2008 BCS & Bowl Game Discussion

[mcshea21]

I think the resume argument is valid. If you're interviewing two candidates for one position in your company, is a GPA of 4.0 from some small liberal arts school as impressive as say a 3.6 from the an Ivy league institution or do you look beyond a simple comparison such as grade point average (wins and losses) to see who deserves the spot? ...and please don't take this as a knock on small liberal arts schools.

[JW]

I think the resume argument is valid. If you're interviewing two candidates for one position in your company, is a GPA of 4.0 from some small liberal arts school as impressive as say a 3.6 from the an Ivy league institution or do you look beyond a simple comparison such as grade point average (wins and losses) to see who deserves the spot? ...and please don't take this as a knock on small liberal arts schools.

GPA, like wins and losses doesn't tell you everything about a candidate that may have been involved in certain organizations, or internships.

I think a team like LSU deserves to be there because their losses came in a conference that is widely considered by many to be the Toughest conference in College Football. But OSU's only real win was against Michigan...but is that that great, who knows. That is why i feel it so important to have a playoff. If the number 1 team in the country is truly the best team in the country, that would surely playout.

The Bowls do not have to be affected by this, you can still use them. And if you wanted to you could even use the lesser bowls like the Cotton or Holiday Bowl in the first round.

Talk about what great matchups there could be in a playoff.

[TheBearcatHimself]

The Bowls do not have to be affected by this, you can still use them. And if you wanted to you could even use the lesser bowls like the Cotton or Holiday Bowl in the first round.

Talk about what great matchups there could be in a playoff.

Why don't more people mention this? This seems EXTREMELY logical. I mean it seems so obvious that it's downright silly, yet people say that college presidents and bowl executives oppose a playoff because it will end bowls. If you use the existing bowls as the first round they will make tons of money... and then guess what?? Those same executives and presidents can add the 3 more bowls it will take to make even more money!!

How is that not win-win? And how come people don't use this idea?

[DanGenck]

Not logical. Who is going to travel to Dallas to watch a first round game between USC and Conference USA Champion Marshall? Nobody.

The existing bowl would also not be a bowl because the winner would not claim, "Oh, we were the Cotton Bowl NCAA Division 1 First-Round Champions last year". The entire point of the bowl system is that teams finish the season with 1 game and a chance to be a champion. This would be lost in a play-off.

[Zamboni_Driver]

Not logical. Who is going to travel to Dallas to watch a first round game between USC and Conference USA Champion Marshall? Nobody.

The existing bowl would also not be a bowl because the winner would not claim, "Oh, we were the Cotton Bowl NCAA Division 1 First-Round Champions last year". The entire point of the bowl system is that teams finish the season with 1 game and a chance to be a champion. This would be lost in a play-off.

Just to prod the discussion...but will grant these are not great arguments...

but in NCAA basketball teams do boast sweet 16, elite 8, and final four appearances....not just the championships

Now how you make them say..."hey, we've been to 3 Tostitos Elite 8 games" I don't know because that is what the sponsors want and they control the money

Also, you would have to use stadiums for multiple games in a weekend - just like basketball first round games that do see a large crowd. The CitiBank 1st Round Football Playoffs featuring....

[TheBearcatHimself]

Not logical. Who is going to travel to Dallas to watch a first round game between USC and Conference USA Champion Marshall? Nobody.

The existing bowl would also not be a bowl because the winner would not claim, "Oh, we were the Cotton Bowl NCAA Division 1 First-Round Champions last year". The entire point of the bowl system is that teams finish the season with 1 game and a chance to be a champion. This would be lost in a play-off.

Who says this mythical USC v. Conf USA champ has to be in Dallas?? Why not take a cue from the NCAA basketball tourney and put the top seeds close to home, more fans, more interest more revenue. Put this USC game in the Rose Bowl, or the Holiday Bowl, then you've suddenly got a sold out stadium for a first round game.

And the person before me said it best, if making it to the Sweet 16 isn't special, then why do teams put up banners for making the Sweet 16?? Even if you made it a select 8 team tournament, you would still have schools putting up banners for making this mythical "8 Team Tournament" even if they didn't win!!

If Marshall made this mythical tournament I guarantee you there would be banners all over that campus for years because they made it, just like Utah and Boise and now Hawaii will be able to tout the fact that they made it to the BCS. Even with the most sterile of matchups pitting the #1 seed against the Sun Belt champ, you can make it special, people just don't want to find solutions. The status quo is always easier than attempting a solution, why do you think the eleven team conference is still called the Big Ten? Because it would cost too much to change all the banners and posters and tickets and national networks.... you get the idea. Not fighting for a playoff is laziness plain and simple.

[JW]

I think that Hawaii this year and Boise St. from last year are perfect examples of teams from lower conferences making a difference in the BCS picture.

In this playoff system i would still be for the BCS conferences only getting AQ's and then the non bcs bowl schools would have to rank in the top 16 in the final BCS standings to be eligible for the BCS Playoffs.

