BCS B.S.

[Dan Wishengrad]

[quote="DanGenck A playoff would trivialize the regular season and further hurt mid-major teams and lower major teams by hurting their chances at any kind of championship (bowl, conference, national).[/quote]

You've convinced me, Dan! The NCAA has it dead wrong in every sport OTHER than DI-A football. Playoffs and national championship tournaments DO indeed trivialize the regular season. Determining a true champion should NOT be the goal, but rather rewarding and spotlighting any team which can scrape together six wins is a far more worthy aim. We in the MDIA have also have been horribly wrong for holding a national championship tournament since 1997! It is a nobler goal to reward mediocrity by letting half our teams win some kind of bowl game instead.

So let's scrap our current system and adopt, instead, the bowl-system for the MDIA in its place. Using the 2005 regular-season results, let's see what could have been a far more interesting and rewarding post-season last Spring:

Some early Bowl Games:

The Ronco Rotisserie Bowl -- LSA#8 (Houston 7-4) vs UMLL #5 (St. Olaf 6-8)

The Cialis/Viagra Stiff Ones Grudge Match Bowl -- SELC #9 (North Carolina State 7-6 vs Pioneer #4 (Stonehill 6-8)

The Earthquake/Tornado Which Is Worse? Bowl -- WCLL #11 (St. Mary's 9-5) vs GRLC #6 (SW Missouri State 8-5)

The Go East Young Man Bowl -- CCLA #6 (Eastern Michigan 7-6) vs PNCLL #4 Gonzaga (7-6)

Time constraints force me to skip the 47 "middle" bowl games and skip right to the Bowl Championship Series (NOTE: Sonoma State is omitted from participation when LSA coaches vote their champ #1 and leave the Seawolves off their Top 25 ballots entirely)

The Sugar Bowl -- PNCLL AQ (Oregon 14-5) vs RMCLL At-Large (Utah 13-6)

The Orange Bowl -- CCLA AQ (Michigan 18-3) vs SELC AQ (Florida State 15-6)

The Fiesta Bowl -- Pioneer AQ (Northeastern 17-3) vs RMLC At-Large (BYU 14-5)

and the Grand-Daddy of them all, for the MDIA "national championship" ...

The Rose Bowl -- WCLL AQ (UCSB 21-2) vs LSA AQ (Texas Tech 11-8)

I think this system would be a vast improvement over the previous post-season tournament, and would minimize any controversy while also preserving the regular-season results. Any comments from the rest of you?

[DanGenck]

Come on now, no sarcasm...

You have to look at this from my point of view as a football coach. Football seasons are incredibly taxing on student athletes and take tons of time, effort and coordination, even at the high school level. If we can have as many teams as possible walk away from their trials and hard work with a smile on their face, then we are happy. What's the fun in working from early August to December 15th just to get pounded by USC in the first round of a play-off? Do you win anything? Are you any happier? Do you walk away from your season saying, "God, that was really worth it..."

Sadly, conference play and rivalry play has been trivialized by fans and media outlets that push more and more for bigger and better. With that trivialization, has come a push for a play-off and bigger, better and wilder games. Is this in the best interest of the student athlete? Probably not... There was a time when Washington beating Washington State was the best that could be done, and now we scoff at this type of thinking. "Beat Washington State? Who cares, we didn't win the Pac10. Win the Pac10? Who cares, we didn't make it to the National Championship Game".

Consider this-

Here at Kent, we are a traditional New England power. We started off our season 0-3, and our kids have battled back to a 2-3 footing. We have our two big rivalry games to finish off the season vs. Hotchkiss and vs. Loomis-Chaffee. If we win both of those games, we finish 4-3 with our biggest games as victories and with the satisfaction of knowing that we worked hard, had a lot of fun and learned how to deal with adversity.

Now, since we finished 4-3, we might be ranked in the New England top 25. If we are invited to a New England Championship Tournament, we might just ruin our entire season by getting pasted by a better school in the first round. Now the kids will not remember rousing victories over Hotchkiss and Loomis-Chaffee, but a first round loss and a bitter taste in their mouths. None of the kids will say, "How great was it to beat Hotchkiss this year?" they will all say, "How terrible is it that we did not win New Englands?"

Instead, the real system is that the best 8 teams in New England are invited to 4 seperate bowl games. Each winner claims themselves as a "New England Champion" and we as coaches offer the most possible students the chance to finish the season with WHAT IS BEST FOR THEM AS STUDENT ATHLETES, not what is best for fans or coaches or administrators (That's right, one extra game means they can still go to class, still get their exams done and still be home for Thanksgiving).

