The BCS

by kujo24 on Apr 1, 2009 4:35 PM EDT

I'm not going to preach how awful the BCS is, or how we "have to have" a playoff. I'm going to try to be as neutral as possible. But I am going to put in a few facts about the BCS, and what I think we should do if we were to have a playoff system.

Just remember, the BCS has signed a longterm contract with ESPN to show its bowl games. So it might not be as easy as it seems to change a system.

With the current BCS system, the conferences that get automatic BCS bids (the ACC, the Big East, the Big 12, the Big Ten, the Pac-10 and the SEC) are guarateed to get $18 million each year. While all of the other conferences earned $70 million each year. Some people claim that this is unfair to all of those other conferences. While other people (and the BCS) say that the money is distributed evenly, and that those other conferences are getting plenty of money. All teams are included in the BCS system that are over 6-6 and the playoff system may not be able to do this.

Under a new playoff system, you could have brackets like a basketball, or NFL league. The BCS officials say that while a playoff system looks good on paper, it wouldn't work in real life. You would have to find to many different nuetral sites to play at. It would be too hard to coordinate all of the different game times. THe added games could also bring more harm to the players. More games mean more wear and tear, and no teams want to add risk to a players health. However, this type of system would give many teams chances to reach a championchip. No undefeated teams would be able to claim that they were left out.

I think that the highest seeded team should be able to play at home, giving the best preforming team a slight advantage. This could be done up to the final four or championchip, where a nuetral site could be established with a bye week. All conference champions should be added, and the rankings would still be important. The regular season would still be a big deal, and you could have a decently fair playoff.

Feel free to point out anything I forgot.

Please be kind and use good grammar.

Tweet Comment 3 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Bait And Switch.

If the problem is the guaranteed money, then eliminate the automatic bids; this line of reasoning does not support a radical change towards a playoff system…

by ejruiz on Apr 1, 2009 7:04 PM EDT reply actions

Normally I don’t agree with Mr. Ruiz on the playoff argument, but I agree here. The argument about money is because Utah can’t make the fairness case (“We deserve a shot”), so money is the next step. Until there is a standardized schedule, conference champions really should not be guaranteed anything.
My playoff argument has changed from one of fairness to control; college football is governed by the Rose, Sugar, Fiesta and Orange Bowl Committees. Since their goal is to make money, college football’s goal is also to make money. That’s why the NCAA added a 12th game and why Florida never plays top OOC teams. I think a playoff system would give the NCAA more control, just as they did to the (once) corrupt NIT.
I just don’t see how your particular system advances the playoff cause. Maybe if you use the NCAA Basketball system (awarding cash based on conference performance) you could make the case. But that is one issue of about a dozen.

mlmintampa
UF C/O 06

by mlmintampa on Apr 2, 2009 2:04 AM EDT up reply actions

Interesting...

I’ve never heard it phrased that way and I’m surprisingly swayed by it. The NCAA should take control of its game from the money interests behind the big bowl games. At this point, I’m exhausted by the debate and only hope that when a playoff comes, it’s well done. I’d like for some conference to take the lead, instituting it’s own mini-playoffs (divisional championship games before a conference championship game), just to see how that would work.

by ejruiz on Apr 2, 2009 2:49 AM EDT up reply actions