 |
|
     
|
 What Do You Think Of The BCS? - Apr 30, 2008
posted by: Josh
Conference commissioners announced Monday that the Bowl Championship Series will not change its formulas for the upcoming football season. ACC Commissioner John Swofford called it "a pretty easy decision." Inevitably, when an undefeated or hot team doesn't have a chance to play for a national championship next year, folks will once again cry foul, angered by the system that the conference commissioners once again approved moving forward. The one thing I don't want to see next January, however, are hundreds and hundreds of e-mails from people who think that the NCAA (i.e. Myles Brand and the national office staff) have anything to do with the decisions made affecting postseason football. The truth is, we just don't have the influence to change the format, even if we wanted to do so. NCAA rules and regulations are made by the Association's membership, and chancellors and presidents sit at the highest level of that structure. Thus far, those individuals have elected to keep college football's top teams competing for a BCS championship, not an NCAA championship. And BCS decisions - including whether or not to institute a playoff format - are made by the leaders of those conferences It's not January, but it certainly seems pertinent to hear what people have to say about BCS football at this time. Are you happy with the current system? Or are there things you would change to improve it?
CommentsI don't think it can be mentioned enough that the FCS season was completely over, Championship Game and all, before the FBS had their very first Bowl Game. I don't see how any argument against a playoff system can't be answered by simply pointing to the FCS. The season is much shorter when comparing Bowls vs. Playoffs, thus affecting academics less. I don't understand what extra burden would be placed on a school like USC or Tennessee over a school like Appy State, who has a fraction of the budget of the big boys. The BCS is ok but not perfect. The 2 small problems I see are: team schedules should be less important in the factoring of ratings and lack of responsible voters in the polls. I consider all BCS schools as equals and the conference games really decide the best teams not the non-conf games. A good example was last year when Kansas (in my opinion) should have played in championship game with ohio St. I am not a Kansas fan, but think the BCS schools with the best W-L records should play. If there would have been three 1 loss teams then the non-conf schedule strength would be the deciding factor. I know my way doesn't put the teams everyone wants to see play in the championship game but make it fair for schools that don't have the big names and tradition. Voters have to stop changing/jumping their votes and use some common sense. For example the voters knew that Kansas wasn't playing in conf championship game but all the teams ahead of them in the polls that week lost(except Ohio st) so why would you drop them in the polls. Then the voters jump LSU above several teams that should have been higher ranked. The same thing happened to Michigan when Florida went to Championship Game. It almost seemed like the media has picked last two championship games. The best change in the BCS was the non-bcs schools. Even though Hawaii flopped, Boise st won in a great game a year before and Utah a few years ago was very good team. I hope these schools keep getting their chance. The BCS needs to change, and there needs to be a playoff in place for "major" college football. The BCS would be a great way to determine the schools that would participate in such a tournament, but there is no excuse for something as big as college football to not have its championship determined on the field. If a championship bracket is good enough for all other levels of football (Division II, Division III, High School, and the professional levels in particular), then there can't be any legitimate excuse not to have a bracket in the top level of collegiate football. As for the BCS itself? Other than the aforementioned change to a championship bracket, the only real thing that needs change is the re-introduction of a strength of schedule component. The addition of this would help to bring back a lot of the big matchups we used to see in the middle years of the BCS. I'm sorry, I was confused on what a Plus-1 format was. SEC Commish Mike Slive at least brought it up, seeding teams 1-4 and having 1 play 4 and 2 vs. 3, then the 2 winners play. Big East commissioner Mike Tranghese said, “The seeded model looked like a playoff, and we don’t think a playoff is in the best interest of college football.” Which is really silly, considering the other levels of college football (and pro, and high school, and European football, and...) have playoffs and all have managed to survive. Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany and Pac-10 commissioner Tom Hansen have some kind of fascination with the Rose Bowl that other conferences don't get. Post a Comment |
  
I have recruited kids to play basketball in college that lived in very destitute situations that had to take the Greyhound to get to college...when they got out they still had bills.
- JM
   
|
