Smoke your cigars and enjoy the band while you can....

[Houstoncat93]

http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/6270202/33203093

Christ, what a horrible idea.

I don't know.  I do like the thought of teams getting in based on merit.

The coaches poll is 1/3 of the BCS equation.  The coaches poll starts out like a joke and frequently ends that way.  There is no greater merit than getting a BCS bid because you won your conference championship on the field.  This a ruse to get 3 or 4 SEC teams into the BCS every year.

It also completely robs the other bowl of any relevance whatsoever.  Isn't this the argument they use against a playoff?  It doesn't matter anyway, the Pac 12, Big 10, and the Rose Bowl will have no part of this.

Gonna agree with MIR on this one.  It is definitely a ruse to get in as many SEC teams as possible.

Here are the number of  teams in BCS per year if the system above was in place.
Big 12
1998 - 2
1999 - 2
2000 - 3
2001 - 3
2002 - 3
2003 - 3
2004 - 2
2005 - 1
2006 - 1
2007 - 3
2008 - 3
2009 - 1
2010 - 1
28 total

SEC
1998 - 2
1999 - 2
2000 - 1
2001 - 2
2002 - 1
2003 - 2
2004 - 2
2005 - 2
2006 - 3
2007 - 2
2008 - 2
2009 - 2
2010 - 2
25 total

[Panjandrum]

http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/6270202/33203093

Christ, what a horrible idea.

I don't know.  I do like the thought of teams getting in based on merit.

The coaches poll is 1/3 of the BCS equation.  The coaches poll starts out like a joke and frequently ends that way.  There is no greater merit than getting a BCS bid because you won your conference championship on the field.  This a ruse to get 3 or 4 SEC teams into the BCS every year.

It also completely robs the other bowl of any relevance whatsoever.  Isn't this the argument they use against a playoff?  It doesn't matter anyway, the Pac 12, Big 10, and the Rose Bowl will have no part of this.

Well, you can always change the weighting of the system.  That's not necessarily an impossible hurdle.

The importance of bowl games has lessened as we've spread them out over nearly four weeks and invited nearly every .500 team in the FBS.

Anyway, you may be right about the Rose Bowl, but again, with every instance of a non-Big Ten/Pac-12 matchup, its mystique lessens.

I think this system actually favors the Big 12.  I think most years we'd be getting at least two teams in.  Due to the overall level of competition in this league, it may actually make our conference more desirable and stable in that regard if we move to this particular system.

[Panjandrum]

I hate to rain on the jealous of the SEC parade, but KSU goes to a BCS bowl in 98, 99, 00, and 02 in addition to 03 under this system.

Yeah, people need to be focusing on this.

[MakeItRain]

I hate to rain on the jealous of the SEC parade, but KSU goes to a BCS bowl in 98, 99, 00, and 02 in addition to 03 under this system.

So.  The fact that it would have benefited KSU back then doesn't mean its a good idea.  Every year there would be two conferences taking at least half of the 10 spots, IMO that's dumb.

[SdK]

I hate to rain on the jealous of the SEC parade, but KSU goes to a BCS bowl in 98, 99, 00, and 02 in addition to 03 under this system.

So.  The fact that it would have benefited KSU back then doesn't mean its a good idea.  Every year there would be two conferences taking at least half of the 10 spots, IMO that's dumb.

Ok....so half the spots would be taken by two conferences....do you really believe that every conference is equal in quality? I guarantee year in year out 5 of the top 10 teams are in two conferences. Parity is there between the conferences in the long haul, but not year in year out, it's time the format coincide with that.

[catzacker]

If their were no AQ status and rules for inclusion of non-AQ teams, do we really think it would be about "merit".  If "fairness" or some sense of equality isn't written into the system there will be none. 

[michigancat]

I hate to rain on the jealous of the SEC parade, but KSU goes to a BCS bowl in 98, 99, 00, and 02 in addition to 03 under this system.

So.  The fact that it would have benefited KSU back then doesn't mean its a good idea.  Every year there would be two conferences taking at least half of the 10 spots, IMO that's dumb.

