BCS being sued- support the call for a playoffs!

[SaltyDawg]

I saw on the news some group is trying to sue the BCS for breaking antitrust laws. They have a website set up:
http://www.bcswatchdog.com

I wish them the best of luck. Do your civic duty and spread the word to all the sites you visit...

It's about time we had a playoff. Check out the site, and spread the word...
EDIT:
Check out this article:
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/At-least-the-BCS-is-in-good-hands-with-the-Harri?urn=ncaaf,125765

The BCS just has to go.

[sweet-t310]

I do not support a playoff in college football. There, I said it.

[Transbrak]

I think it's sad that stuff like this gets more attention and debated more than things like...oh I dunno education, the astronomical price of tuition etc.

[Rockin_it_all_nite_long]

I think it's sad that stuff like this gets more attention and debated more than things like...oh I dunno education, the astronomical price of tuition etc.

High school football gets more attention than that stuff...

Sad isn't it?

[Starfleet_Rambo]

What, youse guys think there's more important things than crowning a national champion in college football??

4-team playoff plz, k thx.

[LibertineStripes]

I'd go with an 8 team or 16 team playoff.

It would be just as big, if not bigger, than the college basketball tournament.

[Bass182]

1. It's "A playoff"

2. The BCS is incredibly flawed, I agree, but a playoff will just broaden the spectrum of *****ing. Rather than #3 Auburn, it's #9 Utah or #17 Boise St or #5 Texas. What needs to be fixed is the voting, I found an interesting article (http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/At-least-the-BCS-is-in-good-hands-with-the-Harri?urn=ncaaf,125765) about one particular Harris Poll voter and the poll in general. Interesting read.

[Starfleet_Rambo]

I'd go with an 8 team or 16 team playoff.

It would be just as big, if not bigger, than the college basketball tournament.

No need. Parity isn't the same.

Watch USC violate Penn St. 44-13.

[JoshuaB81285]

If College Football had a playoff, I'd be more inclined to actually follow it. I can't stand the BCS crap, and I think an 8 or 16 team playoff is in order.

[m00p]

I do not support a playoff in college football. There, I said it.

Soo..

You'd rather have a flawed system? In which all of the overrated teams get in?

That's just not fun to watch. While for College Sports I root for Notre Dame(doing pretty bad this year), if the NCAAF actually had playoffs maybe it would be entertaining to watch.

[LibertineStripes]

No need. Parity isn't the same.

Watch USC violate Penn St. 44-13.

A pool of the best 8 or 16 teams won't have parity? I disagree.

Perhaps USC does have a roster with superior talent depth than most teams, but I think we all know why (See: Reggie Bush's college home).

[Starfleet_Rambo]

Oh, and Ohio State will be annihilated by Texas.

No need for 8 teams in a playoff.

[CCDaDon]

I do not support a playoff in college football. There, I said it.

I do not support the watching, enjoying, or even talking about college sports. There I Said It.

[SaltyDawg]

Oh, and Ohio State will be annihilated by Texas.

No need for 8 teams in a playoff.

Wouldn't it be nice if Texas had to play USC after that?

A playoff is the only fair way to do this.

[Apples]

I do not support a playoff in college football. There, I said it.

I agree entirely. We should leave it up to the corrupt "old boys" popularity contest which are the pollsters.

The same people who put Notre Dame as a national "contender" in the top 25 every year based solely on name recognition.

[SaltyDawg]

Check out this article:
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/At-least-the-BCS-is-in-good-hands-with-the-Harri?urn=ncaaf,125765

The BCS just has to go.

I'm going to put that in the original post so it doesn't get lost...

[sweet-t310]

Soo..

You'd rather have a flawed system? In which all of the overrated teams get in?

That's just not fun to watch. While for College Sports I root for Notre Dame(doing pretty bad this year), if the NCAAF actually had playoffs maybe it would be entertaining to watch.


I agree entirely. We should leave it up to the corrupt "old boys" popularity contest which are the pollsters.

The same people who put Notre Dame as a national "contender" in the top 25 every year based solely on name recognition.

The whole thing that I hate about the playoff argument is that it will "make selecting the most worthy teams to compete for the Championship easier and more fair", when that is not true at all. You're still going to have teams on the outside looking in that "deserve" to be there. Look at the NCAA basketball tournament. There are 65 teams in that, yet every year there are 5-10 bubble teams that get left out when you can EASILY argue that they are more deserving than the champion of the SunBelt Conference.