As a fan of football, Virginia Tech (because of my grandfather) and OU (because of my love interest) i am intrigued by another Va Tech-BC matchup and by an OU team who yes lost to Colorado, but only lost to Tech because arguably the best QB in the Nation (had the highest passer rating and as many passing TD's as Chase Daniel) Sam Bradford got hurt.

Keep the 31 bowl games and allow the Sun Belt Conference Champ to continue going to the New Orleans Bowl.

To address USC - Marshall - A team like USC, there fan base is going to travel regardless of where they play... The big teams are going to travel well regardless of where they play.

Just imagine how much more money teams like USC, LSU, Ohio St. Oklahoma, and Va Tech would get because this type of team would theoretically play 3 bowl games.

If i was going to pay $130 a ticket to go to the fiesta bowl and watch OU play West Virginia, i would pay to watch them play anywhere else.

if a 64 team playoff works in NCAA, why can't a 16 team playoff work.

If D2 and D3 can do it in football, why not the D1.

[StrykerFSU]

a team like USC, there fan base is going to travel regardless of where they play... The big teams are going to travel well regardless of where they play.

But they'd likely only travel once. I'm for a playoff but remember that in the bball tourney, the arenas only hold 25-30,000 people (that's probably generous) for the early round games and there are what? 4 games over two days and two games over a weekend if your team wins in the first round? That is a lot of bball for your buck and several schools from which to find ticket buyers. You going to bank on selling 80-100,000 tickets for a first round football game? Even the NFL doesn't always do that. One thing about the bowl schedule as it is now is that fans of a school have about 6 weeks with which to plan a vacation, i.e. buy plane tickets, book hotels, get tickets to the game etc. What happens after the first round?

A 16 team playoff works in the I-AA football tourney with the higher seed hosting the game but again, the venues are much smaller and they don't always sell out. There is no way that big-time college football goes to a playoff without a guarantee that all of the games will sell out.

[TexOle]

Would this tournament be NCAA sponsored? If so, how can you have an NCAA Championship without all conferences being represented? Everyone should have an equal chance to automatically qualify. The problem with college football is that the BCS (too many letters) conferences have too much power.

[mcshea21]

Is it heresy to contend that the goal of college football is not to crown an outright national champion but to make money? Lets be honest, it is what it is. The BCS might not do a good job of picking the Nat'l Champ, but it does a great job of making schools money. D-I football is not MCLA lacrosse, it's not about equality and championships or growing the sport. It's a business that generates revenue for all involved.

The schools that are in the BCS conferences make a commitment to be 'big time' programs and are rewarded by having an unfair advantage in getting to the BCS bowls. The powers that be will never take a chance at a playoff system when they are already involved in a system that does such a good job of making them guaranteed money. Money which is used to offset the cost they incur by fielding these teams in the first place. It might not be fair but...get over it. If you want to play in a league that has a playoff system and crowns only one champion, transfer to a school in another division. Is it unfair that Hawaii doesn't get to play in the Nat'l Championship game? Maybe, probably, but such is life.

Everyone wants a playoff but look at NCAA basketball. As if 64 teams weren't enough, we had to add one more. Does this make any sense? Does it add any excitement to March Madness? No, what it does is highlight the fact that there will always be those unsatisfied with the current situation. In college football will a play in game (4 team) be enough? Will a 12 or 16 team field be enough? Who knows. I guess thats something we'll have to wait to complain about after it happens.

p.s. I'm an LSU alum so I don't think there's a single thing wrong with the BCS...at least not this year

p.s.s. please note intended sarcasm

[JW]

I agree...

It is all about the money, so where does that money come from.

Most money comes from boosters and ticket buyers. If the Presidents of the big time schools start feeling pressure from the fan base then they will make changes.

I really wish College Football wasn't all about the money.

I think this time more than any there is so many teams that you could argue have the right to be in the National Championship game that we should have a playoff.

[Beta]

The only way a BCS has claim to being "correct" is when it's a no-brainer and there's 2 undefeated teams from BCS conferences. Preferably with one from the BigTen, Big12 or Pac10.

[StrykerFSU]

Most money comes from boosters and ticket buyers.

I think it's more likely that the bulk of the money comes from television contracts and corporate sponsorships.

[Dan Wishengrad]

The only way a BCS has claim to being "correct" is when it's a no-brainer and there's 2 undefeated teams from BCS conferences.

Wow, after hundreds (or is it thousands?) of combined opinions at last there is something you and I agree on wholeheartedly, Mr. T!

The irony, though, is in those rare years where there are two (and only two) undefeated teams ranked at the top of the polls as the only true title game contenders, the BCS is then unnecessary and superfluous anyway.

But I favor a playoff regardless, because who is to say that one of these two teams will actually win the title anyway? Some one or two loss team could very well be the best team at the end of the season, and could wind up emerging from a playoff as national champ. The beauty of sports events like the NCAA b-ball tourney is that Cinderella can show up at the end wear the glass slipper.

[DanGenck]

Where was Cinderella during the regular season?