Mountain West Conference = AQ BCS?

[sd'sker]

I also like the +1 idea for the BCS, much more than a playoff system. The playoffs are great for the NFL, but I really think they would detract a lot from the fun of the bowl system in college football. The best part about bowl games is that there are numerous winners, not just one. Think about it - if Nebraska finished last season with a loss rather than a bowl win, would the hype & hope for this season be as prominent knowing there could be only one champion in the end?

What is "the fun of the bowl system?" What does that mean? There are 30-something bowls out there, about 25 of which nobody really, really cares about unless their team is playing. For the most part, a good half of those bowl games are no more compelling than any average Saturday afternoon game in late September. It's just lipstick on a pig for the most part, and frankly, I'm tired of kissing that pig.

If your team isn't playing in one of these bowls, is it really an "event" to watch any of them? Is it more compelling in any way to watch these bowls than any random game on any random Saturday throughout the season? Why?

30-something bowls means I get watch 30 more college football games & these 30 games feature the 60 best teams in the country, no schlubs allowed (IMO that's fun b/c I love watching college football no matter who's playing). These 60 teams (& their fans) are rewarded for the success of their regular seasons, and the winners of those bowl games are that much more rewarded as they head into the off-season. Maybe it's just me, but I appreciate that kind of closure to a season. And I think there's an added sense of pride fans feel when their team finishes the season with a win - it's part of what makes college football so special & unique.

All that said, I'm just like the next guy who prefers to have one true national champion. That's where the +1 system would work well among the BCS top 10 or 12. Or, perhaps playoffs should be played among just those top 12 BCS teams, while non-BCS playoff qualifiers still get to play in bowl games. As someone who enjoys the bowl games & wants a true national champion, I think this provides a happy medium.

it is not an either or. you can have 52 teams go and play their bowl games, but the top eight play in a separate playoff at the end.

 

[ESPY]

If those games were in some magical playoff, I wouldn't suddenly care any more about them.And I would be less likely to care about regular season matchups too..knowing that the whole season doesn't hinge on every stinkin' game.

The thought of a 4-5 loss champion makes my skin crawl.

We can take this point by point:

1. As sd'sker said, there is never going to be a 4-5 loss champion. That's an absurd argument.
   
2. Yes, you would care more about playoff games than you would about the Champ Sports bowl because you know that no team in the Champ Sports Bowl has a prayer of winning the championship, whereas every team in the quarterfinals has a shot. You're fooling yourself if you think Champ Sports Bowl > The Worst Playoff Game.
   
3. A playoff would not make regular season games any less exciting because two-loss teams can make BCS bowls right now – even three-loss teams (like Nebraska, had we beaten Texas) can make BCS bowls.
   
4. The Bowl System cheapens the regular season by boiling itself down to a popularity contest voted on by sports writers in newsrooms, rather than by teams playing on the field.
   

These pro-BCS arguments are getting easier and easier to skewer.

knapplc, I'm just curious here. How many teams do you think should be in the playoffs? How long would they last? Should the length of the regular season be shortened so playoffs can last longer (obviously this answer hinges on how many teams you think should be in the playoffs)?

 

[ESPY]

I also like the +1 idea for the BCS, much more than a playoff system. The playoffs are great for the NFL, but I really think they would detract a lot from the fun of the bowl system in college football. The best part about bowl games is that there are numerous winners, not just one. Think about it - if Nebraska finished last season with a loss rather than a bowl win, would the hype & hope for this season be as prominent knowing there could be only one champion in the end?

What is "the fun of the bowl system?" What does that mean? There are 30-something bowls out there, about 25 of which nobody really, really cares about unless their team is playing. For the most part, a good half of those bowl games are no more compelling than any average Saturday afternoon game in late September. It's just lipstick on a pig for the most part, and frankly, I'm tired of kissing that pig.

If your team isn't playing in one of these bowls, is it really an "event" to watch any of them? Is it more compelling in any way to watch these bowls than any random game on any random Saturday throughout the season? Why?

30-something bowls means I get watch 30 more college football games & these 30 games feature the 60 best teams in the country, no schlubs allowed (IMO that's fun b/c I love watching college football no matter who's playing). These 60 teams (& their fans) are rewarded for the success of their regular seasons, and the winners of those bowl games are that much more rewarded as they head into the off-season. Maybe it's just me, but I appreciate that kind of closure to a season. And I think there's an added sense of pride fans feel when their team finishes the season with a win - it's part of what makes college football so special & unique.

All that said, I'm just like the next guy who prefers to have one true national champion. That's where the +1 system would work well among the BCS top 10 or 12. Or, perhaps playoffs should be played among just those top 12 BCS teams, while non-BCS playoff qualifiers still get to play in bowl games. As someone who enjoys the bowl games & wants a true national champion, I think this provides a happy medium.

it is not an either or. you can have 52 teams go and play their bowl games, but the top eight play in a separate playoff at the end.

IMO that's definitely a solid idea.

 

[knapplc]

knapplc, I'm just curious here. How many teams do you think should be in the playoffs? How long would they last? Should the length of the regular season be shortened so playoffs can last longer (obviously this answer hinges on how many teams you think should be in the playoffs)?

With 120 teams in Div. 1A, having a 16-team playoff with the top ten percent (roughly) having a shot at the championship isn't unrealistic.

16 teams would mean four rounds, so about one month.

There's no need to shorten the regular season - just run the playoffs the week after the regular season ends.

 

[knapplc]

I also like the +1 idea for the BCS, much more than a playoff system. The playoffs are great for the NFL, but I really think they would detract a lot from the fun of the bowl system in college football. The best part about bowl games is that there are numerous winners, not just one. Think about it - if Nebraska finished last season with a loss rather than a bowl win, would the hype & hope for this season be as prominent knowing there could be only one champion in the end?

