NCAA Playoffs.

[Rage Against the McKee]

The problem with that bracket is the B10 gets 2 atlarge bids.  That's where the cac is as far as I'm concerned.  Boise loses a game it should have won if the kicker doesn't choke from 25 yards out, and they don't get into playoffs with 11-1?  I mean, all year, people wanted to argue whether or not they deserved to be up there, the old "An SEC sched would murder them" bullshit.  Let them in the playoffs and prove their worth.

This is why it would be better to just get rid of all the at large teams. Win your conference or go play some crappy bowl game.

[EllToPay]

Once again, the BCS gets it right by having the two best teams play for the title. I don't give a flying eff about any of the other bowls.

[mcmwcat]

Once again, the BCS gets it right by having the two best teams play for the title. I don't give a flying eff about any of the other bowls.

right on!  once again the BCS matches the top 2 teams in the country.  does that make it 13 or 14 years in a row now?  i can't remember how long the BCS has been around.   if we were still using the system before the BCS then we'd have Oregon playing Ohio St in the Rose and Auburn playing Virginia Tech in the Sugar.  thank god for the BCS! and Tostitos!!!!!!!!!!!111111111!!!!!!!!!!! mmmmm salsa

[mcmwcat]

determining a playoff field would be a complete clusterfuck and you'd have over 100 schools with absolutely meaningless seasons.

How do you figure? Win all of your games and you make the playoffs.

wait a second.  now i might be leaning the other way.  this is so confusing.

[mcmwcat]

Once again, the BCS gets it right by having the two best teams play for the title. I don't give a flying eff about any of the other bowls.

is this an argument for or against a playoff?  i guess if you hate college football it's an argument in favor of the BCS and the bowl system. 

[EllToPay]

You're really fired up about this, mcmw. Let's go grab a cup of joe at the Filling Station and talk about it.

[ew2x4]

I want a +1 Championship game, or a tournament involving the top BCS ranked teams. No at large bull crap.

[Rage Against the McKee]

I want a +1 Championship game, or a tournament involving the top BCS ranked teams. No at large bull crap.

The top BCS ranked teams is at large bull crap. I think you are saying you don't want to reward the conference champions (basically what the whole season sets out to determine) with automatic bids.

[mcmwcat]

You're really fired up about this, mcmw. Let's go grab a cup of joe at the Filling Station and talk about it.

your ducking of the question makes me think you aren't serious like i am.  right now i am leaning toward playoff but could go bowl system.  you are the one who says you don't give a 'flying eff' about bowls so i am thinking you might prefer playoff.  in order to balance out my prejudices i would rather speak w/ someone who prefers the bowl system.  thanks anyway.

[ew2x4]

I want a +1 Championship game, or a tournament involving the top BCS ranked teams. No at large bull crap.

The top BCS ranked teams is at large bull crap. I think you are saying you don't want to reward the conference champions (basically what the whole season sets out to determine) with automatic bids.

How hard is it to take the top 16 teams instead of having UCONN, UCF, FIU, etc. The OP is Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) if he wants to see that nonsensical bullshit.

[slimz]

I want a +1 Championship game, or a tournament involving the top BCS ranked teams. No at large bull crap.

The top BCS ranked teams is at large bull crap. I think you are saying you don't want to reward the conference champions (basically what the whole season sets out to determine) with automatic bids.

How hard is it to take the top 16 teams instead of having UCONN, UCF, FIU, etc. The OP is Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) if he wants to see that nonsensical bullshit.

Exactly why we need to stick with the bowls.  The auto bids in the NCAA basketball tournament make that thing pretty much unwatchable. 

[swish1]

I want a +1 Championship game, or a tournament involving the top BCS ranked teams. No at large bull cac.

The top BCS ranked teams is at large bull cac. I think you are saying you don't want to reward the conference champions (basically what the whole season sets out to determine) with automatic bids.

How hard is it to take the top 16 teams instead of having UCONN, UCF, FIU, etc. The OP is Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) if he wants to see that nonsensical bullcac.

why not take the top 16 or top 8 teams ranked in the bcs and use the current bcs bowls as sites for the games?  this makes more money than a crappy ou vs. uconn bowl game and provides a true national champion?

