PDA

View Full Version : BCS rejects plan to turn system into 4-team playoff


Wolf
05-03-2008, 12:25 AM
http://www.wral.com/sports/football/ncaa/story/2818248/

HOLLYWOOD, Fla. — Even a three-game playoff was too much for the BCS. Bowl Championship Series officials rejected a plan Wednesday to turn the much-criticized system for deciding a national champ into a playoff involving four teams, starting in the 2010 season.

The BCS format will remain the same until at least the 2014 season.

"After a very thorough, very good discussion among the group, we have decided that because we feel at this time the BCS is in an unprecedented state of health, we feel it's never been healthier during its first decade, we have made a decision to move forward in the next cycle with the current format," Atlantic Coast Conference commissioner John Swofford said.

During five hours of meetings, Southeastern Conference commissioner Mike Slive presented a plan for a plus-one format, matching the No. 1 team in the nation against No. 4, and No. 2 vs. No. 3 in the marquee bowl games. The winners would meet about a week later in the BCS title game. The plan also called for creating a sixth BCS game.

In the end, only the SEC and ACC wanted to even continue the discussion of the plus-one.

There was no vote taken, the commissioners said, but the leaders of the Big East, Big 12, Pac-10 and Big Ten made it clear they didn't want to move the BCS toward a playoff in any way.

Any change would've needed approval by university presidents.


:gun:

Wolf
05-03-2008, 12:27 AM
So the BCS will stick with the imperfect system it has instead of installing another.

"If it isn't broke," White said, "don't fix it."


It is broke..

TexansLucky13
05-03-2008, 12:31 AM
From their point of view... why the hassle of changing it if you still make oodles of money playing a worthless computer ranked matchup?

The SEC wants the tourney, mostly because of what happened to Auburn a few years back. Undefeated and not in the BCS title game. Bull****.

kastofsna
05-03-2008, 02:49 AM
it isn't broke because it does what it's supposed to do.

eriadoc
05-03-2008, 03:07 AM
it isn't broke because it does what it's supposed to do.

Which isn't the issue at all. What's broken is the fact that the championship is not decided on the field. The BCS does not aim to remedy that, so technically, you're correct. It does what it's supposed to, which is not provide a clear champion.

The bottom line is, as long as the schools are making assloads of money, it doesn't matter what the majority of fans want.

TexansLucky13
05-03-2008, 03:31 AM
it isn't broke because it does what it's supposed to do.

As I said before....

Auburn going undefeated and not being in the title game means that the system is broken.

You are entitled to your opinion, but you are wrong.

b0ng
05-03-2008, 10:31 AM
The bottom line is, as long as the schools are making assloads of money, it doesn't matter what the majority of fans want.

That is what the BCS is supposed to do. Not any of that other "champion decided on the field" crap. It's all about money, and it will always be about money. If somebody can figure out a way to get the Rose Bowl to not think so highly of itself that it will stop impeding a playoff system, then that person should be put in charge of NCAA College football.

threetoedpete
05-03-2008, 10:54 AM
Well dice it up any way you want...they ain't changing it. I told you so.

Wolf
05-04-2008, 05:19 PM
I figured they weren't I knew congress was looking into the BCS and I can't find the link on here (maybe NSZ)

Corrosion
05-04-2008, 06:14 PM
I figured they weren't I knew congress was looking into the BCS and I can't find the link on here (maybe NSZ)

I saw this on espn a couple weeks back ..... dont recall the details .

kastofsna
05-04-2008, 08:35 PM
As I said before....

Auburn going undefeated and not being in the title game means that the system is broken.

You are entitled to your opinion, but you are wrong.
nope. the BCS is supposed to whittle it down to two teams and take as much human bias out of the equation as possible and relying more on what happens on the field. that's what it does every year.

Wolf
05-04-2008, 08:38 PM
nope. the BCS is supposed to whittle it down to two teams and take as much human bias out of the equation as possible and relying more on what happens on the field. that's what it does every year.

true, took all the human bias out of it

signed
Georgia bulldogs
Auburn tigers

TexansLucky13
05-04-2008, 10:33 PM
nope. the BCS is supposed to whittle it down to two teams and take as much human bias out of the equation as possible and relying more on what happens on the field. that's what it does every year.

If you honestly think the BCS system eliminates all bias, you are far far gone, and this discussion is pointless.

toronto
05-05-2008, 01:09 AM
nope. the BCS is supposed to whittle it down to two teams and take as much human bias out of the equation as possible and relying more on what happens on the field. that's what it does every year.

You're wrong sir.

The only reason this system is in place is $$. They could give a rats a$$ about "whittling down" to two teams.

Bias? I could argue almost every year dating back to Nebraska/Michigan back in '97 that the NCAA can't get it right. They got lucky as hell with USC/Texas a couple years ago....

As long as the current Big Ten President is around, there will never be a playoff system. The Rose Bowl is worth too much to them.

Hagar
05-05-2008, 01:35 AM
Here's the bottom line. How many of college football fanatics would stop going to bowl games until the BCS capitulates and puts in a playoff system?

Until you hit these people where it hurts, the pocketbook, the BCS has absolutely no reason to change.

Since there is no alternative to college football and hence no competition, there are two way to change this system. First, stop spending money on college football or, second, stop buying the products that advertise within the BCS System. (The Tostitos Fiesta Bowl, FedEx Orange Bowl, CitiCorp Rose Bowl)

Yankee_In_TX
05-05-2008, 08:53 AM
So Pac 10 + Big 10 > SEC + ACC?

