Here's a thread to post what YUO think should be done about the BCS...




The BCS school presidents don't want to change the system because they make all the money in the current system.

So let's let them have that AND have a playoff:


Using the 2004 results as an example:

12 teams get in, 4 teams get first round byes
6 teams are the conference champion from the BCS conferences, the other 6 spots are at-large.

Fiirst round games held the week before New Years

#1: USC (bye)
#2: Oklahoma (bye)
#3: Auburn (bye)
#4: Texas (bye)

Regional Locations:
WEST - San Diego (Holiday Bowl)
#5: Cal vs #12: Pitt (automatic berth)

MIDWEST - Memphis (Liberty Bowl)
#6: Utah vs #11: Michigan (automatic berth)

EAST - Atlanta (Peach Bowl)
#7: Georgia vs #10: Louisville

SOUTH - Tampa (Outback Bowl)
#8: Virginia Tech (automatic berth) vs #9: Boise St.


Hypothetical:
Second Round:

Quarter Finals:
WEST - Phoenix (Fiesta Bowl)
#1: USC vs #11: Michigan

MIDWEST - Dallas (Cotton Bowl)
#2: Oklahoma vs #10: Louisville

SOUTH - Orlando (Capital One Bowl)
#3: Auburn vs #7: Georgia

EAST - Jacksonville (Gator bowl)
#4: Texas vs #5 Cal



Semi-Finals:
Sugar Bowl, New Orleans
#2: Oklahoma vs #3: Auburn

Rose Bowl, Pasadena
#1: USC vs #5: Cal



National Championship:
Orange Bowl, Miami, FL

#1: USC vs #2: Oklahoma



Specs:
Revenue to be shared in a format simliar to the existing BCS format.

Sponsorship and TV revenue for the first round games will be spread evenly to all 12 participants.

Remaining games revenue will be seperated amoungst participants (and their conferences).

Format can rotate each year with the championship and semi finals changing between Orange, Rose, and Sugar Bowls. Every few years a roation could bring in the Cotton or Fiesta to replace on of the 3 as a semi-final game.


First round locations: cities/bowls/sponsors can bid for a spot years in advance, similar to the NCAA with basketball.

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.

Want to limit it to just 8 schools?



Quarter Finals:
WEST - Phoenix (Fiesta Bowl)
#1: USC (automatic bid) vs #8: Pitt (automatic bid)

MIDWEST - Dallas (Cotton Bowl)
#2: Oklahoma (automatic bid) vs #7: Michigan (automatic bid)

EAST - Jacksonville (Gator bowl)
#3: Auburn (automatic bid) vs #6: Virginia Tech (automatic bid)

SOUTH - Memphis (Liberty Bowl)
#4: Texas vs #5 Cal





Semi-Finals:
Sugar Bowl, New Orleans
#2: Oklahoma vs #3: Auburn

Rose Bowl, Pasadena
#1: USC vs #5: Cal



National Championship:
Orange Bowl, Miami, FL

#1: USC vs #2: Oklahoma

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.

I've advocated this before: I say use the bowl system and have one championship game played after the bowls.

What I find bothers people most about the bowls is that you're losing a lot of the tradition the bowls are supposed to represent while still having difficulty establishing a true championship. While I would be fine with having multiple champions (its part of college football lore, anyway), if the bowls were crafted to match as many conference champions as possible then it's likely the post-bowl championship would resolve a lot of problems.

My personal favorite, a BCS-like arrangement between the SEC, ACC, Big 12, MWC and BE which would allow for flexibility in assignments to the Orange, Sugar and Fiesta bowls but only when needed.

(1) Name the big-time bowl that WANTS to be a quarterfinal site.

(2) Could a school possibly send 30K-40K fans to 3-4 consecutive games in consecutive weekends at neutral sites?

(3) If a bowl does the supposedly logical thing and try to cater to the local fans, how do they offset the loss of travel industry revenue because the sponsors don't get a real return on their investment?

I demand a playoff... but there won't be any bowls involved.

