Over 80% of people want a playoff....how does the BCS

MACMAN · Post by **MACMAN** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 12:43 am

So with over 80% of College football fans wanting a playoff system, one can figure its coming.
Yet with something coming, someone is being stroked. So just how will the BCS sctroke us on this one..or as far as we are concerned the midmajors....

The playoff would between the top 8 teams in the BCS poll

The playoffs would be between the "BCS conference champs."

The playoffs would be determined BCS president and selection comitte made up by "experts" from the media (trev would in charge

)

any other ways i have over looked at just how the MAC and the other conferences take one more blasting, when the playoffs come to town?

BGDrew · Post by **BGDrew** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 12:45 am

Link?

BGSU33 · Post by **BGSU33** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 1:03 am

I'm probably not in the majority here, but I actually like the bowls and would rather have them over a playoff in I-A. Being a fan of the MAC, having two and likely three bowls next season for 12 teams to compete for postseason play in is good news to me. And although last year was quirky, we landed five teams in bowl games last season. If you enter a playoff, the MAC is looking at one team in, and that puts us in the same problem we've been in for men's basketball with a field of 65.

I do like the idea of the "plus-1" with the bowl system though. But I'll take the bowls over a straight playoff. But I do think the "plus-1" is a good idea and one I would be in favor of if a change was to be made.

orangeandbrown · Post by **orangeandbrown** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 5:13 am

It must be that time of year! You're certainly not alone, 33. If there was a playoff, only ONE MAC team would ever see post-season play, hence many feel we are better off with a playoff.

hammb · Post by **hammb** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 8:27 am

The only system I'm in favor of is a 16 team playoff. All conference champs get in plus 5 at large bids to fill out the bracket. Do it the same way as the Hoops tourney, win your conference and you get to keep playing.

You can still keep the bowls as a separate entity a la the NIT for hoops.

I don't care about the bowls. It's nice when BG gets to play in them, but the bowls we play in offer no revenue, little exposure, and are pretty much the butt of a ton of jokes. The only bowls I like are the traditional matchups, and there aren't too many of them anymore...I'm sorry, but I don't see much tradition in the Motor City Bowl.

I would gladly give up the bowls for a chance to play games that actually matter if/when we win the MACC.

Flipper · Post by **Flipper** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 8:42 am

The current bowl system gives you extra practice time. It's a huge leg up on your conference mates.

1987alum · Post by **1987alum** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 8:44 am

hammb & I have agreed to disagree on the bowl thing, haven't we?

As for the playoff system, if you find it on ESPN, take the time to watch the edition "Five Reasons ..." that explains why the BCS is NOT responsible for the lack of a playoff system in college football. Like so many decisions regarding college athletics, it's actually the college presidents that are making the calls (or non-calls, in this case).

PGY Tiercel · Post by **PGY Tiercel** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 8:58 am

1987alum wrote:hammb & I have agreed to disagree on the bowl thing, haven't we?

As for the playoff system, if you find it on ESPN, take the time to watch the edition "Five Reasons ..." that explains why the BCS is NOT responsible for the lack of a playoff system in college football. Like so many decisions regarding college athletics, it's actually the college presidents that are making the calls (or non-calls, in this case).

I found that to be one of the better editorials that they have done. It was quite interesting. I agree, that it appears that Univ Presidents are probably the biggest reason why there is no play-offs. In the end it is Univ Presidents and board of trustees that really make the final decisions, and they see things only how it will benefit the University.

Germainfitch1 · Post by **Germainfitch1** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 9:17 am

BGSU33 wrote:I'm probably not in the majority here, but I actually like the bowls and would rather have them over a playoff in I-A. Being a fan of the MAC, having two and likely three bowls next season for 12 teams to compete for postseason play in is good news to me. And although last year was quirky, we landed five teams in bowl games last season. If you enter a playoff, the MAC is looking at one team in, and that puts us in the same problem we've been in for men's basketball with a field of 65.

I do like the idea of the "plus-1" with the bowl system though. But I'll take the bowls over a straight playoff. But I do think the "plus-1" is a good idea and one I would be in favor of if a change was to be made.

Explain to me why you have to limit the number of overall bowls to have a playoff??

The answer. You don't. All the games are meaningless now save one! You can still have a bunch of meaningless bowl games with an 8 team playoff.

