I Hate the BCS

Pryor has come on strong as the season has progressed. I am scared of him. After watching how Vince could change games single handedly, Pryor worries me. However, the rest of that team doesn't really do anything to shed fear into my system.

If UT plays their game, they win by 3 scores.
 
masomenos85;2476265 said:
I say shorten the regular season from 12 to 10 games, eliminate conference championships and add a 12 team playoff. The top 4 BCS teams would get bye weeks and the first round of games would be:

#5 USC v. #12 Cincinnatti
#6 Utah v. #11 TCU
#7 Texas Tech v. #10 Ohio St.
#8 Penn St. v. #9 Boise St.

the following week we would most likely see:

#1 Oklahoma v. #8 Penn. St.
#2 Florida v. #7 Texas Tech
#3 Texas v. #6 Utah
#4 Alabama v. #5 USC

Talk about some interesting games!

the next week would most likely be:
#1 Oklahoma v. #5 USC
#2 Florida v. # 3 Texas

More great games! And, no matter who wins, you're almost guaranteed a great National Championship game.


Are you kidding me? Alabama would use and abuse USC.
 
Rowdy;2476221 said:
Yes the BCS is crap but it isnt any more crap than it usually is. I dont agree about Utah. Im sorry but just because their record shows them with zero losses doesnt take into account their strength of playing big teams. A playoff system would quickly show Utah the door after the first playoff game if indeed it was due to easy wins.
Which is again why not having a playoff is ignorant. If they pulled it off, everyone is happy. If they lose, everyone is satisfied that a poor schedule isn't contributing.
 
Biggems;2476292 said:
Are you kidding me? Alabama would use and abuse USC.
I doubt that very much. I am a Pac-10 homer, but hate USC. I think they're one of the top 4 teams in the country.
 
Biggems;2476291 said:
Pryor has come on strong as the season has progressed. I am scared of him. After watching how Vince could change games single handedly, Pryor worries me. However, the rest of that team doesn't really do anything to shed fear into my system.

If UT plays their game, they win by 3 scores.

Pryor has Vince Young type upside.

He will have OSU in contention every year he is there.

Texas also has A LOT of upside. Maybe more so than any team in College Football.

This Texas team you will see in 30 days will be the same Texas team you see next year that is Pre-season 1 or 2 with the Heisman favorite @ QB and a swarming defense.
 
Hostile;2476363 said:
I doubt that very much. I am a Pac-10 homer, but hate USC. I think they're one of the top 4 teams in the country.

Agreed.

USC has every right to play for a National Championship as OU or Florida.

This is why we get a Mythical Champion and not a real champion.

Hos your initial post is really good and it frustrates me when people say NFL is all about the money when in fact College football is truly all about the money.

College football goes as far as not naming a real champion just for that money.
 
Rowdy;2476221 said:
Yes the BCS is crap but it isnt any more crap than it usually is. I dont agree about Utah. Im sorry but just because their record shows them with zero losses doesnt take into account their strength of playing big teams. A playoff system would quickly show Utah the door after the first playoff game if indeed it was due to easy wins.

I bet you said the same thing about Boise State a few years back. I'm not ragging on OU because they lost... it could have been any team, but it does prove the "also-rans" can certainly be legitimate amongst the big boys...
 
CATCH17;2476375 said:
Agreed.

USC has every right to play for a National Championship as OU or Florida.

This is why we get a Mythical Champion and not a real champion.

Hos your initial post is really good and it frustrates me when people say NFL is all about the money when in fact College football is truly all about the money.

College football goes as far as not naming a real champion just for that money.
Everything is about money. I don't see why saying that is bad. The way to sell them on it is show that it would make more money. How do you do that?

Well, I'm doing a little research with the help of someone associated with the Fiesta Bowl. I'm going to put together a little theoretical financial statement to show how much money could be made just on ticket sales alone if the Fiesta was used as the model and the Championship held there.

