Simple BCS resolution

[mantleisthebest7]

Hey y'all...

I thought long and hard about this over the weekend, and after watching the selection show everything in my head finally came together. I am a strict traditionalist and would like to see bowls stay instead of a playoff. Now let me get this out there - I am for the bowls, but heavily, HEAVILY anti-BCS. Yes, I am a Utah fan and you'd thing because we've busted it twice now that i'd be a supporter. But no, I hate it. I hate it because though i am happy to see my Utes get a bid, I am sad to see a great team like Boise get left out, even after doing all they possible could to get a big - go undefeated. I wanted to somehow miraculouosly see both teams get to go. But because the BCS is a bunch of money hogging jerk-bags, that was highly unlikely and proven on sunday. So I got thinking, and in case a playoff would not be worked out, here would be my proposal -

Expand the BCS by two conferences and one bowl.

The Cotton Bowl would be added to BCS bowl lineup, a geographic winner considering that now a bowl is featured on the pacific (Rose), mountain (Fiesta), central (Cotton), south (Sugar) and east reigons (Orange). The BCS Championship game would still be held, creating a total of six BCS bowl games.

The Mountain West and Western Athletic conferences become BCS conferences, evening out the western and eastern BCS conferences at four a piece:

WEST

Big 12

Mountain West

Pac-10

WAC

EAST

ACC

Big East

Big 10

SEC

The MWC and WAC are added for the geographical reasons as aforementioned and for the reason being the the two are the only to have teams bust the system (Utah 2x, Hawaii and Boise State).

This proposal, if passed, would also free up two more at-large bids due to the addition of a sixth bowl game, and due to the addition of the MWC and WAC, BCS-busting would now be likely for such conferences as the C-USA, MAC, Sun Belt, Independents and others.

True its a somehwat raw idea, but i'm sure something like this if worked and molded could turn into a great proposal honestly. It appeals geographically and gives almost 20 more teams title chances, perhaps more if a potential BCS-buster in the future makes a serious run. Screw the money, think about fairness and a flawed system trying to be fixed. What do you guys think about this?

[dfwabel]

Why you claim you love the bowls system, you totally rid yourself of the historical Big Ten/Pac 10 relationship with the Rose Bowl. You make no mention of it and classify the Big Ten in the East.

[oddball]

How does Notre Dame and the independents fit into this and what about the MAC. I have no problem adding the Mountain West and WAC, but the MAC is on par with those school also. Why no add the Cotton Bowl keep the bowl matchups the same but let the Cotton Bowl be an at-large with no conference affiliation. The way to do it properly is to rank only the conference champs at the end of the year and then let #1 and #2 play in the championship game and then let the bowls pick between the rest of the conference champions. It then makes the BCS a real Bowl Championship System and only confrence winners are included and then you could let the rest of the bowls select the best matchup either with conference affiliations or at large teams provided that at team finishes two games over .500. Teams that finish .500 don't deserve a bowl game. Go back to making it a reward and cut down on the bowl games. We don't need two games in San Diego, Orlando, New Orleans. We don't need a game in Detroit, Buffalo or Boise, and we don't need games in Charlotte and Washington DC.

[TheAK47]

Hey y'all...

I thought long and hard about this over the weekend, and after watching the selection show everything in my head finally came together. I am a strict traditionalist and would like to see bowls stay instead of a playoff. Now let me get this out there - I am for the bowls, but heavily, HEAVILY anti-BCS. Yes, I am a Utah fan and you'd thing because we've busted it twice now that i'd be a supporter. But no, I hate it. I hate it because though i am happy to see my Utes get a bid, I am sad to see a great team like Boise get left out, even after doing all they possible could to get a big - go undefeated. I wanted to somehow miraculouosly see both teams get to go. But because the BCS is a bunch of money hogging jerk-bags, that was highly unlikely and proven on sunday. So I got thinking, and in case a playoff would not be worked out, here would be my proposal -

Boise State played a horrible schedule man, I'm sorry but they don't deserve a BCS bid.

[-kj]

Why don't the BCS conferences just leave the NCAA and create their own thing already? That's what they've been trying to do already, just without saying it.

[dfwabel]

Why don't the BCS conferences just leave the NCAA and create their own thing already? That's what they've been trying to do already, just without saying it.

For football, they technically already did when they formed the CFA in the 1970s to negociated their own TV contract. If they split, then they might be forced to only schedule each other out of conference, thus making each other weary as game could be lost to superior teams. Currently, conferences negotiate their own contracts. There was a Supreme Court case with Oklahoma and Georgia brought suit against the NCAA in 1984 over TV rights and membership.

[-kj]

If they split, then they might be forced to only schedule each other out of conference, thus making each other weary as game could be lost to superior teams.

Good.

[Luigi74]

Why don't the BCS conferences just leave the NCAA and create their own thing already? That's what they've been trying to do already, just without saying it.

The BCS Conferences have all the power in the NCAA, they don't need to break away from them.

Also the BCS Bowls will not allow another bowl to get into their monopoly, so don't count on the Cotton becoming a BCS Bowl.

[-kj]

Why don't the BCS conferences just leave the NCAA and create their own thing already? That's what they've been trying to do already, just without saying it.

The BCS Conferences have all the power in the NCAA, they don't need to break away from them.

Also the BCS Bowls will not allow another bowl to get into their monopoly, so don't count on the Cotton becoming a BCS Bowl.

...which, really, is my point.

[Viper]

I take an all-or-nothing approach to the national championship. If there is not to be a playoff, they should simply play the traditional pre-BCS bowl matchups and let the final polls decide the national championship. Any attempt to shoehorn an on-the-field national championship scheme into the bowl system diminishes them both.