What is "the fun of the bowl system?" What does that mean? There are 30-something bowls out there, about 25 of which nobody really, really cares about unless their team is playing. For the most part, a good half of those bowl games are no more compelling than any average Saturday afternoon game in late September. It's just lipstick on a pig for the most part, and frankly, I'm tired of kissing that pig.

If your team isn't playing in one of these bowls, is it really an "event" to watch any of them? Is it more compelling in any way to watch these bowls than any random game on any random Saturday throughout the season? Why?

30-something bowls means I get watch 30 more college football games & these 30 games feature the 60 best teams in the country, no schlubs allowed (IMO that's fun b/c I love watching college football no matter who's playing). These 60 teams (& their fans) are rewarded for the success of their regular seasons, and the winners of those bowl games are that much more rewarded as they head into the off-season. Maybe it's just me, but I appreciate that kind of closure to a season. And I think there's an added sense of pride fans feel when their team finishes the season with a win - it's part of what makes college football so special & unique.

All that said, I'm just like the next guy who prefers to have one true national champion. That's where the +1 system would work well among the BCS top 10 or 12. Or, perhaps playoffs should be played among just those top 12 BCS teams, while non-BCS playoff qualifiers still get to play in bowl games. As someone who enjoys the bowl games & wants a true national champion, I think this provides a happy medium.

it is not an either or. you can have 52 teams go and play their bowl games, but the top eight play in a separate playoff at the end.

IMO that's definitely a solid idea.

Agreed. I'd be cool with an eight-team playoff, too. Or 12 teams. 16 is the upper limit, IMO.

 

[ESPY]

Look how easy we just made this discussion. We should be the ones running the BCS!

 

[ESPY]

knapplc, I'm just curious here. How many teams do you think should be in the playoffs? How long would they last? Should the length of the regular season be shortened so playoffs can last longer (obviously this answer hinges on how many teams you think should be in the playoffs)?

With 120 teams in Div. 1A, having a 16-team playoff with the top ten percent (roughly) having a shot at the championship isn't unrealistic.

16 teams would mean four rounds, so about one month.

There's no need to shorten the regular season - just run the playoffs the week after the regular season ends.

When you say "the week after the regular season ends", does that include the conference championship games? That would be a huge obstacle to shut those cash cows down for the sake of the playoffs.

 

[knapplc]

knapplc, I'm just curious here. How many teams do you think should be in the playoffs? How long would they last? Should the length of the regular season be shortened so playoffs can last longer (obviously this answer hinges on how many teams you think should be in the playoffs)?

With 120 teams in Div. 1A, having a 16-team playoff with the top ten percent (roughly) having a shot at the championship isn't unrealistic.

16 teams would mean four rounds, so about one month.

There's no need to shorten the regular season - just run the playoffs the week after the regular season ends.

When you say "the week after the regular season ends", does that include the conference championship games? That would be a huge obstacle to shut those cash cows down for the sake of the playoffs.

By all means, conferences can keep their championship games. It's not like there's some deadline we have to meet to crown a champion. As we've seen with bowl games, dates for these things are completely fluid.

 

[ESPY]

Getting back to the discussion of the Mountain West becoming an AQ conference, let's say there is a BCS playoff for the top 16 teams in the BCS rankings.

According to the final BCS standings in 2009 (Dec 6, 2009), here's teams-per-conference breakdown.

SEC - 3

Big 12 - 1

Pac 10 - 1

Big 10 - 3

ACC - 3

Big East - 2

Mountain West - 2

WAC - 1.

Seems like the MWC has a pretty good argument based on that, and it would definitely be an exciting playoff to watch b/c we all know how legit these teams were last year.

 

[knapplc]

The MWC has done very well... lately. As we've seen with Colorado, Kansas and Kansas State, teams can rise and fall pretty quickly. My only concern with providing the MWC with perks like this is, is their recent success sustainable or is this just the top of the bell curve?

 

[ESPY]

The MWC has done very well... lately. As we've seen with Colorado, Kansas and Kansas State, teams can rise and fall pretty quickly. My only concern with providing the MWC with perks like this is, is their recent success sustainable or is this just the top of the bell curve?

In that respect, it's good to see the BCS is focusing on the sustainability factor per the AP report...

The BCS rates non-automatic qualifying leagues using three criteria that measure the strength of its best teams and the league as a whole. The first two seasons of the four-year evaluation period were 2008 and '09, banner years for the MWC.

 

[knapplc]

As we've seen, up-and-coming teams are often only as good as their coach, and when their coach is poached by a bigger, richer school, they tend to gravitate toward mediocrity. Again, Colorado, Kansas and Kansas State are good, close examples.

Of course, I could go on this huge tangent where I think Division 1A should be pared down by at least half, but that's probably a conversation for another time.

 

[sd'sker]

Look how easy we just made this discussion. We should be the ones running the BCS!

the always say money is why they keep it the way it is, i think there are alternatives that would make a lot more money and keep the fans happy. a it seems like the people running the bcs are the worst people to be running the bcs.

 

[Paperback Writer]

It's good to see the MWC get some recognition. However, I think before the MWC gets invited to join the BCS party, the PAC10 and Big12 will pluck Utah and BYU from the MWC. The MWC could invite Boise St. to leave the WAC but the MWC will still be weakened significantly if Utah and BYU leave it.

 

[junior4949]

I'm all for an 8 team playoff. To keep the BCS crowd happy, use their current formula to rank the teams. Take the top 8 and have them play in the current BCS bowls slotted for BCS games as playoff games.