I am sick and tired of watching the buffoons who run the BCS. It's turning into a huge joke. I was listening to the radio today and the guy said: "the BCS has quickly become the biggest shame in our country". I mean, look, Canada has College football and it has a PLAYOFFf. All over US College sports and most of College football, there's PLAYOFFS. If you look at Europe, the regular season soccer/hockey/basketball champion of each country (similar to a conference) participates in a Pan-European TOURNAMENT for the bragging rights to be "European Champions." The TOURNAMENTS in Europe are so popular, frequently they 3 and 4 TOURNAMENTS per sport.

What do we have for D-1A football here in the US? A computer system and bowl games and voting(or the BCS). How can the BCS be taken seriously? They change the rules constantly just so they please any cry-baby who starts crying whenever there is a bump on the road.

Here are some of the rule changes, some of which are ridiculous:


-Kansas State Rule: If a team finishes #3 in the BCS and doesn't have a BCS bowl berth, it gets one automatically. If it alreay has one, then BCS #4 gets the berth.

-Notre Dame rule: Notre Dame is on par with any of the BCS conferences when it comes to voting. Making Notre Dame more powerful than any other individual school. (I'm an Irish fan, and I still feel they need to come off their high horse)

-Miami rule: Teams receive bonus points for beating any team in the top 10 of the BCS. This is redundant since teams are already rewarded with victories against top 10 schools in their "Strength of Schedule" and in the Computer Ratings.

-BYU rule: Dropping a non-BCS school from consideration before a school has even lost a game to encourage it to lose to justify it's exclusion.

-Oregon rule: Removal of margin of victory

Here's the newest rule and it's a kicker and probably the worst rule:

-Iowa rule: Whenever the BCS feels like it, it can forget about the BCS rules altogether and just give an at-large berth to a school to be in a Bowl game even before the final BCS standings are in, just to please a conference or a school or a bowl game or help a conference (Big Ten) to screw over a school or another conference(Notre Dame). (It's not the Ohio St rule since Ohio St. was guaranteed it's spot with it's record and under normal BCS rules.)

Here's a rule that was discussed but not implemented:

-Nebraska rule: Part A: No team can qualify for BCS title game unless it is its conference's champ or its conference champ is already in the title game, unless your Notre Dame and don't beloing to a conference

-Nebraska rule: Part B: An oversight committee that would rearrange teams if the BCS system spits out something controverisal or irregular or has the country asking for the death of the BCS.

The BCS is a huge joke.


I love bowl games but I'd rather see a playoff with bowl games as consolation prizes for teams losing out.

Why not an 8 team playoff with 8 conference champs (1-A should only be 8 conferences anyways)? Have the tournament start in early december. The first week (quarter-finals) , 2nd week (semi-finals) and then 2 weeks off and have the National title game on New Year's Day. The teams eliminated can be place in Bowls and still have time to practice and make travel arrangements and promote their bowl games since they have 2 weeks.

This way, 8 teams participate in a playoff, the remaining bowls can fill up with secondary schools and the 4 majors rotate the title game every year, but in non-title years they can choose from the 6 eliminees.

i would keep the bcs as a means for seeding the 8-team tournament you suggest. and i would tweak it slightly, to take the top 6 conference champs and the top 2 at-large teams as shown in the bcs standings.

that's 7 games in 3 weekends, and it is doable. use the 4 bcs games as the quarterfinals (if the rose wants to keep traditional matchups, the pac 10 and big 10 can play every year, though that may mean a 1 vs. 2 matchup in the quarterfinals). semis and finals at pre-determined neutral sites. tampa, san antonio, houston, los angeles or anaheim. schools would only have to guarantee attendance at the quarterfinals. the semis and finals would have national interest, and plenty of people would pay for tickets.

but i also think there has to be stricter control of aspects like schedule strength. teams from the sec and acc, and even big 12 that schedule 3 soft non-conference opponents at home should be penalized. not everyone has to schedule like usc did this year (colorado, notre dame, kansas state and auburn), but at least one from a bcs conference, one from a mid-level conference like usa, wac or mwc, and at least one on the road. every year. most mid-majors eventually slip up (colorado state losing to unlv; bowling green to toledo and niu; byu last year to hawaii; fresno state's late season tumble), but if ever a team from a mid-major DID run the table, at least it would have to defeat 2 or 3 quality opponents out of conference. and likewise, a 6-5 arkansas team that beats louisiana-monroe, utah state and smu at home is not deserving of any bowl, no matter who they beat in conference.

the fact is, only a small number of teams can legitimately compete for the national championship, and that number is likely between 4 and 8. it's not like we're asking for march madness in january. but to have a tournament where all the top teams and conferences are represented is the only way to legitimize a national champion.

good post, tigerfan.

and i might make an exception for florida state this year. a 4-loss team should vacate its berth in the playoff. there are a dozen teams with better records who will be playing for close to the minimum payout. boise state, kansas state, et al.