Hey Pounder
Many bowls know they are not the number one bowl for any game. A rotation of bowls can be made that will hold finals, semifinals, quarterfinals game(s). Yes, the studies have been made and fans can support their teams if such a playoff is held. An example of this are the travel patterns, team support in College Basket Ball, Pro BBall and Pro Football. As for travel, a rotation of championship sites could allow for fans to experience areas around our country which generate revenue. It is not that expensive to drive, fly, or train to support the team(s) of Fan choosing. Travel and Fans together can support the bowls and do this like we see in other sports. This play off could create an even better relationship between each entity to enjoy. Think Progressive! :)

Plus 1 doesn't work. Due to upsets, there will be MORE controversy than ever if you adopt a plus 1 model. Picking the top 2 is generally much easier before the bowls.

You also get a lot of bowl games like last weekend where TN, CU, UCLA and USM had nothing to lose and their opponents have everything to lose.

Quinn, you have a good proposal.

What I will propose is something that may be a little more politically feasible until a real playoff comes around. It allows the Presidents to save face and the Big conferences to keep a little of their priviliges and control.

Take 11 teams, the Big 5, 3 other conference champs if they rank in the top 25 in whatever system is used, and the highest ranking other schools to fill out the field.

The Big 10 and Pac 10 always get seeded into the Rose Bowl, The Big 12 into the Fiesta, The SEC into the Sugar and the ACC into the Orange.

The other 6 schools have a play-in game the 2nd week of December at the home field of the higher seeded team. The 3 winners go to the Fiesta/Sugar/Orange based on their seed and the seedings of the Big12/SEC/ACC champs. Some manipulation of the seedings would be permitted, if desired, to avoid January 1 rematches.

The Rose and Fiesta winners meet in a western bowl, say the Houston Bowl (would work better geographically if the Fiesta was a semi-final and the Houston was the January 1 bowl). The Sugar and Orange meet in an eastern bowl, say the Gator Bowl.

The finals are rotated between the Big 4 bowls.

All 6 bowls involved win, the Rose in particular gets their traditional matchup back, the Big 5 keep their slots, the other conferences (except the BE) have an easier chance to get in even if its a little tougher to show up on New Year's, and TV gets big matchups.

To illustrate using this year and this year's BCS as the ranking system:

Play-in:

#10 Louisville
at #4 Texas
winner goes to Orange (VT #3 of Big12/SEC/ACC)

#9 Boise St.
at #5 Cal
winner goes to Sugar (Auburn #2 of Big12/SEC/ACC)

#7 Georgia
at #6 Utah
winner goes to Fiesta (OU #1 of Big12/SEC/ACC)

assume the favorites win:

Rose Bowl #13 Michigan vs. #1 USC

Fiesta #2 OU vs. #6 Utah

Sugar #5 Cal vs. #3 Auburn

Orange #4 Texas vs. #8 Virginia Tech

assume the favorites win, the semi-finals would be:

Houston Bowl #1USC vs. #2 OU

Gator Bowl #4 Texas vs. #3 Auburn

again assuming the favorites win the finals would be:

#1 USC vs. #3 Auburn

The only teams left out for lower teams would be #11 LSU and #12 Iowa (but they lost to #13 Michigan). The BE (Pitt #21), MAC (Toledo probably 25-30) and Sun Belt (North Texas probably around 40-50) would miss. I suspect this setup would encourage the MWC and BE to expand in order to reduce their competition. The WAC would probably dissappear, leaving 5 conferences going for 3 slots. The new attendance standards if enforced will likely knock out the Sun Belt and a good part of the WAC and MAC, so there would probably be at least one and maybe 2 other conference dissappear leaving 3 or 4 conferences going for 3 slots.

The Presidents would save face as there would only be 4.5 extra games and noone would play more than 3 extra, normally noone more than 2. The season would only be extended one week and in net student weeks it would be reduced. If the play-in winners lost on January 1:
3 Play in losers-same number of games, finish 2.5 weeks earlier than otherwise (mid December instead of January 1)
3 Play in winners-1 extra game, finish same time.
1 Rose Bowl loser-same number of games, same finish
2 semi-final losers-1 extra game, finish 1 week later
2 finalists-2 extra games, finish 1 week later (presumably they would be in the championship game a week after January 1 in the currently planned 2006 system).
So 5 teams play 1 extra and 2 play 2 extra.
3 teams finish 2.5 weeks earlier and 4 teams finish 1 week later for a net of 3.5 student weeks earlier (3X2.5-4X1).

