BCS Chaos and why try to kill the BCS

Sparker

Sparker

Starter
I was 17 when the BCS started, so for the majority of my football-following life it has been the only system I have known. I have noticed the last few years there have been more and more people calling for the death of the BCS and at the end of last year's Big 12 CCG Brent Turdburger said something to the effect of "We are two minutes away from BCS Chaos!" I don't really understand what that means. Why would it be chaotic if Boise St got into the NCG?

So I thought I would lay out a few questions I have and things that seem to be confusing about the BCS system.

How did the AQ conferences get chosen? Can conferences gain or lose that status?

What was the system before the BCS? Was it better/worse?

If Boise or TCU stepped up their non conference schedule would it matter what conference they were in?

Why would a non-aq team getting into the NCG hurt the BCS?

What would replace it?

Why do the media seem to dislike the BCS more than the average fan? (maybe this is just my perception)

Last question for now is why are so many people against a playoff system? I know the bowl games make a lot of money, but playoffs wouldn't necessarily mean we get rid of bowl games. Lets say the top 8 teams are allowed to do "Bowl Playoffs" then the top 2-4 BCS bowl games would be the first round of playoffs, there would be two or four teams left which would have one more round of playoffs or a final NCG. They would get extra games to make money off of and keep the bowl games in tact. It wouldn't extend the season a ton longer and each game would still be important.

Obviously I must be missing something, so let me know what you all know about this. (BTW I know I could dig around for some of this info, but I am more interested to hear from HB bout this)

 
AllTheGoodNamesAreTaken said:
Sparker said:
I was 17 when the BCS started, so for the majority of my football-following life it has been the only system I have known.
Click to expand...
why werent you following football for the first 17 years!?!?!?! :ahhhhhhhh

sorry to not answer your question at all....
Click to expand...
I thought I might get that... I only really watched the Husker games, every single one as long as I can remember. I didn't watch other teams or other sports besides football. I wasn't saying I only followed football after 17, just that I was young when the BCS started. I barely remember the Big 8 changing (and my Dad was not happy). I certainly didn't know enough about anything to know what was really happening when the BCS started.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mostly from memory and some opinion...

Sparker said:
How did the AQ conferences get chosen? Can conferences gain or lose that status?
Click to expand...
The 6 biggest conferences got together to form the BCS. Each of those conferences had enough power to be included. The others could take it or leave it and nobody would complain if they were out. The big 6 didn't want to split the bulk of the money with the other conferences so they came up with the automatic qualifying for their own conferences and getting most of the revenue. Not sure if it's still this way, but there was some clause that if for 2 or 3 years your top team was not in the top 15 or something like that, you could (would?) be dropped. The Big East was in the most danger early on, and you might think they would be again but remember Cincinnati was way up there last year.

What was the system before the BCS? Was it better/worse?
Click to expand...
For a couple years before there was the "Bowl Coalition" that did not include the Big 10 and Pac 10. This allowed for the Nebraska-Florida matchup after 1995, but not Nebraska-Michigan after 1997.

Before that, some conferences were locked into bowls, while others were unattached, so sometimes you could get 1 vs 2, sometimes 1, 2, and 3 all played in different bowls. Bear Bryant was said to be the king of the backroom deals to get Alabama into a game where they had a shot at #1.

Some liked it better because potentially you could be #4 (like I think Nebraska was in 1970) and still finish #1. More bowl games had meaning and some years, Jan 1 was very exciting. But it sucked in years like 1994 or 1997 when there were 2 clear top teams who couldn't play each other. Unless you like years of pointless bickering with Penn St and Michigan fans.

If Boise or TCU stepped up their non conference schedule would it matter what conference they were in?
Click to expand...
Obviously they would be ranked higher in the polls and in the computers if they beat tougher teams, but I still think it'd be one loss and out. So I think they'd have a better shot at the championship game, but a worse shot at a BCS bowl since they might lose.

