I'm sure lots of people are spending a good amount of time bitching about the BCS as we near the title game, but are there at least some possible ways to improve it if we can't get a playoff?

For instance, why do we continue to have these conference tie-ins? Up till the FSU years, the ACC champ always played in the Citrus Bowl (I think that was it, could have been the Gator at times). I know this isn't popular, but does the ACC or the Big East champ or any conference champ for that matter really deserve to go to the Orange Bowl or any other bowl if they're ranked out of the top 15? I know this isn't the case this year, but it has been before.

Now, I personally think that if you can win the SEC or the Big XII, you deserve a BCS bowl. But these tie-ins have been around since before the BCS. The Sugar's always taken the SEC champ. I say get rid of the BCS rules and let them go back to the way it was in the 80s. Let bowls take who they want, which has always been the best teams. You never saw the Orange taking a 6-6 Notre Dame over an 11-1 Big Ten team, so the argument of "they'll choose based on ratings" doesn't hold up historically. Look at the average bowl match up back then. They were always quality matchups.

Basically, aside from the #1 vs. #2 being guaranteed, the BCS is in no way an improvement.

Another thing: The BCS is going to ESPN exclusively next year. The Cotton Bowl stays on Fox and the Gator on CBS. This means the BCS will reach fewer households than the Cotton Bowl. Shit, for that matter, the Rose Bowl will reach fewer viewers than a mid-season Notre Dame game! I know someone will say "well sports fans have cable", but think about the kids whose parents don't buy cable. Think about the football players waiting to come out of the ghetto. Maybe they're the next big recruit from South Florida. The BCS should stay on a broadcast channel that everyone can get that has good HD, like CBS or Fox.

[Edited on January 4, 2010 at 7:00 PM. Reason : .]

1/4/2010 6:57:31 PM

the bcs sucks all together theres no way to fix it without changing it to some type of playoff or adding 1 extra round. congress needs to make a playoff.

1/4/2010 7:03:28 PM

I'm almost positive that the Rose Bowl will be on ABC, not ESPN

1/4/2010 7:05:09 PM

the rose bowl do what it fuckin wants

1/4/2010 7:06:28 PM

I'd rather see the ACC champ get an automatic invite to a BCS game than the Big 10 champ (which does not play a conference championship game) get one. That's ridiculous. At least the ACC champs had to risk it against another "top" team in their conference.

And BCS an ESPN exclusive? Wow. ESPN is really trying to kill football... for me at least. I don't have cable and I won't have cable. I guess it just makes it all the easier for me to boycott the ridiculous farce of a championship game.

[Edited on January 4, 2010 at 7:11 PM. Reason : -]

1/4/2010 7:07:36 PM

Quote :

"I'd rather see the ACC champ get an automatic invite to a BCS game than the Big 10 champ (which does not play a conference championship game) get one. That's ridiculous. At least the ACC champs had to risk it against another "top" team in their conference."

What the hell? So a Big 10 team that wins a conference championship is less deserving because it doesn't play that one extra game at the end? You do realize that you could end up having an 11-1, say, Penn State, be shuffled behind like a 8-4 Wake Forest in this case, right?

And yes, ESPN will kill college football and basketball if the NCAA doesn't stop trying to make them their one and only broadcaster for championships. I don't want to be watching the Rose Bowl and then afterwards have World's Strongest Man or Lou Holtz spitting at the camera about something stupid.

1/4/2010 7:18:45 PM

If an automatic bid to a BCS game is important to the Big 10, then get to 12 teams and play a conference championship game. If we aren't going to do playoffs then that's my trade-off. A conference championship game as a play-in.

Yeah an 11-1 Penn state getting passed up for an 8-5 Wake Forest. Deal. I'd also image that it's just as easy for a Big 10 team to have a terrible W:L record and still undeserving go to the Rose Bowl. You want a 7-5 team that didn't even play a conf. title game to get an automatic bid? I could see it happening.

