Changes that need to be made in the NCAA

1. Get rid of preseason rankings
Preseason rankings do more harm than good. Teams like Oklahoma and Louisville never should have been ranked so high. Teams should not get extra points because they beat a team that didn't deserve to be ranked. Teams also can stay at the top when they are undeserving (not saying the USC is undeserving), but pollsters generally like to think that if the team at the top is unbeaten then they should remain unbeaten. Do you imagine if the NFL was set up the way that the NCAA is and that the playoffs was determined by Power Rankings? ESPN, SI, Fox Sports, and everyone else can have their own power rankings, but official polls shouldn't come out until 4 or 5 weeks into the season to give time for the bad teams to fall and the good teams to rise.

2. Add the Plus One Game
I don't know why the BCS is so against a plus one game, they could make so much money by having it. Have two of the BCS games host 1 v. 4 and 2 v. 3, and then the next week the two winners play in the BCS Championship. That would end all of the split decisions and controversy.

3. BCS games should be the top teams
The BCS games are supposed to be the best of the best. A team like Rutgers is far from the best of the best and should not be in a BCS game over a strong team like Miami or Georgia. Rutgers or Pittsburgh last year was a mockery of the BCS system.

I'm sure there are a lot more, but I can't think of any at the time. Feel free to add your own changes.

If the BCS is the "best of the best" and there are 8 teams (4 bowls...2 teams each...8 teams), how do you determine the final 4 of those 8 that deserve to play in the Plus 1 game?

It might work in a year such as this when there are (presently) 4 undefeated teams. But you can't rely on the chance that that would happen every year (or that you'd have 4 or fewer teams with 1 loss or less each).

how could the powers that be not buy into it? one more glorious, big time, exciting College Football game, huge televison revenue for the networks, the schools involved and the NCAA

The Great One said:

If I am reading the original post correctly, the suggestion is to simply add the "Plus One" game to the mix. The winner of the 1v4 and the winner of the 2v3 would face each other. Not perfect, but still better than the current system.

Click to expand...

Yeah that's what I was talking about. Ideally you would make it a playoff system where the top 8 would play and then two more rounds after that, but I don't think that the BCS would buy having their games as the first round. I guess you could eliminate 1 BCS game so it's only 3 and have 2 of them be the semi's and 1 be the championship, but I can't see them doing that.

Plus one is the easiest way to do it and would make them tons of money.

The Great One said:

If I am reading the original post correctly, the suggestion is to simply add the "Plus One" game to the mix. The winner of the 1v4 and the winner of the 2v3 would face each other. Not perfect, but still better than the current system.

Click to expand...

I understand what he was saying. My question is, how do you determine who the 1-4 seeds are?

Example: As it stands right now, this is what the bowl line-up could look like...

Rose:
Texas (BCS #2) / USC (BCS #1)

Fiesta:
BCS at-large/BCS at-large

Sugar:
Alabama (SEC Champ) / WVU (Big East Champ)

Orange:
VT (ACC Champ) / PSU (Big10 Champ)

Because of the conference tie-ins, undefeated VT and Alabama wouldn't play each other. So theoretically you could have 3 teams finish undefeated (USC/Texas winner, VT and Alabama). So of those 3 teams, how do you determine which 2 will play in the Plus 1 game?

You could do away with conference tie-ins and that would increase your chances of having 4 teams with identical records but what are the chances of having just 4 teams finish undefeated (or with just 1 loss or less)?

I would get rid of conference tie-ins. Just because you are the best in a weak conference does not mean that you should get a BCS berth (See point #3). I'm not saying get rid of all rankings, just the preseason rankings. I know that would still leave some controversy as to who deserves the spots in the final four, but at least you would have some resolution towards a national champion.

I don't care how it is changed, I was just offering a solution that I believed was plausible. I don't know why they just can't have a playoff like every other sport. I'm not saying have a 64 team playoff like basketball, but if you had a 16 or 8 team playoff, every game would be exciting. There are so many upsets in college football that even a 1 v. 16 would be a great game.

By "conference tie-ins", I mean the tie-ins the conferences have to the bowls. Not neccessarily the conferences that are tied in to the BCS.

I see what you're saying though. I just don't agree that a plus 1 would be enough to solve the problem.

All the arguments that the NCAA makes towards how a playoff can't work for football is proven wrong every year by every other level of football. Too many games? Doesn't hurt the Div-1AA (or lower) players. Too much traveling? Not when the first couple of rounds are hosted by the higher seeds. Interferes with final exams? See every other sport competing throughout the school year. Makes the season too long? Why is there a 1 month lay off between the final regular season game and the final bowl game?

Bottom line: They don't want to lose their cash cow (the bowl games). Even if it's at the expense of not having a legitimate NCAA champion (which the NCAA should be all about).

Other than losing out on a lot of money, there is absolutely no reason not to have a 16 team playoff. And it's frustrating as hell that they refuse to do so for the sake of cash.

I just think they could make even more money by having a playoff. There would be more important games for networks to buy the rights to and companies to sponser. Do you imagine USC having to play Notre Dame again in the elite 8? Texas playing LSU? VT playing UCLA? Every game would be intense. But no, we will end up seeing USC play either VT or Texas and the odd team out will play West Virginia or Rutgers. I can't wait for that matchup.

I don't buy into the too many games excuse either. They have almost a month between the last game of the season and the BCS games. You could have three or four games in that time frame. Or you could cut 1 game out of the regular season. I think a school like LSU can survive without playing Appalachain State.

In the NFL there are 32 teams in a box. They all play similar competition and it is very easy to use win/loss for play-off determination. College football has always been a more subjective game because there has never been such a box created for them. What if instead of Texas Tech playing all those div.2 non-conference games and putting up unreal numbers. make the non-conference play more equal in say the first two. Say if you finish the previous year in the top 10, two of the next years non-conference games must be against teams that were in this group.That would make some interesting match-ups and cut down on a majority of these undefeated quagemires which plague the BCS. Match-ups such as Texas vs. Cal or USC vs. Auburn would have drawn big attention early this year, and equalized the competition a little. I would have loved to see the game between LSU and USC, who split in 2003, the following year. I believe these types of match-ups would create almost no undefeated teams and make conference play mean more to a teams ultimate success rather than having a bunch of easy games on the non-conference schedule make you bowl eligible. Say the top ten play,11-20,21-30, and so on. I think this would also help teams at the bottom have a better chance as well, not just making them fodder for the big timers.

i have always liked the bowl system and wouldn't get rid of it in favor of a 8-16 team playoff. there is nothing better than new year's day maybe thursday and friday of the first round of the ncaa tournament but thats it. some of these teams don't have a chance of winning the title and for them getting to a bowl is just as fulfilling. i think the plus plan is the best idea right know, more than that would lessen the regular season. right now if you lose one game you might be able to get to the championship, lose two and you are out and that is how it should be. for example, if you had a number 2 ohio state playing a number 3 michigan team what importance would the game have if both teams knew that win or lose they are going to be in the eight team playoff? as much as i hate the fact that we might have to play west virginia in the sugar bowl, the champions of the six big conferences should get an automatic bid to a BCS bowl, you should be rewarded for winning. use the BCS rankings to find the 1-4 seeds and then have then play a four team playoff and keep the rest of the bowl season.