I HATE that OSU is against this :(

bah007
05-05-2008, 10:28 AM
Bias? I could argue almost every year dating back to Nebraska/Michigan back in '97 that the NCAA can't get it right. They got lucky as hell with USC/Texas a couple years ago....

You mean they got it right?...

If y'all want to eliminate bias, get rid of the preseason polls, not the BCS.

CoastalTexan
05-05-2008, 10:36 AM
There is competition but you wouldn't be cheering for OSU or UT or USC. You would have to cheer for Appalachian State, Texas State, Sam Houston, and Youngstown State. But those arn't "big name schools" so the chances aren't likely.

b0ng
05-05-2008, 10:47 AM
I'm pretty sure everybody here can see that the only sport that doesn't have a playoff system is the only one that's right.

BCS just won't change unless ratings, and advertising dollars both go down. Only then will they scramble to make fans happy again.

Also, a big F U to the Rose Bowl and the Big Ten. Cause Ohio State and Michigan was just a dynamite game last year.

DBCooper
05-05-2008, 11:17 AM
Don't these people watch college basketball?

How much more exciting can you get?

Probably doesn't make any money though..................

TD
05-05-2008, 11:57 AM
nope. the BCS is supposed to whittle it down to two teams and take as much human bias out of the equation as possible and relying more on what happens on the field. that's what it does every year.

How can you say a system relies on what happens on the field, when the only thing it does is prevent the people on the field from deciding the outcome? That makes no sense.

BigBull17
05-05-2008, 12:21 PM
You also have to get rid of "BCS Confrence" crap. Dont reserve spots in games for teams who dont deserve them, like what happends every year. Who cares if the Big 12 has 4 teams in the BCS bowl games, if they ern it, let it go. Do your computer thing and let the top 8, reguardless of confrence, go at it.

Corrosion
05-05-2008, 03:47 PM
If y'all want to eliminate bias, get rid of the preseason polls, not the BCS.

How bout we get rid of BOTH and have a play-off system in which to get in you have to win your conference champoinship game ...... For those non conference teams (Notre Dame) ..... find one if you want to participate in the play-offs.

TexansSeminole
05-05-2008, 11:59 PM
The Big Ten and Pac-10 and similiar conferences don't want this to happen because they will rarely have a team in the championship game. Shoot, there isn't even a championship game for the Pac-10. And people wonder how USC is always in the championship game, or atleast a bowl game, they don't play anyone. On top of that they don't even have to play a championship game. They start in the Top 5 in the preseason and never get tested. It happens EVERY year. Sometimes they lose to crap opponents, like last season, and don't make it.

SEC and ACC want to even things out, give everyone a chance, but conferences like the Pac-10 have no interest in that. Why have their USC play a couple SEC teams on the way to the championship when they can continue to do what they are doing now and play practically nobody on their way to the BCS bowl game.

It's sad because we need a playoff system, but it's never going to happen.

In a warchant.com (rivals) article Bobby Bowden said that he has been around the Presidents of schools enough to know that there aren't enough Presidents that support it. He was saying that it really comes down to the Presidents. He said that T.K. (The FSU President) would probably support it but not a whole lot of others.

You guys think USC or Ohio State would be making it to the championship this often if there was a playoff system. Hell no. That's why it will never change.

What it boils down to is not encouraging teams to build great conferences. What is the advantage of being in the SEC, or ACC? Recruiting? I think teams would much rather be in the Big East, or Pac-10 and have a chance to go undefeated every year, and therefore have a better chance at a BCS game or even the NC game.

Texaninlild
05-06-2008, 12:20 AM
I want to eliminate all the useless games at the beginning of the year and jump right into conference games. Who wants to see Texas Tech run up another 80 points on a division II school? Take all the conference winners and top seeds. I was thinking 32 teams to go to the championship. You can use the same upper eschelon bowl games as playoff locations. Playoff teams would end up with ~ same # of games played during the year.

If teams 33-64 want extra bucks invent the loser playoff (NIT) that would include the lower bowl games in the mix.

College football will make money no matter what. College football deserves better. It deserves a playoff.......grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Wolf
05-08-2008, 01:55 AM
I want to eliminate all the useless games at the beginning of the year and jump right into conference games. Who wants to see Texas Tech run up another 80 points on a division II school? Take all the conference winners and top seeds. I was thinking 32 teams to go to the championship. You can use the same upper eschelon bowl games as playoff locations. Playoff teams would end up with ~ same # of games played during the year.

If teams 33-64 want extra bucks invent the loser playoff (NIT) that would include the lower bowl games in the mix.

College football will make money no matter what. College football deserves better. It deserves a playoff.......grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

I agree with the first part, yet seems that is how the smaller schools make their money.. when I was in college, Angelo State played Oklahoma and got blown out.. wasn't much fun yet the college made money on that being it was a Div 1 school (this was basketball and not football though and maybe a differnet scenario)

But I see no point, however had a roommate do the PPV (in austin mind you) on a few years back to watch Tulane and UT play.. and I didn't understand the concept of watching that being we all knew UT would blow them out.. but PPV got their 20-30 bucks

bah007
05-08-2008, 09:53 AM
Smaller schools make a lot of their money by playing a "money" game each year.

Sam Houston has played Texas & Oklahoma St in the last two years & the money they were given for those games pretty much carried all the other school sports besides men's basketball (which provides its own funding).

Its a win-win. The smaller schools get to keep their athletic programs despite lack of fan support, and the big schools get a free victory.