Why would a non-aq team getting into the NCG hurt the BCS?
Click to expand...
Depends on your point of view. The BCS schools don't want to split the money more ways, so ideally all of the BCS bowls would be filled with AQ conference schools. Plus a lot of people think it would be unfair for Boise to go with their schedule. It makes AQ schools question why they would schedule tough non-conference games, and I think we all lose when teams schedule FCS schools, or all bottom feeders from the FBS.

What would replace it?
Click to expand...
Take your pick:

1) playoffs

2) the old bowl system

3) a +1 system, whatever that is, and as if the season would magically be sorted out with one more game

4) something else

Why do the media seem to dislike the BCS more than the average fan? (maybe this is just my perception)
Click to expand...
IMO, the media likes controversy, so if they can work fans into a frenzy it's all the better for them. I'm sure there are other good theories/reasons, and I'm not at all sure they dislike it more than fans do.

Last question for now is why are so many people against a playoff system? I know the bowl games make a lot of money, but playoffs wouldn't necessarily mean we get rid of bowl games. Lets say the top 8 teams are allowed to do "Bowl Playoffs" then the top 2-4 BCS bowl games would be the first round of playoffs, there would be two or four teams left which would have one more round of playoffs or a final NCG. They would get extra games to make money off of and keep the bowl games in tact. It wouldn't extend the season a ton longer and each game would still be important.
Click to expand...
1) The fairest answer I've heard is that it dilutes the meaning of the regular season, though I think you can give byes and/or home field advantage to keep the motivation. Still, it's certainly a danger.

2) It interferes with finals, though somehow other sports and other football divisions manage this.

3) If you limit to 8, the 9th team gets screwed (though I don't think they have a claim at a shot at #1).

4) Would fans really support multiple rounds of playoffs? I think so, and certainly there'd be a lot of TV revenue even if stadiums didn't sell out. Lots of bowls don't sell out yet they keep them.

5) How do you choose the playoff teams? Keep the BCS ratings that a lot of people complain about? Conference champions + 2 wildcards? Why do the Big East and ACC deserve teams this year?

6) many other reasons, I'm sure.

 
How did the AQ conferences get chosen? Can conferences gain or lose that status?

-- They were asked to sign up based on their status as tradiotionally strong conferences with prestigious programs. Yes you can gain or lose status but I'm not sure of the exact procedure.

What was the system before the BCS? Was it better/worse?

-- It was called the Bowl Alliance and it was similar to the BCS only without whole formula aspect, designated "BCS Bowls" and compliance of the Rose Bowl, Pac-10 and Big 10. The Rose Bowl didn't want to give up its tradition of hosting the Big 10 vs. the Pac-10 champions, so if the one of them was ranked 1st or 2nd in the polls, the fans didn't get the #1 vs. #2 matchup they wanted.

If Boise or TCU stepped up their non conference schedule would it matter what conference they were in?

-- Yes because they still couldn't get the AQ and non-conference is only 3-4 games so you can only do so much.

Why would a non-aq team getting into the NCG hurt the BCS?

-- It wouldn't, really. Other than the theory that ratings would be lower and not generate as much money.

What would replace it?

-- No clue. Playoffs wouldn't actually replace it because you still need a selection process, which is essentially what the BCS is.

Why do the media seem to dislike the BCS more than the average fan? (maybe this is just my perception)

-- Just your perception. The average fan is not particularly educated on the details, so they go along with thinking the BCS is evil without really understanding what the BCS is or how it came to be.

Last question for now is why are so many people against a playoff system? I know the bowl games make a lot of money, but playoffs wouldn't necessarily mean we get rid of bowl games. Lets say the top 8 teams are allowed to do "Bowl Playoffs" then the top 2-4 BCS bowl games would be the first round of playoffs, there would be two or four teams left which would have one more round of playoffs or a final NCG. They would get extra games to make money off of and keep the bowl games in tact. It wouldn't extend the season a ton longer and each game would still be important.

-- Most fans are in favor of a playoff of some sort. The downside to anything over 4 teams is that you have college kids potentially playing 16 games (12 + CCG + 3 playoff), which many consider too much for "amateur" student athletes.