Yes, I agree that the BCS is flawed (Cincinnati is only in a BCS bowl because Miami used to be dominant, so the Big East gets more credit than it's actually worth). But would a playoff fix it? I'm willing to bet if we had a poll to see what 8 teams would make it, probably 5-6 would get all votes, but the last two spots would be split. Who deserves to be in between Utah, Boise St, Ohio State, and Penn St.? If you go by rankings, Boise St gets snubbed even though they are undefeated. Penn St. only has 1 loss while playing in a power conference, but they don't have a conference championship, does that make them better or worse than an undefeated Boise St? Is a 1 loss Texas Tech team better than a 1 loss Penn St team?

You know a good way to answer who gets in? A computer algorithm. Oh wait....

Or we could have a playoff to see who gets into the playoff! College football in March anyone?

And a P.S. here, I'm a alum of Ball State. If they had run the table and beat Buffalo in the MAC Championship, I would have been completely fine with them not playing in a BCS game, let alone the national championship. If there was a playoff, they probably would have been selected for being 13-0, when they in no way deserved to be there, and a more deserving team would have been left out.

The same chances of having 8 "perfect" teams for a playoff are the same chances of having 2 "perfect" teams for the BCS championship as is. Right now, there are 4 teams that will end their season with a BCS bowl win, which is a huge victory for recruiting, athletic funds, and overall reputation of a school and their conference. With a playoff, there would just be 1 winner, and 7 teams that ended their season with a loss.

[Apples]

Also, it is funny you should bring up the NCAA basketball tournament, which reguarly sees underdog teams like George Mason and Davidson make deep runs into the tournament. If those teams played under BCS rules, they would have been marginalized to the Mediocrity Bowl and never heard from again.



If we're going by computer rankings and reputation, we should have just awarded the Patriots the Super Bowl trophy last year for winning the regular season... oh wait.

[sweet-t310]

It is funny you should bring up the NCAA tournament, which reguarly sees underdog teams like George Mason and Davidson make deep runs into the tournament.

If those teams played under BCS rules, they would have been marginalized to the Mediocrity Bowl and never heard from again.

But what about the #9 or #10 "mediocre" teams that weren't "good" enough to make a playoff (Boise St. anyone?) that could have made similar runs?

Edit: I will say this. For the fans, for the writers, maybe even for the players themselves, a playoff would be a great thing, giving your team a chance for a Championship. But maybe this is just the Bachelor's degree in Sports Administration in me coming out, but for the schools, for the programs, and for the conferences, the BCS is a great way to for a program and a University to make a lot of money, which is the main reason these "student-athletes" are out there playing anyway.

[Samuel346]

I think it's sad that stuff like this gets more attention and debated more than things like...oh I dunno education, the astronomical price of tuition etc.

The word is pathetic.

[Apples]

But what about the #9 or #10 "mediocre" teams that weren't "good" enough to make a playoff (Boise St. anyone?) that could have made similar runs?

Your argument appears to be "an 8 team tournament is still flawed, so we should cling to a system which is even more flawed." I don't get it. Where is the downside in offering more [legitimate and deserving] schools a chance to compete for the title?

As it sits right now, if you're not in the big 5 power conferences, you have essentially zero chance at a championship. In what other sport does the league outright discount over 50% of its members in this manner?

[sweet-t310]

The word is pathetic.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/bowls08/news/story?id=3755374
Better?:)

[sweet-t310]

Your argument appears to be "an 8 team tournament is still flawed, so we should cling to a system which is even more flawed." I don't get it. Where is the downside in offering more [legitimate and deserving] schools a chance to compete for the title?

As it sits right now, if you're not in the big 5 power conferences, you have essentially zero chance at a championship. In what other sport does the league outright discount over 50% of its members in this manner?

Added this as an edit to my previous post, but I'll repost:

I will say this. For the fans, for the writers, maybe even for the players themselves, a playoff would be a great thing, giving your team a chance for a Championship. But maybe this is just the Bachelor's degree in Sports Administration in me coming out, but for the schools, for the programs, and for the conferences, the BCS is a great way to for a program and a University to make a lot of money, which is the main reason these "student-athletes" are out there playing anyway.

There is a reason that there are 3,294 bowl games: money.

[Apples]

You can still have bowls along side a tournament structure for those who don't make the cut. And those bowls can still have sponsors.

There is still room for money within the construct of a tournament.

The Fiesta Bowl can still be sponsored by Tostitos... whether its a standalone bowl game or a national semifinal as part of a tournament.

[Rock_Band_Over]

I know it's not coming back but does anyone miss the old bowl system? It wasn't perfect but at least the bowls meant more and many were rich in tradition with longtime rivals really having something to play for. There were times when it caused a split national championship, but I think it had the best balance of making both the regular season and bowl season worth playing.

