The end of the BCS?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Natebishop3

Don't tread on me!
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
94,216
Likes
57,459
Points
113
Good thing Congress is taking the time to focus on the more important things in this country...

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4727426

A House subcommittee has approved legislation aimed at forcing college football to switch to a playoff system to determine a national champion.

The bill would ban the promotion of a postseason NCAA Division I football game as a national championship unless that title contest is the result of a playoff.

The measure passed by a voice vote Wednesday by a House Energy and Commerce Committee subcommittee.

The sponsor, GOP Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, said the current Bowl Championship Series is unfair and won't change unless prompted by Congress.
 
Wow. I have two thoughts on this.

1) Shouldn't they focus on more important things with the current state of our country and the world?
2) Is this really any of their business? Our government can tell College Football how to run their shit?

I also don't like the BCS, fwiw. I would like a +2 or so system. A playoff would be cool for the top 8 teams also, and then have the rest still in bowl games.
 
Glad we're spending valuable time and money debating this issue as clearly there are no other pressing concerns.
 
Glad we're spending our valuable time and posts discussing this issue as there are clearly no pressing blazer concerns.

barfo
 
Better than them focusing on destroying our health care system or killing our economy with cap & trade.
 
I am all for it... may be the best thing Gov did in a long time.... and one person sponsering a bill hardly amounts to the whole government wasting time on it.
 
The sponsor is a congressman from the wackiest state in the Union, Texas. In the fascist South, football makes the front page almost every day. They crucify the personal lives of their college football players. The poor young guys are forever scarred by their media persecutors.
 
The sponsor is a congressman from the wackiest state in the Union, Texas. In the fascist South, football makes the front page almost every day. They crucify the personal lives of their college football players. The poor young guys are forever scarred by their media persecutors.
really?
 
Yep. I learned this by arguing with Thunder fans on a Sonic board. I read a lot of the Oklahoman, which is owned by the family of the wife of Clay Bennett, the Thunder owner. Also I read some of the New Orleans and Florida newspapers. They think football is as important as politics there and destroy the players who live normal social lives of college students.

football on the front page every single day of the year...

http://newsok.com/
 
Yep. I learned this by arguing with Thunder fans on a Sonic board. I read a lot of the Oklahoman, which is owned by the family of the wife of Clay Bennett, the Thunder owner. Also I read some of the New Orleans and Florida newspapers. They think football is as important as politics there and destroy the players who live normal social lives of college students.

football on the front page every single day of the year...

http://newsok.com/
so thunder fans, the oklahoman, new orleans, and florida have told you all about texas and how terrible they are to football players?
 
Most of the people who argued for the South were from Texas, so I got to know them quite well. I can almost recognize them after a few words. A bunch of wackies, you excluded, of course. Good thing you're an exception. One was a congressional aide and told me what he was seeing at bars after Congress would end for the day. Another was near Dallas and he actually liked me. Proof that they're all wacky. Present company excluded, of course.
 
The BCS is so bad that I can't blame Congress for trying to put a stop to it. It's done a lot of harm to college football.
 
Clearly this is a Senator grandstanding for job security. Whatever...

STOMP
 
Now back to topic since I have flamed the politicians.

I am glad BCS will be gone. It was complete bullshit. We can now move to a system where the national championship can rotate around the bowls like it does now, but until then, the other bowl games can be the playoff rounds. For instance, maybe one year the Rose Bowl and Orange Bowl are playoff games, and the Fiesta Bowl is a national championship game. Then the next year vice versa.

Plus WTF is the NCAA thinking? Could you imagine the TV revenues for the football equivelent of march madness? Undefeated teams playing in playoff games? Fucking rad!
 
I think the only difficulty I can see, and I hate the BCS system, would love to see a playoff, but I think a lot of the bowl games benefit from teams fans traveling to see them play. If a team goes four rounds, are they going to travel as well? Will they find the fans to travel 4 weeks in a row around the holidays? Maybe so, but I can see it being more difficult. Do you want to rely on, say, Florida fans traveling for four weeks in a row all around the country, or Florida to travel one week, as well as Iowa, Ohio State, etc.? or do you eliminate a lot of the bowls, and give teams home games for the early playoff rounds?
 
Better than them focusing on destroying our health care system or killing our economy with cap & trade.

I'd rather they spent their time focusing on destroying our health care system or killing our economy with cap & trade. That's what we elected them to do. ;)
 
If a team goes four rounds, are they going to travel as well? Will they find the fans to travel 4 weeks in a row around the holidays?