The bowl system offers 30+ teams, hundreds of coaches and players, thousands of fans to be happy with the outcome of their season. With a play-off, 70 players are happy, 10 coaches are happy and the fans of one school are happy while thousands of others get little for their hard work and effort.

And that's all I have to say about that.

[Jolly Roger]

...in my best Ralphie Wiggims voice...

"Let's make everyone a champion"

[Jay Wisnieski]

What's the fun in working from early August to December 15th just to get pounded by USC in the first round of a play-off? Do you win anything? Are you any happier?

So you're saying that you're also not in favor of the NCAA Basketball tournament? Those teams work from October/November until March (5 months...same as the football season), and some of them, such as Valparaiso or Holy Cross, get #16 seeds and they have virtually no shot at winning their first round game. Don't you think those players are happy to have won their conference and a spot in the tournament?

I'm in favor of a playoff only because I hate seeing more than one undefeated team at the end of a season. All you hear when that happens is one guy saying "My team was the best", and then another says, "No, mine was the best", and it goes on and on, and it gets very annoying.

Also, who's to say that they couldn't keep some of the bowl system in place for teams that don't qualify for the playoffs? That way, some teams can still be champions and winners of certain bowl games, and the other teams that were good enough all season long to be in the playoffs can try to win the national championship.

[DanGenck]

What's the fun in working from early August to December 15th just to get pounded by USC in the first round of a play-off? Do you win anything? Are you any happier?

So you're saying that you're also not in favor of the NCAA Basketball tournament? Those teams work from October/November until March (5 months...same as the football season), and some of them, such as Valparaiso or Holy Cross, get #16 seeds and they have virtually no shot at winning their first round game. Don't you think those players are happy to have won their conference and a spot in the tournament?.

And none of those teams ever win the championship. They win their conference, but we have trivialized that conference championship by putting such a big stake in playing in the national tournament (which Holy Cross, Valpo or Princeton will never win).

They may enjoy the tournament, but more often then not, I am sure they are disappointed with losing (no one likes to lose, and playing in the big show is no consolation. I never heard the Buffalo Bills say, "Hey, at least we made it...") and traveling to Indianpolis from Princeton, NJ on a Wednesday is probably not the best thing for helping them finish their school work.

I am getting away from my point which is that the BCS system helps the majority of student athletes, coaches, administrators and fans. No other system could feasibly work or would be good for student athletes.

[Hackalicious]

They win their conference, but we have trivialized that conference championship by putting such a big stake in playing in the national tournament (which Holy Cross, Valpo or Princeton will never win).

They may enjoy the tournament, but more often then not, I am sure they are disappointed with losing (no one likes to lose, and playing in the big show is no consolation. I never heard the Buffalo Bills say, "Hey, at least we made it...") and traveling to Indianpolis from Princeton, NJ on a Wednesday is probably not the best thing for helping them finish their school work.

If that's the way you feel, how about we just give everyone a "Participant" trophy and have a end of the season pizza party at Chuck-E-Cheese?

Come on. Any athlete at any level wants a shot at the title, even if it's a longshot. That's why the NCAA Basketball tournament is so great. Every year there are some upsets and some teams that make it further than they should.

Do you think the #16 seed USLIA team is disappointed at going to the tournament with "no chance" of winning? Some people have the best games of their lives against teams they have "no chance" of beating.

[Beta]

Any comments from the rest of you?

Dan that is hilarious. The incentive to play well in the regular season is the same in football as it is in basketball, or baseball. I would think regular season games have more significance now that you control if you play #2 or #15 in your playoff game. I think it would make for some great matchups. In other news, Stanford's coach is officially the worst coach in the history of sports. If anyone watched the last quarter against UCLA before halloween festivities...you know what im talking about.

[DanGenck]

I am not advocating patting people on the back who deserve nothing. Every kid in every program busts their butt all season long and they deserve something to be proud of at the end of the season. A bowl game, and especially a bowl victory, is an adequate award and offers the most amount of teams the chance to finish their season as champions. In the end, that's what we're pushing for, right? Advancing student athletes toward excellence on and off the field... by providing them avenues to succeed... and not fail.