Warthog · Post by **Warthog** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 10:03 am

Let's make the bowl's like ESPN's bracket buster in basketball. Since the NCAA added a twelve game to everyone's schedule, let's say that every bowl game is autmatically rematched the following season at the the winning teams home site. Afterall, it is wins in the regular season that actually mean something. Your reward for winning a bowl game s that you get a home game against a quality opponent the following season. As it stands now, a bowl win doesn't mean squat, unless it's the BCS championship game.

Just one of my crazy ideas to help the NCAA more no sense at all.

BGSU33 · Post by **BGSU33** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 11:53 am

Germainfitch1 wrote:
BGSU33 wrote:I'm probably not in the majority here, but I actually like the bowls and would rather have them over a playoff in I-A. Being a fan of the MAC, having two and likely three bowls next season for 12 teams to compete for postseason play in is good news to me. And although last year was quirky, we landed five teams in bowl games last season. If you enter a playoff, the MAC is looking at one team in, and that puts us in the same problem we've been in for men's basketball with a field of 65.

I do like the idea of the "plus-1" with the bowl system though. But I'll take the bowls over a straight playoff. But I do think the "plus-1" is a good idea and one I would be in favor of if a change was to be made.
Explain to me why you have to limit the number of overall bowls to have a playoff??

The answer. You don't. All the games are meaningless now save one! You can still have a bunch of meaningless bowl games with an 8 team playoff.

If you're going to quote people, at least understand the point being made and don't botch it up when you reply. Where did I say above you have to "limit the number of bowls to have a playoff?" I never said you had to. but I will tell you this much, if it did go to a playoff sytem, we wouldn't have 56 teams playing postseason, I promise you that. You'd be looking at just a fraction of that.

And I completely disagree that bowl games are meaningless except for one! That's a very narrowminded to say. It's true that one of the bowls means more than the others, that's why it's being played for the national championship. But if you think games from Notre Dame-Ohio State through Akron-Memphis are meaningless, then you are only kidding yourself.

Trying to compare what Divisions I-AA, II & III do for postseason compared to what I-A does is like comparing apples to oranges. They're both fruits, but look and taste very different. Bowls work for I-A teams and have provided many teams the opportunity to play for something, even if teams have lost a few games. One of many reasons lower divisions have playoffs is because they couldn't ever support a bowl system. When 20,000 show up for a I-AA national championship game and TV ratings are low compared to many I-A bowl games, or 4,000 people show up for a D-III game, year in and year out every "meaningless" bowl game will surpass those figures.

The bottom line is, whether I-A sticks to bowls or goes to playoffs, there's always going to be room for discussion. But the fact of the matter is, the way it is now and they way it's always been is I-A is about the bowls. And there's no way in hell I'll ever look at a chance for BG to play in a bowl game whether our record is 6-5 or 10-1 as "meaningless." It's a chance to reward our players with a lasting memory, a chance for fans to watch, travel and attend a game against a new opponent, it's a showcases for our school, and it is great for recruiting. That's certainly doesn't sound meaningless to me, but sitting at home with a 10-1 record locked out of a playoff system does.

Jacobs4Heisman · Post by **Jacobs4Heisman** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 12:08 pm

An 8 or 16 team playoff does not have to have any effect on the number of teams playing postseason. Some will be in the playoff, and the rest would be in the same old peach, silicon valley, and blankety-blank.net bowls. The MACC would get to go to the playoff, and at least one more MAC team would still have the existing bowl agreements. Our status quo is to get two teams to the postseason, and a playoff would in no way diminish that number if the old bowls supplement the playoff. We may even get a third team every year if we could maintain two bowl tie-ins to go with the auto-berth to the playoff.

I love bowl season, and enjoy watching matchups we wouldn't see otherwise, but a playoff system would only improve the product IMO. A 16 team CFB playoff would be the biggest sporting event in the country every single year.

BGSU33 · Post by **BGSU33** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 12:16 pm

Jacobs4Heisman wrote:An 8 or 16 team playoff does not have to have any effect on the number of teams playing postseason. Some will be in the playoff, and the rest would be in the same old peach, silicon valley, and blankety-blank.net bowls.