But to do that you would need a 16 team playoff. With 11 conferences (Yes I include the MAC, Sun Belt, WAC, etc. You win your conference you deserve a shot no matter how weak your conference is. basketball, baseball, etc do it..football should to) you would have 11 automatics and 5 at large teams. The 5 at large bids would pick up teams without a conference (ND and any other eligible indy) and teams who finished 2nd, but may rate higher than their champion in a ranking system.

My sample playoffs for this year, based on a few assumptions going into this weekends championship games, regular season games, etc. These are my rankings based on a lot of things and some creative thinking. Please don't whine "so and so is higher ranked than whats their name" This is just an example. * = at large team.

Round 1
#16 North Texas @ #1 Miami
#15 TCU @ #2 Ohio State
#14 Colorado St @ #3 USC
#13 Toledo @ # 4 Georgia
#12 Notre Dame * @ #5 Oklahoma
#11 Boise St @ #6 Kansas St *
#10 Wash. St * @ #7 Iowa *
#9 FSU @ #8 Texas*

Are there some mismatches?...of course...but there are mismatches in any playoff system. There is also the chance that like in the NCAA B-Ball Tourney where the #2 seed has a history of getting upset.
Hold the first two rounds on campus, then the final 4 and finals at neutral locations one week apart. Give the bowls a choice to bid to be one of the 3 rotating locations or stay a non tourney bowl. The non tourney bowls that survive can be used for the teams who do not qualify. They'd whine that " Now the ' Andy's Crabgrass Remover Lawnmower Bowl' doesn't has as much luster because it doesn't matter" but in reality there has only been one bowl that has mattered in the grand scheme of things since they BCS was created. A few bowls will fold...all the better since there are too many of them now.
Of course there will be people who say one of two things about this format #1 "It would make the season too long for the players" Considering the fact that this year there are teams like Iowa State who could have played 15 games (preseason "classic", 12 game regular season, Big XII title game, bowl game) and a ton of teams who will have played 14 games...that doesn't wash. Limit the regular season to 11 games and there will be 2 teams who play 15 games. Considering the fact that even though there are not games the teams are practicing for bowls till up to Jan 3rd this year anyway there really isn't an arguement. #2 They will say "Now the regular season doesn't matter because you can still win it all in the playoffs" That's total BS. If you don't have the mindset in the regular season that every single game matters you'll be going to a regular bowl instead of fighting for the title. If anything this will put greater meaning on the regular season for a lot more teams because for the first time ever they will actually have a chance at winning the national title. All they have to do is take care of business on the field week 1 - week 11 and they'll have an honest shot...instead of close to half the teams going into the season knowing no matter how good they are this year they have no shot in the world.

It would work...even if the BCS schools say it can't.

Catdaddy2402,
Interesting post, but it needs some improvement. The Big 12 and the SEC (in normal years) can have as many as half of the top teams between them! Their conference championship is the first round of a playoff.

On the weekend that the SEC and Big 12 have their playoff, you could have the Sun belt champ play the ACC champ, the MWC play the PAC 10 etc. Now you would be down to the 6 BCS conferences (since they would almost always win). Of course something would have to be done about the MAC. You probably raid it for Marshall (to the ACC or BE) and forget the rest.

This does not cure all the problems of the BCS, but it is a start.

FBfan

I'm a big fan of the 12 team format: the top 4 teams get BYES and get to play the quarterfinal games at home. The "BCS" system would determine the seeds for the top 12. Figure that the 6 conference champs would get automatic bids with 6 at large bids.

_________________


@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 want massive realignment so that D-1A can be only 8 Conferences of 12 teams with no independents. I want teams to play 11 games and have a conference title game on the last weekend of november or first weekend of December as to permit 2 playoff rounds and a 2 week break before the national title game.

I want Notre Dame in a conference,. Maybe Notre Dame can build it's on conference by bringing in schools it wants. Or whatever. i just want Notre Dame in a conference for football.

I'm tired of people saying because of the BCS, every regular season game is important and the entire regular season is a giant playoff, it isn't. Before the first game is even played, 64 teams are out of the running for the title game (no matter what the BCS says, it's true) The games for those 64 schools don't count. Just look at BYU, it was undefeated a year ago and the BCS left them out. Granted BYU didn't finish the season undefeated, but the BCS outright said that BYU's record meant nothing. All the games BYU had won meant nothing. The BCS said they weren't even considering them. What does that say about the other 63 non-BCS schools in other years?

I also think there are way too many 1-A programs out there. 117 as of right now with a few more eyeing the jump. There's not enough room. I'm ready to kiss goodbye the whole Sun Belt and many of the weaker MAC teams. I am sick and tired of listening to Sun Belt people talking about how "GREAT" their conference is and how "GREAT" the New Orleans Bowl is. It's not. How can a conference that is made up with so many teams on the requirements bubble think it will be around and begin to dominate 1-A football? The New Orleans Bowl is a crappy bowl because it has the Sun Belt Champ vs. a C-USA #4 or 5. How great can the SBC and the New Orleans bowl be if the best they can draw for their bowl is an C-USA 4 or 5?