I find the BCS bowls often ending up being really random matchups and not even the most interesting or passion-filled game that many participants have played in that season. The only game most people really care about is the Championship game, and even that is now held long after the euphoria of the New Year has worn off.

Playoffs? 119 teams, only 12-13 games each... picking 8-16 isn't necessarily going to be more fair than 2, especially considering the huge significance of 'seedings' among those teams.

[SaltyDawg]

The whole thing that I hate about the playoff argument is that it will "make selecting the most worthy teams to compete for the Championship easier and more fair", when that is not true at all. You're still going to have teams on the outside looking in that "deserve" to be there. Look at the NCAA basketball tournament. There are 65 teams in that, yet every year there are 5-10 bubble teams that get left out when you can EASILY argue that they are more deserving than the champion of the SunBelt Conference.

Yes, I agree that the BCS is flawed (Cincinnati is only in a BCS bowl because Miami used to be dominant, so the Big East gets more credit than it's actually worth). But would a playoff fix it? I'm willing to bet if we had a poll to see what 8 teams would make it, probably 5-6 would get all votes, but the last two spots would be split. Who deserves to be in between Utah, Boise St, Ohio State, and Penn St.? If you go by rankings, Boise St gets snubbed even though they are undefeated. Penn St. only has 1 loss while playing in a power conference, but they don't have a conference championship, does that make them better or worse than an undefeated Boise St? Is a 1 loss Texas Tech team better than a 1 loss Penn St team?

You know a good way to answer who gets in? A computer algorithm. Oh wait....

Or we could have a playoff to see who gets into the playoff! College football in March anyone?

And a P.S. here, I'm a alum of Ball State. If they had run the table and beat Buffalo in the MAC Championship, I would have been completely fine with them not playing in a BCS game, let alone the national championship. If there was a playoff, they probably would have been selected for being 13-0, when they in no way deserved to be there, and a more deserving team would have been left out.

The same chances of having 8 "perfect" teams for a playoff are the same chances of having 2 "perfect" teams for the BCS championship as is. Right now, there are 4 teams that will end their season with a BCS bowl win, which is a huge victory for recruiting, athletic funds, and overall reputation of a school and their conference. With a playoff, there would just be 1 winner, and 7 teams that ended their season with a loss.
You might want to check out the site in the original post, and read the proposal. it's for a 16 team playoff, not 8. That would be the 11 conference champions, plus 5 at large teams that are decided by a committe (like the NCAA basketball tournament).

I doubt there will be too many teams on the outside that have a strong case to be on the inside with that scenario. And it only adds a few games to the season.

By the way, division 2 football has had a playoff for quite a while, and most of those schools are better academic schools than a lot of the division 1 (FBS) schools, so there is no academic argument either.

[SaltyDawg]

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3760232


Bill would force college football playoff

WASHINGTON -- Taking aim at a BCS system he said "consistently misfires," a member of Congress planned to introduce legislation Wednesday that would force college football to adopt a playoff to determine the national champion.

Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, didn't specify what sort of playoff he wants -- only that the BCS should go.

"In some years the sport's national championship winner was left unsettled, and at least one school was left out of the many millions of dollars in revenue that accompany the title," Barton said in a statement released ahead of the bill's introduction. "Despite repeated efforts to improve the system, the controversy rages on."

He said the bill -- being co-sponsored by Reps. Bobby Rush, an Illinois Democrat, and Michael McCaul, a Texas Republican -- "will prohibit the marketing, promotion, and advertising of a postseason game as a 'national championship' football game, unless it is the result of a playoff system. Violations of the prohibition will be treated as violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act as an unfair or deceptive act or practice."

The BCS was created in 1998 by the six most powerful conferences. Since then, the system has been tweaked to make it easier for teams from smaller conferences to qualify for the top games. The sites for the four BCS bowls -- the Rose, Orange, Sugar and Fiesta -- take turns hosting a championship game between the top two teams in the BCS standings, which are based on two human polls and six computer ratings.

This season, Florida (12-1) and Oklahoma (12-1) will meet in the BCS title game Jan. 8 in Miami.
Barton cited Southern California in 2003 and undefeated Auburn in 2004 as examples of worthy teams left out of the BCS national championship game.

"This year, we again have two teams with one loss each playing for the 'championship,' while two undefeated teams and four additional teams with only one loss will play in bowl games, but none can become 'champion," he said.

When an Energy and Commerce subcommittee held a hearing about the BCS in 2005, lawmakers said they weren't going to pursue legislation.