Good points, but that's what is so confusing about these proposed systems, there are many "ideas" of what it should look like and there isn't a set system we could use. There's the plus-1, the mix of playoffs and bowls, a straight up playoff, etc. The bottom line is, we're never going to have a system that everyone will like. I don't think our system is broke, I just think it's been f'ed up by the BCS tweaking it, then not liking what the computers tell them they get. These computers don't pull these figures out of thin air, they are programmed to produce what they do. This year, I think it worked very well. But next year, it could be like last season, which is why I would be for keeping the bowls and using the plus-1.

hammb · Post by **hammb** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 12:50 pm

BGSU33 wrote: Good points, but that's what is so confusing about these proposed systems, there are many "ideas" of what it should look like and there isn't a set system we could use. There's the plus-1, the mix of playoffs and bowls, a straight up playoff, etc. The bottom line is, we're never going to have a system that everyone will like. I don't think our system is broke, I just think it's been f'ed up by the BCS tweaking it, then not liking what the computers tell them they get. These computers don't pull these figures out of thin air, they are programmed to produce what they do. This year, I think it worked very well. But next year, it could be like last season, which is why I would be for keeping the bowls and using the plus-1.

Personally, I don't even see that it's that confusing or that there are different ideas. You do it exactly like the NCAA hoops tourney. Remember right now the NCAA has NO sanctioned football postseason, similar to how they didn't used to have a sanctioned basketball postseason.

Create a football tournament exactly like the NCAA tournament. Take all the conference champions and fill up the bracket with at large bids. I would limit it to 16 teams, personally, as that should be plenty.

If the Bowls want to keep their games as a separate entity (which they already are) I don't see a problem with it. Most of them are played on weekdays anyway, so if you played the tournament on Saturdays they wouldn't even overlap much. The bowls, like the former NIT, operate fully separate from the NCAA. Let them continue operating, just like the NIT does currently.

The reason why it will never happen is not because it's not a good idea, and not because it's bad for academics. The biggest reason it will not happen is because the money from this tournament would have to go to all the conferences, and not be hoarded by the big boys. The NCAA committee that makes these decisions is composed of university presidents, and they aren't going to want to share that money.

98_BG_GRAD · Post by **98_BG_GRAD** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 12:51 pm

The thing I like about college football over every other sport is that every single year the best team wins the National Championship (unlike college basketball where a team could be below .500 and win the national title). The top-2 teams play in the national title game every year. Yes, there is a year once every blue moon when there are 3 unbeatens like last year, but that is so rare. I don't think there is much wrong with the BCS. It has worked most years and other than 2004, the biggest controversy has been with 1-loss teams. If you lose, you don't have much of an argument IMO.

What I have rarely heard from the "experts" mostly on ESPN is a good plan for something to replace the current system. Some say the plus-1 game. How are you going to pick who plays and how do you determine the bowl match-ups before the plus-1 game. Take this year for example, what if Texas and USC play in the Fiesta and Rose Bowls against whomever and they both lose and Penn State wins and Oregon wins? Who plays in the plus-1 game, you have four teams with one-loss. Worse yet, what if USC loses, but Texas wins...does Penn State deserve to play Texas or does USC? How does that solve the controversy? Isn't that why they play the regular season? You are in the same place as you were last year and a couple of the previous seasons. Then you have the "experts" who suggest a 4 or 8 team playoff. Tell me what four teams are in that playoff this year? Obviously it is USC, Texas and Penn State. Who is the 4-seed? Ohio State? Notre Dame? Oregon? Va Tech? Georgia? LSU? Still controversy. Same goes for the 8-team playoff. How do you select those eight teams? Some team like Miami might be left out of an 8-team playoff, but Georgia might be in. Miami would be bitching up a storm about that. Heck, teams left out of the basketball tournament bitch and they take 65 teams.

The only playoff system I would be okay with is if all conference champions are involved, as a couple others have mentioned. I do think you at least have to include in that mix some "at-large" teams. That would allow Notre Dame, or other independents, when they deserve to be included and teams like Ohio State and Oregon this year, who did not win their conference but clearly are one of the best teams in the country. I still don't like the idea of a team that loses two regular season games and does not win the league the chance win the national title, but I could live with this system. Plus, it gives the MAC a representative and most years probably a chance to play the number one team or a top-2 or 3 team in the country in a playoff system.