If the Play in winners all kept winning except when playing each other, it would be:
1 team plays 1 extra
1 team plays 2 extra
2 teams play 3 extra
and it would still be 3 teams finishing 2.5 weeks earlier and the other teams finishing a net 4 weeks later for a net of 3.5 student weeks earlier.

If you're going to have a playoff, NO AUTO BIDS!

The selection comittee would take into account quality wins, strength of schedule, etc.

I don't want to fix the BCS. I want it dead, and I want to beat the corpse mercilessly.

You are all concerned about the aftermath of the BCS. To get where you want, you must kill it. Don't watch the bowls on TV, boycott the sponsors, and they'll either have to fix it or die. Just don't be surprised when (1) the bowls don't want to go away quietly, and (2) they care not one lick about how your playoff proposal includes them, it's their money (according to them).

Stiffer, there are very substantial reasons the BCS and/or bowls haven't already proposed a playoff system themselves- which they could do tomorrow. Today, even. If those studies you mentioned meant anything, they would already be there.

The only question to ask after that is if Gunner's non-quest for a playoff suits you better than my almost reactionary demand for it. I think that's a more worthy debate in the long run.

Actually, the BCS is on its way to killing itself. This year was wonderful. A non-BCS team got a $14 million share. The SEC and Pac 10 got the shaft. The Rose Bowl didn't get who it wanted. The Fiesta got an 8-3 team and a non-BCS team. The Sugar got an unhappy Auburn team. Ironically, the ticket sales will probably be great in Pasadena and Tempe because of the non-traditional teams going.

The new system with the double game for one bowl and the 2nd game a week later will go a long way to killing the BCS. It will devalue the first game. And it will devalue New Year's Day as the BIG game will be the next week. The New Year's Day games will suffer and that will eventually force the bowls to reverse course and beg for a playoff.

The arms race already has the non-BCS and Big 12 wanting a playoff to increase $. For relief the Big 12 is pushing a 12th game. Even Nebraska has recently dropped sports. If the 12th game is approved, it will be interesting to see how the Presidents justify it. It won't be long before the Pac 10 and Big East really feel the $ strains. It will eventually catch up to the ACC/SEC and even the Big 10 too.

Will both games at the same site be referred to by the same name each year (i.e. Rose Bowl I and Rose Bowl II)?

Yeah since the Big 10 is just barely getting by with 3 teams that average over 100k.

"*Groan* Too much travelling. I don't feel like going."--millions of football fans.

The matchups are just fine. Only the semis and championship game should be played on neutral sites. There'll have to be some home games under your system.



Three rounds (8 teams) will suffice. Begin the playoffs the second Saturday of December. The top four teams in the country host the next four teams in the first round. The four losers are sent to bowls.

The semis and finals are held in neutral sites.

Just remember--the Pac-10 will never be satisfied.

Losers go home. The playoffs replace the bowls for the teams involved. After a loss, the players and fans aren't going to be interested in a bowl. In the bb tourney, there used to be consolation games in the regionals and finals, but those got dropped due to lack of interest.

Blow it up! ;D

The bowl system is an anachronistic joke. Meaningless exhibition games. Only people inbred on college football think it matters. No one else cares.

This is not rocket science. Play-off models already exist for other divisions. Pick one. Or take the top 4 conference champions & add one game. Or take the 4 BCS bowl winners & add 3 games (2 weeks).

Sheesh. Get it done & move on with life. College football continues to marginalize itself with this archaic system. It's the 21st century! Not the 19th.

Football is supposedly America's most popular sport. Then why are the bowls so worried about fan turn-out? Why do they take schools that "travel well" over schools that are more competitive? Why does the NCAA basketball tournament generate more revenue than all the bowls combined?

Please don't answer these questions. They are rhetorical. Besides the answers are obvious. No one cares about the bowls except the schools directly involved. Except for the national championship game, of course. Set up a national championship tournament & it will generate interest. Continue with the present system & you'll be asking the same question in 50 years - when soccer will have taken over fan interest with a national tournament.