[Edited on January 4, 2010 at 7:42 PM. Reason : -]

1/4/2010 7:34:33 PM

I don't know, I think a team that has a strong entire season is just a little better than a 7-5 hypothetical team that wins the Coastal division and then upsets someone in the title game. Call me crazy. You're basing a season on one stupid game that's all about ratings for the league. I could give a shit about an ACC football championship game. I think playing well for an entire season is what matters, not lucking out b/c you eked by in a shitty division and then pulled an upset.

And when was the last time a team won the Pac 10 or Big 10 with a record like that? Get real.

1/4/2010 7:43:06 PM

i would think the 11-1 PSU team would get one of the at-large bids and be in a better game, in that situation.. right?

1/4/2010 7:47:03 PM

Ok. What about a 11-1 Penn State and an 11-1 Wake Forest. One team risks it all and puts its neck out there, the other just has a bye week and hopes enough teams ahead of them lose their conf. title games so they can go to the NC game.

And introducing the underdog is part of what makes the games exciting... at least more exciting than seeing Florida, tOSU, Texas, USC, etc., etc., etc. every single year.

[Edited on January 4, 2010 at 7:54 PM. Reason : -]

1/4/2010 7:53:23 PM

The point of the major bowl games, at least as far as they've been for most of their history, is to match the best against the best. Sure people love underdogs, but if that's what we're going for, why not slot the Sun Belt against the SEC in the Sugar Bowl or something?

I say drop the conference ties. At the end of the season, have a lottery to pick the order which the big bowls pick in. Add the Cotton to this group. The #1 pick in the lottery gets 1 vs. 2. #2 gets second pick of teams, #3 3rd, and so on. You can only pick from the final 15 in the BCS. At least one must be from a "non-BCS" school as long as said school is in the top 10. If the point is to provide the highest caliber matchup, I don't see a better way to do it. This way, you don't have to give a bid to a 7-5 Kansas State or something over a 10-win team that plays in the SEC and slipped up once or twice.

At the least, ditch the auto bids for any league that can't get a team into the top 15. If you want underdogs and upsets, you can hope that a TCU or a Boise State can qualify. Big bowls are for the best teams to determine the final rankings and the National Champions, not the most compelling matchup. They always have been. If not, then refer to my Sun Belt-SEC comment.

1/4/2010 8:47:49 PM

i'd put all the games in HD on ESPN on different nights. what i dont want is this new government tournament theyre trying to make.

also why do they still do stupid names for these bowls? it would be more beneficial for business and the teams to put all names for bids. it encourages people to compete for that priviledge instead of being prevented from naming the Orange Bowl something else.

1/4/2010 8:51:30 PM

also cable is the best business model for the future so get used to that. i dont want my sports games on the same chanel as stupid sitcoms.

1/4/2010 8:52:44 PM

HOOPS

1/4/2010 8:58:32 PM

You realize ESPN = ABC.

1/4/2010 10:35:44 PM

^ I was just about to point out the same thing. If you haven't noticed lately, almost all sports on ABC are branded ESPN. The major BCS games will be on ABC.

1/5/2010 10:22:45 AM

Doesn't sound like that's the case according to this:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/columnist/hiestand-tv/2008-11-18-espn-bcs_N.htm

1/5/2010 10:52:17 AM

sweet article from over a year ago

[Edited on January 6, 2010 at 10:06 AM. Reason : i dont care if its still relevant]

1/6/2010 10:04:41 AM

it makes the point go eat a dick

1/6/2010 1:29:47 PM

Quote :

"Doesn't sound like that's the case according to this: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/columnist/hiestand-tv/2008-11-18-espn-bcs_N.htm"

I am not shocked by this. The Big Ten network took games off of local networks in places like Iowa, so that they could be broadcast on the Big Ten Network. If you don't have that channel now then you don't get to see your local teams play anymore. Monday Night Football has moved to ESPN and there are now 3 college sports channels (Fox College Sports, ESPNU, CBS College Sports). Then there is FSC and Goltv which are soccer only networks along with the NFL, NBA, NHL, and MLB channels. At some point there won't be all that many games on network tv and probably none in the middle of the week.