[mantleisthebest7]

Thanks everyone for the comments, I appreciate all of them. Now to address the concerns -

-The Pac-10/Big 10 Rose Bowl tradition would most likely (and hopefully) stay intact. True, I am only 16 and have not experienced as much of the traditions as most, but also as aforementioned I am a strict traditionalist and would love to see the tradition stay. I believe that a propsed system like this would not interfere with it. And the Big 10 would not be in some "eastern conference" or such if thats what youre getting at, dfwabel. I was only showing just a geographical representation. So count on the Big 10 and Pac 10 still playing in the rose bowl.

-For the Independents and other conferences, I am still trying to find a solution to suit them. I had added the MWC and WAC for geographical reasons and for the fact that they were the only to bust the BCS, so those two were the first to pop into my head. I had been unaware that Notre Dame was the only independent to have shots at BCS-bowls until recently (about a month or so ago) due to thier tie in with the Big East. I am currently mulling over that and am leaning towards revising my proposal to lift the tie-in and make the entire independents group eligible for the BCS. I would enjoy seeing, (if not Notre Dame) Army or Navy attend a BCS bowl. Infact I would support it. With the Others such as the MAC, Sun Belt and C-USA, thier current roles are potential BCS-busters. However i dont wish to exclude them. Again, the only reason i had left these eastern conferences out was to balance the geographical areas of the BCS.

The purpose of this proposal was to create sort of a "lesser evil" system IF and only IF a playoff could not be obtained. I wish to get out there that I am not at all against conferences such as the MAC, Sun Belt and C-USA. Not at all. I am only just trying to find a more fair solution if a playoff could not be obtained and the BCS had to stay. My honest to goodness views are that i wish every conference had title shots and big bowl shots. But if the BCS is to stay, it seems nearly impossible.

[Duncan1800]

I'd rather see Notre Dame join the rest of the world and pick a freakin' conference already, instead of continuing to watch the entire NCAA Football universe bow to their whim. Well, them and the "almighty" SEC, that is. If I hear one more analyst compare the SEC to the NFL, I might throw my remote through the TV.

Rather than attempt to create a structured playoff system, I'm more in favor of a promotion/relegation scheme like they have in Euro-league soccer. Supposedly "top-tier" teams that end up playing bad football (Michigan, Washington, Irish, I'm talking to you) get knocked down to a lesser level, while teams that play above and beyond their competition (Ball State, Boise, Utah) get bumped up for the next season. Fail to perform, and you fall back again. Hence, the highest-level teams get to compete for a shot at the big bowls, while lower-ranked teams still have something to shoot for (and I'm sure you could convince all those sponsors that second-tier bowl games would be just as good, right?).

What I'd like to see go away is the constant process, every Saturday evening, of analyzing exactly why Team A has no shot at improving their supposed "rank" among the voters, while Team B is automatically assumed to be a lock for number one because "everyone just wants to see them up there".

If the teams' ascent or decline in the rankings were based on something concrete, rather than a collective gut feeling, I'd be excited to see who's playing for the national title every year. Instead, I find myself rationalizing each match-up and hoping it'll be a good game.

Sorry, but that's no way to run what is supposed to be a sports league. Championships are, well, WON by teams that put out the best effort every week - they shouldn't be granted by a select few as some sort of anointment.

[dfwabel]

I'd rather see Notre Dame join the rest of the world and pick a freakin' conference already, instead of continuing to watch the entire NCAA Football universe bow to their whim. Well, them and the "almighty" SEC, that is. If I hear one more analyst compare the SEC to the NFL, I might throw my remote through the TV.

Rather than attempt to create a structured playoff system, I'm more in favor of a promotion/relegation scheme like they have in Euro-league soccer. Supposedly "top-tier" teams that end up playing bad football (Michigan, Washington, Irish, I'm talking to you) get knocked down to a lesser level, while teams that play above and beyond their competition (Ball State, Boise, Utah) get bumped up for the next season. Fail to perform, and you fall back again. Hence, the highest-level teams get to compete for a shot at the big bowls, while lower-ranked teams still have something to shoot for (and I'm sure you could convince all those sponsors that second-tier bowl games would be just as good, right?).

What I'd like to see go away is the constant process, every Saturday evening, of analyzing exactly why Team A has no shot at improving their supposed "rank" among the voters, while Team B is automatically assumed to be a lock for number one because "everyone just wants to see them up there".

If the teams' ascent or decline in the rankings were based on something concrete, rather than a collective gut feeling, I'd be excited to see who's playing for the national title every year. Instead, I find myself rationalizing each match-up and hoping it'll be a good game.

Sorry, but that's no way to run what is supposed to be a sports league. Championships are, well, WON by teams that put out the best effort every week - they shouldn't be granted by a select few as some sort of anointment.

Welcome to this board, but higher education is not just in the sport business, they are in the business of research and in fact, education. Why should a poor football or basketball record make a school "fall" in terms of rankings? Would that mean that if a school was determined to be a bigger "party school" that another it should lose federal research funding as we don't know how many of the student body drinks and fails to do enough for cancer research? I think that Rice, Stanford, Vanderbilt, and Wake Forest have done well for themselves under the current system as BCS schools. Heck, Vandy merged Athletics with Student Affiars/Campus Life (Housing and Recreation) and on their scale it seems to work very well.

Plus, if wins are the only criteria you are looking at, then graduation rates would never account for anything. Get a stud basketball player for one year and football players for two and just throw them out as you really would not need them as they will be ounger people available. that's very ethical for a college. There are some schools which state money is still used to provide athletic scholarships, and now you do think that a form like a Euorpean club in competing for talent is accpetable? That is the system which we do not need to have. Your thoughts place an enormous place on winning rather than developing learning outcomes and leadership skills which most schools want to provide to all incoming freshmen. Even if they really don't want to be ther or not, if you accept the contract, honor parts of it.