[mcmwcat]

if i've decided on one thing it's this: a playoff system using bowl destinations as neutral sites is dumber than the bowl system.

[Rage Against the McKee]

I want a +1 Championship game, or a tournament involving the top BCS ranked teams. No at large bull cac.

The top BCS ranked teams is at large bull cac. I think you are saying you don't want to reward the conference champions (basically what the whole season sets out to determine) with automatic bids.

How hard is it to take the top 16 teams instead of having UCONN, UCF, FIU, etc. The OP is Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) if he wants to see that nonsensical bullcac.

why not take the top 16 or top 8 teams ranked in the bcs and use the current bcs bowls as sites for the games?  this makes more money than a crappy ou vs. uconn bowl game and provides a true national champion?

There are not many fans who would be able to go to multiple bowl destinations in the same season. I think it would make more money to just give the higher seed a home game up until the championship game.

[kso_FAN]

if i've decided on one thing it's this: a playoff system using bowl destinations as neutral sites is dumber than the bowl system.

Yes, this is dumb. Do a bowl site for the champ game, but that's about it. Maybe (maybe) semis.

And ETP is right, unlike nearly every other sport, the BCS does get the Top 2 teams (at worst 2 of the top 3) every single year.  Almost always see the best play the best in the title game. Really, what other sport can say that?

[EllToPay]

if i've decided on one thing it's this: a playoff system using bowl destinations as neutral sites is dumber than the bowl system.

Yes, this is dumb. Do a bowl site for the champ game, but that's about it. Maybe (maybe) semis.

And ETP is right, unlike nearly every other sport, the BCS does get the Top 2 teams (at worst 2 of the top 3) every single year.  Almost always see the best play the best in the title game. Really, what other sport can say that?

Yeah.

I don't really care to see a 16 team playoff. Give me 4 teams, and do a playoff from there.

[kso_FAN]

if i've decided on one thing it's this: a playoff system using bowl destinations as neutral sites is dumber than the bowl system.

Yes, this is dumb. Do a bowl site for the champ game, but that's about it. Maybe (maybe) semis.

And ETP is right, unlike nearly every other sport, the BCS does get the Top 2 teams (at worst 2 of the top 3) every single year.  Almost always see the best play the best in the title game. Really, what other sport can say that?

Yeah.

I don't really care to see a 16 team playoff. Give me 4 teams, and do a playoff from there.

I'm completely with you, I'd like to see a 4 team playoff as well.

[steve dave]

Well, since the BCS completely nails it every single season I'm pretty much fine with the perfect BCS the way we have it.

[kso_FAN]

Well, since the BCS completely nails it every single season I'm pretty much fine with the perfect BCS the way we have it.

True.  But since in the worst year they might get 2 of the top 3 instead of the top 2 (at worst), I could see letting 4 in to make sure.  Could be fun; but the top 2 every year is good for college football.

[mcmwcat]

True.  But since in the worst year they might get 2 of the top 3 instead of the top 2 (at worst), I could see letting 4 in to make sure.  Could be fun; but the top 2 every year is good for college football.

but i really like watching meaningful, dramatic games (PLURAL) and the bowl system fails miserably at that.  you get the one guaranteed great game at the expense of 3+ weekends of potential greatness. 

my disdain for the bowl system is not rational.  it mainly derives from a suspicion of tradition and love of the ncaa hoops tournament. 

[Rage Against the McKee]

A playoff would be much more entertaining for the fans. That is far more important than getting the two programs with the best tradition and records on a field for a championship that the NCAA doesn't even recognize.

[kso_FAN]

True.  But since in the worst year they might get 2 of the top 3 instead of the top 2 (at worst), I could see letting 4 in to make sure.  Could be fun; but the top 2 every year is good for college football.

but i really like watching meaningful, dramatic games (PLURAL) and the bowl system fails miserably at that.  you get the one guaranteed great game at the expense of 3+ weekends of potential greatness. 

my disdain for the bowl system is not rational.  it mainly derives from a suspicion of tradition and love of the ncaa hoops tournament. 