1/6/2010 1:45:17 PM

Yeah, but in the UK and Ireland, all World Cup games are on BBC One, over-the-air, not one of the sports-only channels (and BBC One in HD for the '06 games was fucking golden).

Cable was an awesome supplement. Eurosports was showing past finals in their entirety leading up to the final.

[Edited on January 7, 2010 at 3:09 PM. Reason : .]

1/7/2010 3:08:42 PM

this game is more proof of why we need a playoff. It's hard to argue that Alabama 100% deserves this championship. They got a bullshit lucky break that decided the game, in that they really didn't play well in the second half, and they probably lose this game without that break. At least if they had had to play through a serious playoff field and it ended the same way, we could say they at least had to beat everyone else. In this one? They just sneak in. Meanwhile, there is another undefeated team out there that didn't even have a chance.

1/7/2010 11:58:41 PM

to say boise or tcu couldn't have beaten texas without mccoy would be assenine

alabama played like dogshit for 3 quarters.

1/8/2010 12:01:34 AM

wat?

1/8/2010 12:05:05 AM

tcu or boise could've easily beaten texas without mccoy

alabama didn't really deserve it because they played like shit and won because mccoy got hur meantwhile boise played a perfect season and has nothing.

1/8/2010 12:09:28 AM

i'm not saying boise wouldn't have beaten texas. why bring it up? I'm saying bama should have had to play more than just texas for the championship

1/8/2010 12:10:30 AM

I'm agreeing with you. Most people say "o those little teams couldnt stand a chance" and thats bullshit.

WE DID TI

1/8/2010 12:11:17 AM

injuries. part of the game. texas may not have even been in this game if sam bradford had not been injured.

1/8/2010 12:25:42 AM

Boise State got screwed, we'll see what happens next year since they return like 20 starters and should start top 3, but I suspect they still won't get a chance to play for the championship game if they go undefeated again.

2 solutions for Boise State

1) Join the pac-10, along with another school, to form the pac-12, and gain a championship game.

2) Join the mountain west, would give them a strong schedule and give the MWC enough firepower to get an automatic bid.

1/8/2010 11:01:06 AM

they've known for long enough that they will have to play 3 pretty strong teams in their non-conference schedule. If they want to be taken seriously and get into the top 1-2, they need to play a couple ranked teams (or, traditional powerhouses) before going into cupcake mode

1/8/2010 11:18:50 AM

^How would you suggest they do that? They try to schedule them every year but teams don't want to play them.

1/8/2010 12:22:04 PM

They get VT at Fedex next year to open the season

1/8/2010 12:22:45 PM

^^^Which ranked team is going to sacrifice their cupcake OOC schedule for that calculated risk?

If there wasn't enough wrong with this season to spark change in the system I hate to imagine what kind of season would be enough.

[Edited on January 8, 2010 at 12:24 PM. Reason : -]

1/8/2010 12:23:55 PM

Quote :

"How would you suggest they do that? They try to schedule them every year but teams don't want to play them."

I heard App state had the same problem trying to schedule competitive non-confrence DIV-I BCS teams after the Michigan upset.

1/8/2010 12:26:38 PM

^This is true.

I like the idea of Boise joining the MWC and giving them an automatic. With Utah, BYU, and TCU, I think they have proved their worth.

Quote :

"They got a bullshit lucky break that decided the game"

What break exactly are you talking about? Please don't say McCoy. Alabama wins this game either way.

1/8/2010 1:33:28 PM

yes, McCoy. the entire game changed after that. in the same way that our team folded against SC last year when wilson got injured. Does Bama still win? Maybe. But at least with a playoff system, they had to earn their way to the championship via other tough teams. The SEC is good, probably the best, but at least we could have said that Bama beat every one else, and not just the SEC. This? They just beat a neutered Texas and that was all they had to do

[Edited on January 8, 2010 at 1:55 PM. Reason : ]

1/8/2010 1:55:23 PM

So if McCoy had gotten injured in the finals of a 8-team tournament, would Bama be less deserving then, too?