Also, the more teams you allow in, the more you diminish regular season games, which is part of the greatness of college football. Personally I'm not comfortable with a 2-loss team being in the title picture (even LSU in 2007 when Bo was there), because that isn't really a national championship season in my mind. A playoff system doesn't fix selection woes because you always have teams arguing at the cutoff point. Plus it overly rewards teams that come together in December, versus rewarding a "championship season" which is what college football has traditionally been closer to.

There is no such thing as a perfect system, but I think the most important thing is tweaking the selection process (get rid of the awful coaches poll and allow computers to consider margin of victory). Then we can have a plus one, which will fulfill the desires of both sides to an extent. Very rarely is their a season where #5 or #6 can make a very legit argument for being the national champ. Four's a good number.

 
VA Husker Fan said:
3) If you limit to 8, the 9th team gets screwed (though I don't think they have a claim at a shot at #1).
Click to expand...
If you limit to 9 or 10 no matter what the next team gets screwed. I think we limit it to 4 or 8 and that leaves enough room for the top team to get their crack at it.

5) How do you choose the playoff teams? Keep the BCS ratings that a lot of people complain about? Conference champions + 2 wildcards? Why do the Big East and ACC deserve teams this year?
Click to expand...
It seems to me that the BCS may do a decent job at knowing if a team is top 5 material, but maybe not so great at putting them in the right order within the top 5. A small playoff section would let that sort itself out.

+1 for all the info, thanks a lot :)

 
JTrain said:
Also, the more teams you allow in, the more you diminish regular season games, which is part of the greatness of college football. Personally I'm not comfortable with a 2-loss team being in the title picture (even LSU in 2007 when Bo was there), because that isn't really a national championship season in my mind. A playoff system doesn't fix selection woes because you always have teams arguing at the cutoff point. Plus it overly rewards teams that come together in December, versus rewarding a "championship season" which is what college football has traditionally been closer to.

There is no such thing as a perfect system, but I think the most important thing is tweaking the selection process (get rid of the awful coaches poll and allow computers to consider margin of victory). Then we can have a plus one, which will fulfill the desires of both sides to an extent. Very rarely is their a season where #5 or #6 can make a very legit argument for being the national champ. Four's a good number.
Click to expand...
Thanks to you as well. I kind of agree with the "Championship Season" mentality.

What is a "plus one"?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
"Plus One" means a season with 1 extra game to pit the winners of the 1v4 and 2v3 games for the true Championship. I think we still may end up with non-AQs getting borked in a Plus One system however. Imagine if you have 1-loss teams from strong B10, B12, SEC and Pac12 conferences? Or Florida State running the table, Texas running the table, Ohio State beating Nebraska in the regular season and losing to them in the title game, similar things happening in the SEC. How do you put a non-SQ in over a 1-loss B10 or SEC team?

 
bbeerma2 said:
"Plus One" means a season with 1 extra game to pit the winners of the 1v4 and 2v3 games for the true Championship.
Click to expand...
Is that what they mean? I rarely hear it explained. The term is just thrown around like everyone understands it.

I thought they meant to go back to the old bowl system, and then after the bowls, play a championship game between the two best teams. Not bad, but its kind of silly that you really think it'll be any easier to decide which 2 teams are best after the bowls. It would've worked fine in 94 and 97. What about 83, when 1 & 2 lost? Who then? A Nebraska - Miami rematch? Does Auburn get a shot since they went in at #3 and won?

If its what you say then it is a playoff. A 4 team playoff. Today we have a 2 team playoff. If you're going to do a playoff, you might as well call it that and decide what the right number is. Maybe 4 is a good enough number and it fits pretty well into the existing bowls.

 
Yeah a plus one is just a trendy term for a four-team playoff. I guess the media felt uncomfortable using the word playoffs for four teams since the public is generally used to playoffs with 8, 12, 16 or more teams.

