups. Now, sure they match 1-2 but I am not sure that is the best thing to do. In the old system 1 might play 10 and win but not very close, while 2 took out 4 convincingly and would jump 1. if you are going to be subjective all season, don't change the last game of the year.

As a kid, my old man would set up 3 TV's in the front room and we would watch as many games as possible on Jan. 1. It was one of the best days of the year for me while growing up.

[LA Ute]

Was it? I thought it was fun. I also would spend all day from morning till night watching Jan 1 bowl games, which I loved. Although espn can probably take mug of the blame on that. I liked the regional and traditional match ups. Now, sure they match 1-2 but I am not sure that is the best thing to do. In the old system 1 might play 10 and win but not very close, while 2 took out 4 convincingly and would jump 1. if you are going to be subjective all season, don't change the last game of the year.

I miss that too.

[Paperback Writer]

I know I am biased because I am a Duck fan, but isn't this system better than the old system? This year you would have been playing for a split NC, that was always kind of lame. In fact I think this is true most years of the BCS-era.

Looking at the championship games through the BCS-era I think the only years we might have not ended with split-NC are 1999 Florida State vs. Va Tech, 2000 Oklahoma vs. Florida State, 2001 Miami vs. Nebraska.

Also under the old system Utah, Boise, TCU and Hawaii would have all played in low end bowl games, and their rivals would have forever been able to discredit their seasons as only having beat a 6-5 team from a "big" conference.

Totally agree and that is why I favor an imperfect BCS system. Looking through the years, HFN is correct about 1999 and 2001. But in 2000, instead of OU-FSU playing in the Orange Bowl, OU would have gone to the Fiesta while FSU stayed in the Orange. The 2003 season should be added as LSU-OU would have still played in the Sugar Bowl in the pre-BCS system.

As a Nebraska fan, I didn't like an undefeated Nebraska not playing an undefeated Penn St in 1994. Same with 1997; Nebraska and Michigan should have played. As a result, a very good and undefeated Penn St. didn't get a shot to play in a BCS title game and Michigan and Nebraska fans are still debating which undefeated team was more deserving in 1997.

If the BCS system is not in place, here is what likely would have occurred in a few selct years (as already mentioned there is a chance of a split title every year except 1999, 2001, and 2003):

2006: An undefeated Ohio St. plays and defeats USC in the Rose Bowl. A one-loss Florida team defeats Michigan in the Sugar Bowl. Ohio St. claims another national title rather than Florida who proved they were the better team on the gridiron.

2005: Undefeated USC defeats Penn St. in the Rose Bowl while undefeated Texas defeats Ohio St. in the Fiesta Bowl. Voters and coaches decide and no one is happy. Fans don't get to watch one of the most riveting championship games played.

2004: Undefeated USC beats Michigan in the Rose Bowl and undefeated Oklahoma defeats Georgia/Tennessee in the Fiesta Bowl. And undefeated Auburn beats Texas in the Sugar Bowl. Voters and coaches decide which of the 3 undefeated teams (4 including Utah which doesn't play in a BCS bowl) deserves to be #1.

The BCS is a better system for all the reasons HFN has stated. I wish bowls were free to make invites to the list of eligible teams rather than having a selection order. In other words, let a team decide whether they want to go to the Orange Bowl or the Fiesta Bowl. That would be an improvment and allow for more of the traditional and regional rivalries.

[LiveCoug]

The BCS is an improvement over the previous bowl system. My main beef with the BCS is that my team is on the outside. I'm not afraid to admit that's why I hate the system. If BYU were in the Big 12, I would still want a playoff, but I wouldn't care that much about the BCS.

[TheBYUGuy]

Without the BCS, Nebraska would not have had to suffer through the humiliation of the 2001 (OK, actually happened in 2002) game against Miami when they clearly didn't belong in that game. It would have saved Nebraska the trouble of being the punchline of why the BCS doesn't work.

With a playoff system, Oregon would have likely been playing in the championship game that year.

That one season shows why both PW and HFNw have reason to be displeased with the current implementation of the BCS.

[Paperback Writer]

Without the BCS, Nebraska would not have had to suffer through the humiliation of the 2001 (OK, actually happened in 2002) game against Miami when they clearly didn't belong in that game. It would have saved Nebraska the trouble of being the punchline of why the BCS doesn't work.

With a playoff system, Oregon would have likely been playing in the championship game that year.

That one season shows why both PW and HFNw have reason to be displeased with the current implementation of the BCS.

Agree that Nebraska did not belong in the Rose Bowl aftert the 2001 season. But that 2001 Miami would likely have humilated Oregon just as bad.

One of the issues I have with a playoff, is that it would be limited to 16 teams at most. That's 16 teams splitting the money for 15 playoff games. That's a step backward for sharing the pot. It would also take away from the Bowl system. No one is going to care about watching a bowl game that's not part of a playoff system. So a one-loss Utah or BYU doesn't make the playoff cut and plays a 2-loss Oregon or Nebraska in some bowl. No one but team's fan base will care and even that will be diminished. The bowl games would no longer be profitable. If the playoffs were integrated into the Bowl games, few fan bases will travel to Las Vegas one week and Tampa the next week.

[Mormon Red Death]

So people are reminiscing about watching a lot of exhibition games. At least with the BCS the top 2 ranked teams play. It has given the public two or three good to great champ games (2001, 2005 and 2006).

[U-Ute]

I wish bowls were free to make invites to the list of eligible teams rather than having a selection order. In other words, let a team decide whether they want to go to the Orange Bowl or the Fiesta Bowl. That would be an improvment and allow for more of the traditional and regional rivalries.

I don't. With this system, the first invitations go to teams that would sell the most tickets. This would automatically reduce the chances of teams that don't have a large national or regional following of getting into these games.

[Paperback Writer]

I don't. With this system, the first invitations go to teams that would sell the most tickets. This would automatically reduce the chances of teams that don't have a large national or regional following of getting into these games.

So a one-loss Utah team shouldn't be able to choose between the Fiesta Bowl in Tempe against Texas or the Orange Bowl in Miami against Virginia Tech? Or is the concern that a 2-loss LSU gets invited to the Fiesta and a 2-loss Penn St. gets invited to the Orange Bowl over a 1-loss Utah?

If it's the latter, I think that is a big part of the argument that AQ conferences commissioners have with making more accommodations to non-AQ programs. More money can be made from both ticket sales and TV ratings with Texas-LSU or Penn St-Virginia Tech than with Utah. It's a business decision; not a conspiracy. Increased fan support would go a long way to solving it.

[TripletDaddy]

I don't. With this system, the first invitations go to teams that would sell the most tickets. This would automatically reduce the chances of teams that don't have a large national or regional following of getting into these games.

good idea. wouldnt want to invest millions into something and then ruin it by inviting the teams that the majority of the country want to see play.

[il Padrino Ute]

The BCS sucks. Always has. Always will.