Your opinion on the BCS...

**cyclonenum1** · 07-12-2010, 08:00 AM

Originally Posted by madcityCY

Utah is undefeated, and crushes Alabama in a bowl game, is not given the chance to be a national champion. Instead, they give that to a team w/ a loss.

...Playoff needed.

Please....put Utah, Boise, or any other pretender in the SEC and let's see if they can run the table and win a Conference Championship game.

**weR138** · 07-12-2010, 08:28 AM

[QUOTE=DMjazz;1807123][/B]

I agree and I don't think Iowa would be in the supposed playoffs very often either. I just want to see a system that is more fair and appropriate for the sport.[/QUOTE]

And you determine appropriateness, I presume. This what I find facsinating about this debate. So many people can't wrap their minds around a sport that doesn't crown a champion with a playoff. For a century the appropriate measure of success for a football team was a conference championship and it was pretty cool that way. Traditional matchups developed with the Rose Bowl, Orange Bowl, etc. The BCS has ****ed that up, IMO and I think it sucks.

Money is destroying CFB just like every other sport. It's now not a question of if the super-conferences will rise but when. And when they do, and they institute their playoff, it's over for KSU, ISU, Miss St, Wazzou and any other D1 teams that can't raise huge amounts of money.

But then again that's appropriate. If you can't pay you shouldn't be able to play, right? Every ISU fan that is for a playoff deserves what they will get; super-conferences that will exclude Iowa State.

**clonefreek** · 07-12-2010, 09:34 AM

I think they could combine both playoff and bowl system, keep your bowl games for all of your 6-6 and above teams but then take your top 8 teams and put them in 4 districts just like the bball tournament have the 1 and 2 school in the northeast play in the sugar bowl, southeast in the orange bowl, southwest in the Rose bowl, and then the northwest in the fiesta bowl. Then you play a tradition playoff, and have it end playing east vs west

**drednot57** · 07-12-2010, 09:51 AM

A playoff only if the champions of all the current FBS conferences automatically qualify; this would mean a 16 team playoff with five "at large" bids. Use the top 15 bowl games in pay out as the game locations. Have the national title game permanently in Phoenix. Call this playoff the Bowl Championship Tournament (BCT). No super-conferences! A playoff system can be achieved without monster conferences. After the five at-large bids have been selected through process similar to the NCAA MBB tourney selection, the remaining bowls can make their team selections to reward winning seasons. It may mean a reduction in bowl games, but in the reduction, the games become more meaningful.

**DMjazz** · 07-12-2010, 11:07 AM

[quote=weR138;1807232]

Originally Posted by DMjazz

[/B]

I agree and I don't think Iowa would be in the supposed playoffs very often either. I just want to see a system that is more fair and appropriate for the sport.[/QUOTE]

And you determine appropriateness, I presume. This what I find facsinating about this debate. So many people can't wrap their minds around a sport that doesn't crown a champion with a playoff. For a century the appropriate measure of success for a football team was a conference championship and it was pretty cool that way. Traditional matchups developed with the Rose Bowl, Orange Bowl, etc. The BCS has ****ed that up, IMO and I think it sucks.

Money is destroying CFB just like every other sport. It's now not a question of if the super-conferences will rise but when. And when they do, and they institute their playoff, it's over for KSU, ISU, Miss St, Wazzou and any other D1 teams that can't raise huge amounts of money.

But then again that's appropriate. If you can't pay you shouldn't be able to play, right? Every ISU fan that is for a playoff deserves what they will get; super-conferences that will exclude Iowa State.

Well, me and the other 52% who feel it's time for a playoff system. Just because the sport has existed for 100 years without a playoff system doesn't mean that it is the correct way to crown a champ.

How many Div1 schools played football when the Bowls were introduced? Further, how many of those schools had legitimate shots at the Rose, Sugar, Cotton?

Money destroyed football from it's inception. Why was Notre Dame the most powerful program in the country for decades? Money. Before scholarship limits, ND had the money to buy recruits. Even if they didn't pay directly, they had the money to give scholarships to as many players as they wanted. Recruits would go to ND and ride the pine for 2-3 years when they could have started somewhere else.

tOSU, Michigan, Texas, ND, USC. What do those schools have in common? Huge alumni fan bases with the cash to create huge football programs with bigger and better facilities, stadiums, etc. Money has always driven college football. It's just that now thanks to scholarship limits and TV, other schools feel they can compete and are joining the 'arms-race'. Everyone wants a piece of that big football money. Why is it that more and more schools are starting to build Div1 football programs? They want in on the money.

**DMjazz** · 07-12-2010, 11:12 AM

Originally Posted by clonefreek

I think they could combine both playoff and bowl system, keep your bowl games for all of your 6-6 and above teams but then take your top 8 teams and put them in 4 districts just like the bball tournament have the 1 and 2 school in the northeast play in the sugar bowl, southeast in the orange bowl, southwest in the Rose bowl, and then the northwest in the fiesta bowl. Then you play a tradition playoff, and have it end playing east vs west

I actually think you can do it before the BCS games. Every bowl eligible team that doesn't make the playoffs goes to the normal bowl games, (Outback, Alamo, Holiday, Sun, etc). The playoffs occur during the 'minor bowl' season then the title game is at the Rose, Fiesta, Sugar, or Orange. The other BCS games could be rematches of playoff games or other matchups between the teams that made playoffs vs the ones on the bubble that didn't.

**intrepid27** · 07-12-2010, 11:46 AM

A playoff system will create a wider gap between the "have" and "have-nots". The BCS has given us better matchups than the old bowl system.

**mcblogerson** · 07-12-2010, 12:42 PM

Originally Posted by jumbopackage

1. With a round robin football schedule, and ISU guaranteed to play Texas and Oklahoma every year, if we go undefeated, we will be in the top 2, almost guaranteed. Especially considering that we will now have the Big 10's advantage of not having to play a championship game. If we went undefeated this year, there is NO way we would not be a top 2 team. Everyone seems to forget that we got into the top 5 one year. The polls aren't out to get ISU, it's just that ISU is so rarely in a position to be in the top 5 (especially when it matters), that it seems like we never get any respect.

2. They will not be financially viable, just like the NIT is barely financially viable. Most of them are only marginally so now.

3. That is subjective. I watch as many bowl games as I can, and I find them all very exciting, even when it's MAC vs CUSA.

4. I think the NFL is pretty much pointless at this point. The regular season is almost entirely meaningless, and the playoffs are more hype than substance. The super bowl is unwatchable at this point for me.

1. ISU will never go undefeated in conference. The best shot we have is an 8 team playoff where we sneak in as a one or two loss team and get hot.

3. TV ratings for NFL wildcard games last year averaged a 16 share last year, the college national champ game was a 17 share, the other BCS bowls averaged about an 8-9 share.

Winning a bowl game outside of the NC game is like winning the NIT, no one cares or remembers except for the fans of the winning team.