True.  To this point, I liked Mandel's thoughts from the other day.

The prevailing thought seems to be that the BCS conferences would never give up the automatic-qualifying status for conference champions. However, do the bowls hold any sway in BCS negotiations? At this point, the Orange Bowl and the Fiesta Bowl are probably tired of hosting subpar teams from the Big East and ACC.
-- James, Ann Arbor

You'd be surprised by how little sway the bowls have when it comes to BCS decisions. Their execs are in the room for meetings. They make suggestions. They're in constant contact with their respective conference partners. But for the most part the conferences dictate almost all BCS policy, and the bowls themselves hold little leverage. What are they going to do, drop out and pass up the opportunity to host the national championship game?

But something needs to be done to give the BCS games more flexibility with their matchups. This year, the Sugar Bowl was the only one of the four with any freedom in its selections. The Rose Bowl was obligated to take TCU. The Orange Bowl was obligated to take either Stanford (since it finished in the top four) or Big East champ Connecticut. The Fiesta Bowl had to take whichever one was left. Meanwhile the Gator Bowl, which offers one-fourth the payout of a BCS game, had its choice of at least two SEC teams (Mississippi State and Tennessee) and three Big Ten teams (Michigan, Iowa and Northwestern), chose the Bulldogs and Wolverines and will likely sell out for the second straight year. Think the Oklahoma-UConn Fiesta Bowl will sell out? Think that bowl would voluntarily choose that matchup?

My proposal: Eliminate automatic bids altogether. Are they really necessary at this point? The Big Ten and SEC are going to get their two berths most years regardless. The Pac-10 will always have the Rose Bowl. The Fiesta Bowl would continue its Big 12 affiliation (or if not, the Orange Bowl would gladly step in) and perhaps even start an informal alliance with the Mountain West and BYU. The only leagues in danger some years would be the ACC and Big East, but remember that in four of the five seasons prior to this one the Big East's champ was ranked in the top 10. Those teams all would have been selected regardless of AQ status.

I'd also suggest lifting the limit on teams per conference. And structuring the revenue distribution so no one goes broke, just as Notre Dame and the five non-AQ leagues are assured a share every year now regardless of whether they qualify a team. The same would hold true if the Big East didn't send a team one year -- it wouldn't get a full share, but it wouldn't be left for broke, either.

Under this system, and assuming roughly the same selection order, we could have had the following more logical, enticing pairings this year:

Rose: 11-1 Wisconsin vs. 11-1 Stanford

Fiesta: 11-2 Oklahoma vs. 12-0 TCU

Sugar: 11-1 Ohio State vs. 10-2 Arkansas

Orange: 11-2 Virginia Tech vs. 10-2 LSU

About the only negative is that Michigan State still gets shafted. The Orange would probably go for the closer team with the more ravenous fan base. But that's also kind of the point: The bowls would go back to being able to create the matchups they prefer rather than being pigeonholed by BCS constraints.

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/stewart_mandel/12/08/bcs-process/index.html#ixzz17d4HkFki

[steve dave]

The fan entertainment playoff talking point holds much more water than the best teams talking point. 

[MakeItRain]

Well, since the BCS completely nails it every single season I'm pretty much fine with the perfect BCS the way we have it.

True.  But since in the worst year they might get 2 of the top 3 instead of the top 2 (at worst), I could see letting 4 in to make sure.  Could be fun; but the top 2 every year is good for college football.

Uh in the worst years they get a team who isn't even the best team in their own conference or worst, their own division.

[kso_FAN]

The fan entertainment playoff talking point holds much more water than the best teams talking point.  

This is an argument that I can live with.

Well, since the BCS completely nails it every single season I'm pretty much fine with the perfect BCS the way we have it.

True.  But since in the worst year they might get 2 of the top 3 instead of the top 2 (at worst), I could see letting 4 in to make sure.  Could be fun; but the top 2 every year is good for college football.

Uh in the worst years they get a team who isn't even the best team in their own conference or worst, their own division.

I see where you're going, NU in the title game was really dumb. Its gotten better though. JMHO.