1/8/2010 1:57:04 PM

Quote :

"If an automatic bid to a BCS game is important to the Big 10, then get to 12 teams and play a conference championship game. If we aren't going to do playoffs then that's my trade-off. A conference championship game as a play-in."

They are working on it.

1/8/2010 1:57:48 PM

^^ nope, because at least they had to beat two other teams from around the nation to get there. They didn't just get massively lucky with one play

1/8/2010 2:15:14 PM

So going undefeated and winning the SEC over Florida, who had rolled everyone else this year, doesn't count?

Why would, say, an 8-3 team be more deserving of a #1 ranking if they got lucky in the playoffs. I still like the idea of the #1 best team for the entire regular season and the #2 team playing at the end as opposed to some teams getting lucky at the right time. I know that's not popular, but I don't care. Fans still like playing for bowl games.

1/8/2010 2:28:12 PM

Quote :

"If an automatic bid to a BCS game is important to the Big 10, then get to 12 teams and play a conference championship game. If we aren't going to do playoffs then that's my trade-off. A conference championship game as a play-in."

They are working on it.

1/8/2010 2:45:29 PM

for this topic this is always obligatory

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltNdOl-sdXQ

1/8/2010 2:47:15 PM

Quote :

"So going undefeated and winning the SEC over Florida, who had rolled everyone else this year, doesn't count?"

not when you want a true national championship.

you like a 1-game playoff. great. let's have that in the NFL, too. Let's have that in the NCAAs, too. Let's do that in baseball, too.

Quote :

"Why would, say, an 8-3 team be more deserving of a #1 ranking if they got lucky in the playoffs."

Why shouldn't they? Why should Alabama be deserving of a #1 ranking just for beating a neutered Texas and their own conference?

1/8/2010 2:54:08 PM

i love these threads so much.

1/9/2010 10:00:08 AM

Quote :

"Let's do that in baseball, too."

And they used to. And there was no doubt that the Yankees were the best all those years. If the Philadelphia A's had snuck up and won a 3-round playoff, the Yankees would have still been the best overall team. Which team is better: a team that is better than the rest for 162 games or for 21 games?

1/9/2010 12:20:25 PM

If you were doing a trial for a drug, which one is better: the one that has the best record over 100 trials or 10 trials?

I know it doesn't give us good TV, and I do care about good TV (which I why I actually do like playoffs as long as they aren't huge like the proposed new NCAA bball tourney), but it's like that and that's the way it is.

1/9/2010 12:23:57 PM

Quote :

"I still like the idea of the #1 best team for the entire regular season and the #2 team playing at the end as opposed to some teams getting lucky at the right time. I know that's not popular, but I don't care. Fans still like playing for bowl games."

What makes them a "#1" or "#2" team when their record is in fact shared by other teams?? Some computer code that spits out some results
based on an algorithim some guy pulled out of his ass or being a favorite team of the "objective" coach's AP opinion poll?

What fans like the BCS?? Those who like Ohio state, Florida, or USC who tend to be on the beneficial side of this system.

Quote :

"you like a 1-game playoff. great. let's have that in the NFL, too. Let's have that in the NCAAs, too. Let's do that in baseball, too."

hell yeah! fuck the playoffs I'm ready to see Colts v Saints tomorrow!

Since its not fair if Peyton Manning wastes a near perfect season by getting injured next week and the colts lose the divisionals
Perhaps this year for the world cup we will just throw italy and brazil straight to the championship game. I would not want their hard work over the last couple years to be ruined by getting beat by a lesser team that caught on fire for the tournament.

Quote :

"If the Philadelphia A's had snuck up and won a 3-round playoff, the Yankees would have still been the best overall team"

Sure the yankees would be the "best" team on paper. This though does not make them the "Champion" though.

[Edited on January 9, 2010 at 7:36 PM. Reason : j]

1/9/2010 7:33:49 PM