I didn't say it was a good idea. I was just trying to point out that your notion that this would primarily benefit SEC teams in was stupid. HoustonCat's numbers support it far better than I did.

[MakeItRain]

I hate to rain on the jealous of the SEC parade, but KSU goes to a BCS bowl in 98, 99, 00, and 02 in addition to 03 under this system.

So.  The fact that it would have benefited KSU back then doesn't mean its a good idea.  Every year there would be two conferences taking at least half of the 10 spots, IMO that's dumb.

Ok....so half the spots would be taken by two conferences....do you really believe that every conference is equal in quality? I guarantee year in year out 5 of the top 10 teams are in two conferences. Parity is there between the conferences in the long haul, but not year in year out, it's time the format coincide with that.

Did I say that every conference was equal in quality?  I just don't think we should be rewarding the 3rd place teams in the SEC and Big 12 over the champion of another conference.  Excellence amongst your peers should mean something, and I don't care how hard your conference is, third place is nothing that should be rewarded.

[MakeItRain]

I hate to rain on the jealous of the SEC parade, but KSU goes to a BCS bowl in 98, 99, 00, and 02 in addition to 03 under this system.

So.  The fact that it would have benefited KSU back then doesn't mean its a good idea.  Every year there would be two conferences taking at least half of the 10 spots, IMO that's dumb.

I didn't say it was a good idea. I was just trying to point out that your notion that this would primarily benefit SEC teams in was stupid. HoustonCat's numbers support it far better than I did.

I absolutely should have included the Big 12, no doubt about it.  So the proposed system is one that would favor 2 conferences.  Those two conferences would be heavily favored primarily because of biases in preseason rankings.

[SdK]

I hate to rain on the jealous of the SEC parade, but KSU goes to a BCS bowl in 98, 99, 00, and 02 in addition to 03 under this system.

So.  The fact that it would have benefited KSU back then doesn't mean its a good idea.  Every year there would be two conferences taking at least half of the 10 spots, IMO that's dumb.

I didn't say it was a good idea. I was just trying to point out that your notion that this would primarily benefit SEC teams in was stupid. HoustonCat's numbers support it far better than I did.

I absolutely should have included the Big 12, no doubt about it.  So the proposed system is one that would favor 2 conferences.  Those two conferences would be heavily favored primarily because of biases in preseason rankings.

Someone isn't even Ting or Sing or Cing.....what does that make them?

[theKSU]

It's an excellent idea.  Also those stats sort of blow up the SEC >> Big 12 theory. 

And hello 700. 

[Rage Against the McKee]

I prefer the current system where conference championships actually matter. A playoff with only conference champions would be ideal, imo.

[SkinnyBenny]

I hate to rain on the jealous of the SEC parade, but KSU goes to a BCS bowl in 98, 99, 00, and 02 in addition to 03 under this system.

Wouldn't there be other schools from the SEC who could claim this too?  (And likely would because they'd get better ratings, thus knocking out Beasley & Co.?) 

Too lazy to look up numbers, tia.

[LickNeckey]

I believe that the best system would utilize BCS rankings and simply have 1 vs 2, 3 vs 4, 5 vs 6, etc. in your 5 BCS bowls

[Cartierfor3]

I believe that the best system would utilize BCS rankings and simply have 1 vs 2, 3 vs 4, 5 vs 6, etc. in your 5 BCS bowls

The rose bowl works really hard to slow any kind of progress. 

[Trim]

I like how it was in the '80s and early '90s.

[Doberman_CATS!!!]

 

[MadCat]

I like how it was in the '80s and early '90s.

Pre-Bowl Coalition?

[Trim]

I like how it was in the '80s and early '90s.

Pre-Bowl Coalition?

Yeah.  Everyone out for themselves making shady deals to get into their bowl of choice. 

Don't give a eff about a so-called national champion in a 120-team sport that only plays 12 games.  If the Cats were to ever go undefeated, we're the champs no matter what some redneck racist in Alabama thinks.