"The BCS method of determining who is No. 1 consistently misfires," Barton said Wednesday. "Simply exposing the flaws and subjecting them to discussion ... hasn't led to improvement by those who run the system."

[Texas_Metal_Mavins]

The entire system no matter what way you set it up will be flawed. There are about 120 FBS schools. There are 12 conf.(including the independants as one). So that gives you 12 conf champs automaticly in the playoffs. (Forget that, make the Independants join a confrence to make the playoffs, so that is 11 champs auotmaticly in the playoff. This gives us only 5 at-large (or wildcards) out of the remaining 109 teams. But the next question is, how do you pick the remaining 5? Polls are crap. It's like crowning a homecoming king / queen. This is where the logistics of a playoff system fail. Computers are not a good factor because the original data entered in the computers comes from what?, human polls. So face it, there will be no playoff system in the FBS due to money, student needs and travel, logistics and the sheer number of teams involved. If you did find a way to pick the 5 wildcards, you will still end up pissing someone off and the next argument will be a BIGGER PLAYOFFS WITH MORE TEAMS. The FBS does have one thing going for it, we continue to talk about it, and as long as we are talking about it we must be watching it. Plus there could be a fear of change. Look at NASCAR. It was one of the fastest growing sports in America. Then they changed how they crowned a champ. It has been declining ever since.

But with all that said, it is only my opinion, and to some it may stink.

[SaltyDawg]

The entire system no matter what way you set it up will be flawed. There are about 120 FBS schools. There are 12 conf.(including the independants as one). So that gives you 12 conf champs automaticly in the playoffs. (Forget that, make the Independants join a confrence to make the playoffs, so that is 11 champs auotmaticly in the playoff. This gives us only 5 at-large (or wildcards) out of the remaining 109 teams. But the next question is, how do you pick the remaining 5? Polls are crap. It's like crowning a homecoming king / queen. This is where the logistics of a playoff system fail. Computers are not a good factor because the original data entered in the computers comes from what?, human polls. So face it, there will be no playoff system in the FBS due to money, student needs and travel, logistics and the sheer number of teams involved. If you did find a way to pick the 5 wildcards, you will still end up pissing someone off and the next argument will be a BIGGER PLAYOFFS WITH MORE TEAMS. The FBS does have one thing going for it, we continue to talk about it, and as long as we are talking about it we must be watching it. Plus there could be a fear of change. Look at NASCAR. It was one of the fastest growing sports in America. Then they changed how they crowned a champ. It has been declining ever since.

But with all that said, it is only my opinion, and to some it may stink.
The link in the original post has a proposal outlined that explains it all in great detail. Basically, they are calling for a 16 team playoff, with the 11 conference champions getting in, and 5 at large bids.

The 5 at large bids, and the seeding for all 16, would be determined by a committe- just like the NCAA basketball tournament.
And by the way- NCAA Division 2 has had a 16 team football playoff for quite a while now, and there have been no problems.

Think about this- the conference champions all get in. There are 5 at large bids that also get in. Who could possibly be out there that complains about not getting in? The mid majors can get in by winning the conference, and most of the big conferences get 2 teams in. Crappy conferences like the Big East and ACC this year would only get 1 team in, and good conferences like the big 12 and SEC this year would get 3 or 4 teams in (the conference champ and a few at large bids).

I just don't see how anyone can say teams would complain about being left out. In that scenario EVERYONE has a chance to get it by simply winning their own conference. As it is right now, Utah is undefeated, played a tough schedule, and has NO CHANCE to win the championship. Heck, Utah had urban meyer as their coach a few years ago (Florida's coach now) and he took them to an undefeated season, they SMASHED Pitt in their BCS game, and they weren't even considered for a championship then either.

So the way the system is set up, no matter what Utah does, they will NOT be considered for a championship. They already schedule nothing but BCS conference teams for their out of conference games (this year was at Michigan, and home against Oregon State), they have 2 other top 15 teams in their own conference that they play ever year (TCU and BYU), and another team that is on the cusp of top 25- getting votes every week but not enough to crack the top 25 (Air Force). And they went undefeated with that schedule. Yet, they have no chance to compete for a championship.

Yeah, we need a playoff. Get a system set up where the best team is the champion, regardless of what everyone's opinion of their conference is.

[Rock_Band_Over]

^

Well, if nothing else, I admire your courage. Personally, I would have kept the Utah argument under wraps until after the Sugar Bowl and made sure it didn't end up being anything like last year's Sugar Bowl (Georgia 41, Hawaii 10).