The 3 added games I am proposing and the hype around them would probably add close to 400 million dollars to the economy and I believe that is a conservative estimate.
 
Hostile;2475458 said:
First of all, I am not a Longhorns fan, so this is not about them getting screwed out of the Championship game when they beat one of the teams playing. In my opinion if Utah beats Bama they are the undefeated National Champion regardless of what the BCS says. Just like Boise State was my pick as the undefeated National Champion a couple of years ago when they shocked Oklahoma. Trust me, I hate Utah.

To me it is an absolute travesty that there cannot be a true National Championship. It would be the biggest sporting event in the world. Even bigger than the Super Bowl.

The talking heads for the NCAA say that it would kill the Bowl Games. My opinion of this "theory" can be symbolically summed up by thinking of what a bull leaves in a pasture that you don't want to step in.

There is a simple way to solve this and it is not any kind of big secret. Revenue Sharing among the Bowl games.

You could still have a BCS to determine the 8 teams who will compete for the true National Championship. Yes, that does mean teams left out of those 8 games would get screwed. I'd rather screw 1 or 2 teams a year than to continue to have a Mythical Championship based on voting.

By Revenue Sharing I am talking about all the Bowl Games. Make the lesser Bowl games mean more. So let's look at how this year's games could contribute.

This year it is the Rose, Sugar, Fiesta and the Mythical Championship game. Assign the last game to one of the Bowls for example the Orange or Cotton.

Seed the 8 teams. 1 vs. 8, 2 vs. 7, 3 vs. 6, and 4 vs. 5. If the 1 seed wins they play the lowest remaining seed and so on. The ideal will still be to get 1 vs. 2. But if USC were to beat Florida on the way to facing Oklahoma so be it. The bottom line is we get a true Championship.

Start the Bowl games near Christmas. The Semi-final round would be New Year's Day Games. One week after the New Year (right where it is now) you have the True National Championship.

This would add 3 games to the Bowl system. That would add revenue. Networks would fight for those 3 games. That adds revenue. The True Championship game would be a huge sporting event. With Revenue Sharing driving it, no Bowl game loses anything.

Opponents say that students athletes would be handicapped. We're back in the pasture stepping in nasty stuff. The Students are off for Winter Break and the Holidays already. It is much easier on them during that time of year than it is during the NCAA Basketball tournament and those athletes do not suffer.

They will also say that the student body couldn't travel to 3 straight games. People would find a way. Alumni especially will find a way. Money will be spent. Might it be harder for the students? Yeah it might, but if they want to make it to the games they will. If they don't it isn't like the stands would be empty. Not with the added power of the games. Not by a dang site.

Tell me why this wouldn't work.


Only problem I have with Utah is they do not play ranked teams. Hell Texas, OU, Florida and Alabama were playing several ranked teams throughout the season how many ranked teams did Utah have to go through to post their undefeated record? I would have more respect for them if they would actually schedule top ranked team in their 3 non conference games but they don't. I’m not thrilled with the BCS, I do like it better than before the BCS came into play.
 
Biggems;2476291 said:
Pryor has come on strong as the season has progressed. I am scared of him. After watching how Vince could change games single handedly, Pryor worries me. However, the rest of that team doesn't really do anything to shed fear into my system.

If UT plays their game, they win by 3 scores.

Can't wait to see Pryor next year...when he's had a whole year under his belt.
 
trickblue;2476469 said:
I bet you said the same thing about Boise State a few years back. I'm not ragging on OU because they lost... it could have been any team, but it does prove the "also-rans" can certainly be legitimate amongst the big boys...

Bet you I didn't.

I am never sure about any team with any sport. Don't read between the lines. I never said Utah or any other team like them or Boise dont deserve a playoff spot. They most certainly do. I have seen enough Cinderella stories in March Madness that I would love a playoff and see a non-ranked team take it all the way. I love stories like that.
 
