BCS proposes radical changes

**CRAZYGREG** · 11-18-2011, 09:11 AM

So why do the "mid major" schools even compete in the FBS? What is point?

**HFCS** · 11-18-2011, 09:14 AM

Originally Posted by acgclone

This is non-sense. Boise State, TCU and Utah (previously) have all been on the cusp of making the NC game. Are non-BCS teams ever going to leap an undefeated team from a BCS league.....No. But if Boise State had gone undefeated and Okie State, Standford, Oregon, Bama, etc all had one loss, there is a very good chance that they could have made the game.

Would this year's Boise State team be able to make it through a 16 or 32 team playoff? I seriously doubt it.

Utah had the second most dominant statistical season in college football history and didn't get in, I think they were only 4th, then won their BCS game by 20+ if I remember correctly.

Half of the FBS teams have no realistic shot at a NC.

Open it to at least a 4 or 8 team playoff to give them a chance. Even a team with a weak schedule like Houston (BSU's schedule is more like a BCS school), if they were to win 3 playoff games against top ten teams, they're the true champ.

**CyJack13** · 11-18-2011, 09:14 AM

Originally Posted by CRAZYGREG

So why do the "mid major" schools even compete in the FBS? What is point?

To make enough money to support the rest of their athletic departments. Do you think schools like Western Kentucky really try to move up with hopes of winning a national title?

**HFCS** · 11-18-2011, 09:16 AM

Originally Posted by CRAZYGREG

So why do the "mid major" schools even compete in the FBS? What is point?

Some of them just seem to want to compete in their conference and think it's best for their fans and overall athletic department.

A handful of them really are trying to compete for a National Championship in spite of a system rigged against them. A few of the teams that were truly striving for that have now moved into BCS conferences, but I have no doubt others will surface again as long as we have the "in and out" system we do now.

**everyyard** · 11-18-2011, 09:17 AM

this change pretty much guarantees the SEC that other "BCS" spot they wanted and further locks out the non BCS conference members (BSU, etc). It would be a money grab, like everything else.

**CyJack13** · 11-18-2011, 09:19 AM

Originally Posted by HFCS

Utah had the second most dominant statistical season in college football history and didn't get in, I think they were only 4th, then won their BCS game by 20+ if I remember correctly.

Half of the FBS teams have no realistic shot at a NC.

Open it to at least a 4 or 8 team playoff to give them a chance. Even a team with a weak schedule like Houston (BSU's schedule is more like a BCS school), if they were to win 3 playoff games against top ten teams, they're the true champ.

Please don't make up statistics just to fit your argument.

**HFCS** · 11-18-2011, 09:20 AM

Originally Posted by CyJack13

The BCS has provided some absolutely great title games since its creation. I would rather have this system than a system like the NCAA tournament where Butler and Uconn, a .500 conference team, can end up playing for the title.

I'm all for a plus one scenario but nothing beyond that.

Isn't Butler kind of proof that playing on the court, not voter polls, should decide who is in the national championship game.

Two years in a row is not a fluke. In the other sport we have a real long drawn out playoff and the Boise State of basketball showed it earned a spot in the top two...two seasons in a row.

I might be happy with a plus one too, it's a four game playoff system. Maybe 20% of the time a #5-#10 team has a good claim to a NC, but usually they clearly did something to blow it like Oklahoma this year against Tech.

4 game playoff is insanely better than 2 game playoff from 120 teams.

**HFCS** · 11-18-2011, 09:21 AM

Originally Posted by CyJack13

Please don't make up statistics just to fit your argument.

Is this sarcasm? Look up what teams have gone an entire season with no opponent getting within two touchdowns of them.

It's only happened twice, the other team in my opinion is the greatest college football team of all time even though I hate them.

**Incyte** · 11-18-2011, 09:22 AM

I don't see how that change would affect isu at all.

**CyJack13** · 11-18-2011, 09:23 AM

Originally Posted by HFCS

Is this sarcasm? Look up what teams have gone an entire season with no opponent getting within two touchdowns of them.

It's only happened twice, the other team in my opinion is the greatest college football team of all time even though I hate them.

Ok, sure maybe, but that certainly didn't include 2008 Utah since they beat TCU and the powerhouse of New Mexico by 13-10 scores, beat Oregon St 31-28, Air Force 30-23 and Michigan 25-23.

**nickwc** · 11-18-2011, 09:32 AM

Playoffs in college football is bad for progrs like Iowa State, not sure why so many people need a playoff to make them happy.

**jbhtexas** · 11-18-2011, 09:35 AM

Originally Posted by CRAZYGREG

NCAA football postseason is the worst system EVER! The only sport that does not determine a true champion.

Really? Because one-and-done playoff systems don't determine "true" champions either...

**HFCS** · 11-18-2011, 09:39 AM

Originally Posted by CyJack13

Ok, sure maybe, but that certainly didn't include 2008 Utah since they beat TCU and the powerhouse of New Mexico by 13-10 scores, beat Oregon St 31-28, Air Force 30-23 and Michigan 25-23.

I didn't even bring up that team, because they weren't as impressive even though they blew out #3 Alabama (who was #1 most of the year) in a BCS game.

I'm talking about the team where Urban Meyer was 3-4 years ahead of college football. The team that didn't let anyone get within two TDs for an entire season. A team that the entire SEC and Big 12 would be copying just a couple seasons later.

That team is the biggest reason to favor an all inclusive playoff system where nonAQ leagues have access. Almost every season is a reason to favor a playoff system with at least 4 teams from major conferences though.

This particular season, if we have to have a fake two game playoff instead of a real one, anything other than Big 12 champ vs. SEC champ is a total joke. The two leagues have more separation with the rest of college football than anything I've ever seen before. I'd have been cool with unbeaten Stanford getting in a 4 team playoff, I would not have been cool with them playing in the NC game when their SOS is lower than Boise State's but that could easily have happened. If it can only be two teams, it needs to be the champion of the two conferences that are far and away the toughest.

**dualthreat** · 11-18-2011, 09:44 AM

from 1936 to 1998 there was no system. just bowl games.

i like that idea

**cycloneworld** · 11-18-2011, 09:51 AM

Originally Posted by isufbcurt

Screw a playoff. If there was a playoff system in place then tonights ISU/OSU game wouldn't matter because OSU could lose and still make the playoffs and win a NC. As it stands now if they don't win tonight they are out of the NC picture. The current system makes every game count!!!!

Because I love when computers determine who will play for a national championship. And I love that basically 8-10 teams even have a chance at playing for a national championship when the season starts. And I love how 117 of the 119 college football teams actually get to play a meaningful post season game...the other half get to play a meaningless exhibition game.

It's ridiculous how much money a college football playoff could make WHILE keeping some of the bowl games for other teams. And we could watch a couple more weeks of REALLY meaningful football games between the top teams each year. Yeah, that sounds terrible....