[MadCat]

I like how it was in the '80s and early '90s.

Pre-Bowl Coalition?

Yeah.  Everyone out for themselves making shady deals to get into their bowl of choice. 

Don't give a eff about a so-called national champion in a 120-team sport that only plays 12 games.  If the Cats were to ever go undefeated, we're the champs no matter what some redneck racist in Alabama thinks.

More Controversy More Win

[OK_Cat]

I like how it was in the '80s and early '90s.

Pre-Bowl Coalition?

Yeah.  Everyone out for themselves making shady deals to get into their bowl of choice. 

Don't give a eff about a so-called national champion in a 120-team sport that only plays 12 games.  If the Cats were to ever go undefeated, we're the champs no matter what some redneck racist in Alabama thinks.

YES!  To take it one step further, I never understood the need for people to crown a "national champion."  Conference champions are ok, because more often than not, everyone plays each other.  WGAF about a "national champion."

[Trim]

I like how it was in the '80s and early '90s.

Pre-Bowl Coalition?

Yeah.  Everyone out for themselves making shady deals to get into their bowl of choice. 

Don't give a eff about a so-called national champion in a 120-team sport that only plays 12 games.  If the Cats were to ever go undefeated, we're the champs no matter what some redneck racist in Alabama thinks.

YES!  To take it one step further, I never understood the need for people to crown a "national champion."  Conference champions are ok, because more often than not, everyone plays each other.  WGAF about a "national champion."

Seems like the people who clamor for a "national champion" are media and general sports fans who don't have a diehard interest in their particular team.  As an EMAW, I'll be perfectly content with kicking the crap out of all the conference rivals and somebody in a bowl game and proudly wearing my goEMAW KSU National Champions shirt.

It's not mathematically possible to have a fair champion in a sport with 100+ teams and 12-15 games to sort it out in.

[MadCat]

Multiple national champions each year makes everyone feel better about themselves.  

[Rage Against the McKee]

I like how it was in the '80s and early '90s.

Pre-Bowl Coalition?

Yeah.  Everyone out for themselves making shady deals to get into their bowl of choice. 

Don't give a eff about a so-called national champion in a 120-team sport that only plays 12 games.  If the Cats were to ever go undefeated, we're the champs no matter what some redneck racist in Alabama thinks.

YES!  To take it one step further, I never understood the need for people to crown a "national champion."  Conference champions are ok, because more often than not, everyone plays each other.  WGAF about a "national champion."

Seems like the people who clamor for a "national champion" are media and general sports fans who don't have a diehard interest in their particular team.  As an EMAW, I'll be perfectly content with kicking the crap out of all the conference rivals and somebody in a bowl game and proudly wearing my goEMAW KSU National Champions shirt.

It's not mathematically possible to have a fair champion in a sport with 100+ teams and 12-15 games to sort it out in.

A playoff with only conference champions and no at large bids would be completely fair.

[OK_Cat]

I like how it was in the '80s and early '90s.

Pre-Bowl Coalition?

Yeah.  Everyone out for themselves making shady deals to get into their bowl of choice. 

Don't give a eff about a so-called national champion in a 120-team sport that only plays 12 games.  If the Cats were to ever go undefeated, we're the champs no matter what some redneck racist in Alabama thinks.

YES!  To take it one step further, I never understood the need for people to crown a "national champion."  Conference champions are ok, because more often than not, everyone plays each other.  WGAF about a "national champion."

Seems like the people who clamor for a "national champion" are media and general sports fans who don't have a diehard interest in their particular team.  As an EMAW, I'll be perfectly content with kicking the crap out of all the conference rivals and somebody in a bowl game and proudly wearing my goEMAW KSU National Champions shirt.

It's not mathematically possible to have a fair champion in a sport with 100+ teams and 12-15 games to sort it out in.

A playoff with only conference champions and no at large bids would be completely fair.

I wouldn't mind seeing that.  Would make for nice drama if the Sunbelt champ upset the SEC champ once in a while