Doomsday101;2476518 said:
Only problem I have with Utah is they do not play ranked teams. Hell Texas, OU, Florida and Alabama were playing several ranked teams throughout the season how many ranked teams did Utah have to go through to post their undefeated record? I would have more respect for them if they would actually schedule top ranked team in their 3 non conference games but they don't. I’m not thrilled with the BCS, I do like it better than before the BCS came into play.


Exactly. People forget the teams these conferences play to go undefeated. That is a crock of #$#$ if you ask me.

You can go bowling every year if you are smart like Utah and Boise have been the past few years.

Look at those schedules that got them to the big game.
 
CATCH17;2476375 said:
Agreed.

USC has every right to play for a National Championship as OU or Florida.

This is why we get a Mythical Champion and not a real champion.

Hos your initial post is really good and it frustrates me when people say NFL is all about the money when in fact College football is truly all about the money.

College football goes as far as not naming a real champion just for that money.

Both the NCAA and NFL are about money.

Also, there are many football fans, including Cowboy, that don't think the New York Football Giants were the best team in the league last year. They were the hottest at the end though. ;)
 
Dallas;2476832 said:
Exactly. People forget the teams these conferences play to go undefeated. That is a crock of #$#$ if you ask me.

You can go bowling every year if you are smart like Utah and Boise have been the past few years.

Look at those schedules that got them to the big game.

I would have less issue if Utah or Boise were forced to play 3 ranked contenders at the start of the season but they don't. You don't have choices in interconferance play but teams can schedule 3 teams outside of their conference and if they want to be taken seriously I would advise them to play some ranked teams
 
Someone mentioned earlier that they should strip the schedule back to 10 games. I don't disagree, but I do not see that ever happening without revenue sharing. What college president in his right mind is going to give up the revenue an extra game brings? Revenue sharing would help, but that's a whole other negotiating table.

But that brings up another question - why exactly does college football need to be limited to 12-14 games per year? In high school, if you play to the state championship game you typically have to go 16 games deep. At the pro level you play 16 games before the playoffs even begin. There can't be some magical reason that players cannot hold up to this rigorous standard, because players younger and much older than them can withstand much more than that. And that other college football division plays about 16 games, regular and post-season combined. So they expect us to believe that D-1 players cannot handle a full 16 game schedule? Hmm, sounds hokey to me.

Ideally we would have a 16 team tournament played out over four weeks (end of December to mid-January. Give every conference champion an automatic bid. Yes, every conference. Even the non-major ones. That's 11 spots, leaving five at-large spots for the "best of the rest" and independents like Notre Dame. Keep something like the BCS to rank the teams and seed them 1-16. First round is played at the highest ranked team's home field, giving a huge advantage to being ranked 1 or 2. Have the final seven games be the BCS bowls (will need to add two more - I nominate Cotton and Sun, as two of the oldest) and rotate them every year.

They'll cry about dropping the bowls, so keep them. There are 100 teams left out, so they can still play the Liberty Staples Coca-Cola.com bowls or whatever throughout, and people will still watch.
 
I don't even call it the BCS no more I just take out the C and call it BS because thats what it is. I think if they want to do a tournament system then the top 32 teams in the nation should go and make it like March Madness.
 
i think the most teams you can realistically have in a playoff is 12 with top 4 getting byes or maybe 16. anything more than that i dont think is possible.
 
MC KAos;2479348 said:
i think the most teams you can realistically have in a playoff is 12 with top 4 getting byes or maybe 16. anything more than that i dont think is possible.
If you can do 12, then you can do 16 and have no byes. I would do 8. No more than that.
 
Hostile;2479351 said:
If you can do 12, then you can do 16 and have no byes. I would do 8. No more than that.

I still think 32 would be the perfect number that way everyone from the top 25 has a shot to get in and then so small schools can get automatic bids into the tourney also.
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
464,536
Messages
13,817,164
Members
23,780
Latest member
HoppleSopple
Back
Top