I think non-AQs have a very realistic shot to play for it all in a 4-team playoff, they just know they need to schedule a very solid non-conference slate. Don't feel sorry for Utah, they were never playing for a national title to begin with. They know they are aren't at the caliber to be scheduling and beating an Ohio St. or Oklahoma type team in September. They scheduled so they could have a chance to win the 1 or 2 big games on their schedule and possibly slip into a BCS bowl, and that's fine.

Look at this season, if you have a plus one. You might end up with something like this:

1. Oregon 12-0 PAC-10 CHAMPS

2. TCU 12-0 MWC CHAMPS

3. Alabama 12-1 SEC CHAMPS

4. Boise St. 12-0 WAC CHAMPS

---------

5. Auburn 12-1

6. Nebraska 12-1 BIG 12 CHAMPS

7. Wisconsin 12-1 BIG 10 CO-CHAMPS

8. Ohio St. 12-1 BIG 10 CO-CHAMPS

9. Stanford 11-1

10. Oklahoma 11-2

11. Michigan St. 12-1 BIG 10 C0-CHAMPS

12. Iowa 10-2 BIG 10 CO-CHAMPS

The Saturday after championship weekend, which would be December 11, Boise St. would play Oregon (either in Eugene or at a neutral site) and Alabama would play TCU. Then the winners play in the BCS title game in early January.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Although I doubt the public would ever go for it, I think a pretty great system would be to have the number of teams in the playoff be 2, 3 or 4 based on how close they were in the final BCS standings. The minimum number would obviously be 2 (like it is now) and maximum 4. The deciding factor would be how close each team is from the #1 team in the standings. If teams came within 0.1 points of #1, they are included.

So let's say this season ended today. The top four in the standings are:

1 Oregon .9777

2 Auburn .9599

3 TCU .8911

4 Boise State .8824

------------------------- cutoff = .8777

TCU and Boise (barely) are both within 0.1 of #1 Oregon, so they would both qualify for the tournament. Therefore: Boise @ Oregon and TCU @ Auburn on Dec. 11. Winners play Jan. 10 in Glendale.

But let's say next year the top two are more clear cut and the standings end like this:

1 Alabama (13-0) .9791

2 Nebraska (13-0) .9427

------------------------- cutoff = .8791

3 Stanford (11-1) .8201

4 Baylor (12-1) .8098

Neither Stanford nor Baylor are within the 0.1 cutoff from #1, and it makes sense to skip the extra game and simply have unbeaten Nebraska play unbeaten Bama in the title game.

If we modify it slightly to look like this:

1 Alabama (13-0) .9791

2 Nebraska (13-0) .9422

3 Stanford (12-0) .8944

------------------------- cutoff = .8791

4 Baylor (12-1) .8098

Then we have Stanford qualifying but Baylor not. So we play Stanford @ Nebraska the week after conference championships, with the winner playing Bama in the title game.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
JTrain, I think the logistics of whether or not there would be an extra game or two would kill it. I don't think TV would go for it, and you might have a problem with whoever might host the games.

 
Where's that deadhorse icon...there ya are.... dedhoarse

To keep it short...playoff doesn't fix problem...8 teams get in what about teams 9 and 10? What if team 8 gets in and wins the whole thing but team 9 AND 10 beat them in the regular season....

The pro-playoff group wants a playoff because they just prefer that system. To say it solves anything is simply not true. There will very rarely be undisputed champs in college football these days regardless of the system. I like the chaos and the polls and the strange scenarios and all the drama. Does a Big east champ deserve to be in the "playoff" bracket?

 
Have a playoff with only conference champions. The biggest problem right now is the severe lack of a common comparison point. We don't KNOW how good BSU or TCU really are because of the conference they play in. We don't KNOW whether a 2 loss SEC team or Big 10 team (or Big 12 or...) might truly be the best team but because of how beat up they get in conference play they don't have the chance. So make a playoff of conference champions. That way you could have big time games early in the season as tune up/exhibition games without worrying about whether a slip in week one will kill your season because only the conference schedule truly matters.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top