I realize Hawaii is not Utah, and the WAC is not the MWC. But so much is riding on Utah's performance for all mid-major schools that I heard even BYU fans are rooting for the Utes. Not saying Utah can't/won't win, but a poor outing would be a catastrophic setback for this whole campaign claiming mid-majors are getting unfairly shut-out. Good luck!

[SaltyDawg]

^

Well, if nothing else, I admire your courage. Personally, I would have kept the Utah argument under wraps until after the Sugar Bowl and made sure it didn't end up being anything like last year's Sugar Bowl (Georgia 41, Hawaii 10).

I realize Hawaii is not Utah, and the WAC is not the MWC. But so much is riding on Utah's performance for all mid-major schools that I heard even BYU fans are rooting for the Utes. Not saying Utah can't/won't win, but a poor outing would be a catastrophic setback for this whole campaign claiming mid-majors are getting unfairly shut-out. Good luck!

Utah will be the second toughest team Alabama has faced all season (behind Florida). There is a very good chance Utah will actually beat Alabama. There is no way Utah is getting blown out.

Utah's defense is very good. Maybe not as good as Alabama's, but still very good. And Utah's spread offense is almost as good as Florida's- and certainly as good or better than Florida's when they are missing their best offensive weapon (Harvin) like they were when they played Alabama. And Utah has a first team All American punter and fg kicker, so they have the edge on special teams.

It should be a very good game. Nothing like last year's Sugar Bowl.

Utah has won something like their last 9 straight bowl games. Their coaching staff is rock solid when they have a month to prepare for a team.

And as for Hawaii and the WAC- Utah is for real. They aren't a fluke like Hawaii was last year. Utah has already been to a BCS bowl, and they dominated it. Utah won the Fiesta bowl by a score of 35-7 a few years ago.

This year Utah beat TCU (currently ranked 11 in BCS rankings), BYU (currently 16 in BCS rankings), and Oregon State (currently 24 in AP). It's not like Hawaii last year who played nobody.

Alabama is a great team- they were ranked #1 for most of the season for a reason. But Utah will not go down like Hawaii last year. If Utah loses, it will be close, and there is a very good chance Utah will win the game.

The line opened up at 11 points with Bama as the favorite. Last time I checked it was down to 10- meaning the majority of people betting were taking Utah. So I'm not the only one who expects it to be close.

Back on topic...
If Utah beats Alabama, and TCU beats Boise State in the Poinsettia Bowl, that would make Utah the only undefeated team in the nation. And they would have accomplished that feat while playing a pretty impressive schedule too (not playing a bunch of nobodies like Hawaii last year). Yet, there is no chance they will be considered for a national championship. And that is precisely why we need to do away with the BCS and get a playoff system. If you can play an impressive schedule, go undefeated (and be the only undefeated team in the nation), and then beat a team in a BCS game who was ranked #1 almost all season- and STILL not be considered for #1, then the system is beyond repair and needs to be replaced. There is basically no way any mid major can ever win a championship- no matter how good they are.

[SaltyDawg]

^

Well, if nothing else, I admire your courage. Personally, I would have kept the Utah argument under wraps until after the Sugar Bowl and made sure it didn't end up being anything like last year's Sugar Bowl (Georgia 41, Hawaii 10).

I realize Hawaii is not Utah, and the WAC is not the MWC. But so much is riding on Utah's performance for all mid-major schools that I heard even BYU fans are rooting for the Utes. Not saying Utah can't/won't win, but a poor outing would be a catastrophic setback for this whole campaign claiming mid-majors are getting unfairly shut-out. Good luck!
Well Utah took care of business, so Hawaii no longer applies. Utah didn't just beat Alabama, they totally smashed them, dominating them on both sides of the ball.

For those keeping score at home, Utah now has 2 BCS bowl victories under their belt and zero BCS bowl losses. To put that in perspective- the ACC gets an automatic BCS bid. Their conference champ automatically plays in a BCS game every year. Yet, the entire ACC conference only has 2 BCS bowl game victories in the entire history of the BCS.

BTW, there are several major polls out there asking if Utah should be the champions or in the championship game. Here is an ESPN poll (was on the main espn.com site, but I'll link directly to it) with over 154,000 votes, and 65% of the voters feel Utah should be in the championship game. Incidentally, the only state voting against Utah being in the championship game is Oklahoma (for obvious reasons).
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/fp/flashPollResultsState?sportIndex=ncf&pollId=65891

And there is also a foxsports poll with over 89,000 votes and it has 73% of voters saying Utah is the champion, not that they should just get into the championship game, but they should have at least a share of the title.

We just need a playoff. That's all there is to it.