Besides, an NCAA tournament would be ridiculous in size and logistical planning. On top of the size, it would extend the season to extreme lengths and force even further sacrifices from student athletes, athletic departments and fans of individual teams. The result would be making fans happy, who really do not matter in the broad scheme of the game. We are making things the best for student athletes first... and what is best for them is making sure they graduate and making sure they get the best collegiate experience.

p.s. Sonny? Where is my back up?

[Danny Hogan]

any of you advocating a playoff system want to take a stab at how it would be designed? # of teams, # of games, locations, etc.

[Beta]

If I had to pick, Id say a 16 team, single elimination tourney would last 4 weeks (16, 8, 4, 2). I think if the season started perhaps a week sooner, or teams cut down one game it would help decrease season-length. The main problem I see is locations. The nonchampionship BCS bowls could be used as the Semi-Finals locations perhaps. The pre semi final games could be held at the bowls that would have been attended (Citrus, Cotton, etc). The first round could go to the higher-ranked teams' home field. Im just throwin all that out there as a suggestion, I am sure there's better alternatives.

[bste_lax]

If I had to pick, Id say a 16 team, single elimination tourney would last 4 weeks (16, 8, 4, 2). I think if the season started perhaps a week sooner, or teams cut down one game it would help decrease season-length. The main problem I see is locations. The nonchampionship BCS bowls could be used as the Semi-Finals locations perhaps. The pre semi final games could be held at the bowls that would have been attended (Citrus, Cotton, etc). The first round could go to the higher-ranked teams' home field. Im just throwin all that out there as a suggestion, I am sure there's better alternatives.

Too many teams. Keep the current BCS system with a 4-team playoff. Possibly 8 teams but 4 would be perfect number as you could keep the season about the same length as it is now. Plus, the more teams you add to it, the more of a logistical nightmare it becomes.

[Kyle Berggren]

Maybe I'm a fool, but the current bowl system is very profitable, and likely will not be changed.

March Madness is one of my favorite times of year, and I'd be furious if they changed it. One of the things that college basketball has going for it is that a 16 can beat a 1, and a 12 can absolutely beat a 5. The parity in the basketball top 25 isn't usually as great as it has been in football. As it sits now, the only thing I would consider supporting with football would be a final 4. I'm tired of hearing about how good a team is and having a split championship, but I'm not sick of it enough to watch USC beat the crap out of 3 teams to get to championship. I don't watch the Copper Bowl on a regular basis, and don't plan to. I would watch a final 4, but I am aware it could/would take aware some of the prestige of the other bowls.... like the insight.com bowl.

Now, I'm not taking serious shots at the bowls. It's nice that team A can play team B and hope that its half way competetive, I just don't watch all the games.

[Danny Hogan]

even if you had a final 4 you would have the same problems, say if you end up with #1, #2 undefeated, what about #3-6 that are all one loss teams? Sorry #5, #6 you started too low in the rankings this year.

[Beta]

I can stomach the current bowl system for the time being. It seems like for the past few years there will be controversy between the top 2-3 teams. It just burns whenever deserving teams are left out of BCS bowls. The Utah fiasco from last year still baffels me. I honestly don't see why teams just dont schedule crap teams from top to bottom. They'll still get a BCS game by beating teams like (insert Utah's 2004 schedule). I can agree to stick with the BCS system for now. But in the instance of their being a 3, 4-way tie in terms of undefeateds, something should be implemented. So a 2004 Auburn team or a 2005 VT team arent standing around wondering what else they can do.

[laxfan25]

I agree with the playoff proponents. After all, we are the home of the Grand Valley State Lakers, and they have been making regular trips through the div. 2 playoffs, ending up at the D2 championship in Florence, AL. The baseball CWS is always a great event in Omaha, and some teams are there for weeks it seems like.
If D2 can figure out how to hold a playoff in football, I would think D1-A with their superior resources and brain power could do the same. The only reason it will not happen is (big surprise) - Money!! It has nothing at all to do with concern for the student-athlete, concern for the extra games, etc. The bowls bring in lots of cash for the organizers and the participating schools, and that's the bottom line. The bowl games suck for the most part. Except for one or two games they are meaningless. Imagine instead if each one determined whether you would advance. Do you think there would be more interest on the part of the teams and fans?
I don't know the answer, but is there ANY other NCAA sport that does not decide a national champion on the field of play?
(BTW, this is the first time I've clicked on this thread, and didn't read the other pages. If I'm regurgitating, sorry!)