I think a playoff system puts the pressure on the fans to go to all the playoff games. Say, for example, Boise State was playing Alabama in the playoffs round 1, BSU fans will go because although they will root for BSU and a some will honestly believe they will win, most will think "I have my doubts we'll get beyond Alabama - I better go while I can". If then, perchance, they do advance, the championship fever gets even higher and fans are even more likely to make the trip.

Other bowl games may suffer from a playoff system but I think the bowls involved in the system will not suffer from lack of fans.

Gramps...
 
I think the only difficulty I can see, and I hate the BCS system, would love to see a playoff, but I think a lot of the bowl games benefit from teams fans traveling to see them play. If a team goes four rounds, are they going to travel as well? Will they find the fans to travel 4 weeks in a row around the holidays? Maybe so, but I can see it being more difficult. Do you want to rely on, say, Florida fans traveling for four weeks in a row all around the country, or Florida to travel one week, as well as Iowa, Ohio State, etc.? or do you eliminate a lot of the bowls, and give teams home games for the early playoff rounds?

I was thinking they'd go the route of eliminating most of the bowls and have home games for the first couple of rounds.

They can reserve the most glamorous bowl brand names (Rose, Fiesta, Orange, Sugar) for the semi-finals, finals and maybe a third-place game.

Like, the semi-finals are two games...the Sugar and Orange Bowls. The winners of those two games play in the Rose Bowl for the national title. The losers of those two games play in the Fiesta Bowl for third place.
 
I wonder, though, how much money is brought in from other bowl games? How many are there now, like 30? They get fans from two teams to travel to the area, stay in hotels, eat at restaurants, and buy Emerald Bowl Champion memorabilia, or whatever the bowl may be. So those cities that host games lose out big time. Not that they would have much of a say. Then, the NCAA loses out on the money made from the sponsors of those bowl games as well as ticket revenue. If you have the top 8 or 16 teams make it, you've lost a few games from the normal bowl schedule, by about half. Or more. And then there's payouts for bowl victories. Schools lose out on money from winning a bowl game. For some of the bigger teams, like Alabama, Florida, USC, etc., a playoff might be nice. They assume every year, they're going to be near the top of the rankings, and get into the playoffs. But for teams that know they just aren't generally going to compete for national titles, they at least get a bowl game victory recognition, and the opportunity to win money for their school. Teams like Army and Navy, for example. Or teams in the MAC, WAC, etc. who maybe 1 out of every 4 years would get someone in the playoffs, with a chance to win their conference money. The cheapest payout for a bowl game I see is $300,000. That's a lot of money for some smaller schools, that can use their portion from the conference as a big portion of their budget for sports. Now, if the MAC gets into three games, the amount increases even more. So for some, the guaranteed payday of 2 bowl games every year is likely better than the extreme long shot that they make a playoff game. Looking at the top 16 teams this season, assuming we had a 16 team playoff, you have two teams from the MWC and one from the WAC. Actually pretty good for the smaller conferences. But look at something like Conference USA> Last season, they had 6 guaranteed bowl games. That's a lot of money for them to forfeit. Look at the Pac-10 even. We'd have Oregon in the playoffs, but that's it. No money to be gained from OSU, Stanford, Cal, USC, UCLA, etc.

Again, I think a playoff would be awesome as a fan, but I can see why college football just isn't going to do it. Another thing is, it keeps people talking about college football year round. Part of that is just the quality of the sport, but college basketball, most don't give a shit until the tournament starts. And then, you get a winner, and it is quickly forgotten. And a lot of people only pay attention at that time because of gambling(tournaments). Whereas, to this day, I hear Oregon fans complain about not getting a chance at Miami how many years ago? And fans of other teams, about how they got screwed by this or that. Obviously, Oregon fans would have rather gotten the shot. But if they lost, you wouldn't hear anyone tlaking about it.
 
They could always have the bowl games for the non-playoff teams. There could be 8 teams in the playoffs, which would only be the number that those four bowls I mentioned (Rose, Fiesta, Sugar, Orange) would take up anyway. The remaining teams can get bowl bids as normal.

It would definitely shake up who was available for various bowl games, but it wouldn't reduce the number of revenue-creating bowls. In fact, it would still allows for all the bowls and add some revenue for the playoff games that determine who plays in the main four bowls.
 
I was thinking they'd go the route of eliminating most of the bowls and have home games for the first couple of rounds.
to do that wouldn't they have to wait until all of the bowl contracts the conferences have expire?
 
to do that wouldn't they have to wait until all of the bowl contracts the conferences have expire?

Probably, but my adjusted thought was to have the non-playoff teams go to those non-BCS bowls. An 8 team playoffs would still leave the same number of teams available for them.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top