-8 Conferences of 12 teams (96 schools)
-11 regular season games (inlcudes 1 rivalry game for each school. Schools that don't have rivals will have to create one.)
-a Computer to put together the non-conference schedule for all the schools so as to provide new matchups or old matchups in new locations...avoid having schools that have never met.
-8 conference champs in a tournament
-Tournament seeding decided by geography or BCS formula
-6 eliminated teams participate in 3 non-title game BCS bowls.
-Conference Shootout Weekends(1 weekend a season where all teams from one conference take on the teams from another conference) ex. One year you could have a Shootout Weekend where you get ACC vs. SEC, Big East vs Big Ten, Pac-10 vs. Big 12, etc....The conferences would alternate every year and every 7 years crown the title of "The Conference of Kings" to the best conference.

My position on the various BCS tweaks mentioned in the inaugural post of this thread:

Kansas State rule: This rule is very necessary and should be expanded. The first two non-conference winners should be guaranteed BCS berths, unless those teams are from the same conference. Under this system, Iowa and USC would be guaranteed berths this year. Remember what happened when KSU lost to Texas A&M? They fell all the way to the Alamo Bowl. Had this rule been in effect, they would have still been in the BCS.

Notre Dame rule: Kill it! Notre Dame should need to finish among the top two at-larges in the standings to go BCS bowling. One only needs to look at the 2000 Fiesta Bowl and this year's USC game for the reason why. If Notre Dame wants an automatic berth, they need to join the Big East for football.

Miami rule: It is double jeopardy as indicated. Thankfully, that rule will not make a difference this year, with only Top 10 wins creating deductions. Did this rule make a difference last year?

BYU rule: This "rule" is cruel as indicated, but it would not make a difference, especially if the Kansas State rule is strengthened.

Oregon rule: Good rule. It is not foolproof, but margin of victory is already taken into account by the pollsters. It would be double jeopardy to count margin of victory, even in a limited role, such as distinguishing 3 point wins with 17 point wins. One problem is the pollsters are not foolproof and Nebraska still got enough love from the pollsters to get into the Rose Bowl despite their shellacking in Boulder.

Nebraska rules: Rule A is formidable, but it was defeated because one loss should not eliminate a team from national championship contention if there are less than two undefeated teams. In Nebraska's case, that one loss kept it out of the conference championship game. Rule B is not needed if the BCS properly puts the top two teams in the championship game.

Iowa rule: Until the Kansas State rule is strengthened and Notre Dame can get into BCS by just being in the Top 12, the conferences need to defend their interests by playing this kind of hardball. I was impressed by the Big 10's audacity. You can bet they are still unhappy Notre Dame rejected their invite to join the conference.

What is the goal of the BCS? The more cynical of you will say money, and that is correct. But their stated goal is to provide a 1-2 matchup. The other game are just window dressing, but it is nice to see the real top teams in the country get in and fight it out.

I want to preserve the tradition of college football. Going to a playoff, while potentially giving the little guy a better shot, would sterilize the sport. I do not want that to happen to my favorite sport.

ok, but that would require massive realignment, which may not happen for another 10 years. i am not saying i'm against that kind of realignment, but i'd like to get a playoff in place asap.

in the meantime, a 16-team playoff is probably not workable. it adds 4 weeks to the season -- right around final exams. as long as players still have to satisfy academic requirements, universities will never let that happen. the 1-aa playoff starts the saturday after thanksgiving and is over by christmas. the basketball tournament only lasts 3 weeks. and most important, the extra teams you add have all proven over the course of a season that they are not competitive with the top teams in the league.

an 8-team playoff would accomplish everything a 16-team playoff would, in less time, with less revenue lost. if you still want to include everyone, take kingcal's idea and have the mac, mwc, wac and usa champs play in for the final 2 spots. sbc is a joke, they don't belong in a playoff, unless it's a 1-aa playoff (if you don't believe me, check the sagarin ratings). notre dame can play the big east champ on december 7 if you like. then you have your 8 teams.

but i still don't know how you justify taking a 2 or 3 loss team from a mid-major over an 11-1 iowa team than went undefeated in the big 10.

my reply was to tigerfan, by the way. sorry for any confusion, turtlepower.

the reason i prefer a limited playoff is to reward teams like usc and iowa that are playing their best football late in the year.

and to distinguish between an 11-1 team that had the benefit of starting the season with a high pollster ranking and one that had to fight its way up week by week.

to Sbro...I'm listening and I'm happy that atleast someone out there was change rom the status quo. Over how the playoff should be implemented, I don't know. I want actually a 16 team playoff, but as of right now with the College Presidents saying "no more games" I had to shrink my playoff proposal.

BTW, does anybody here know how the playoff is run in Canada? Here:

First you need to know there's 2 bodies in Canada for College sports: CIS (Canadian Interuniversity Sports) and the CCAA (minor colleges). I will explain the CIS playoff because it includes all the big schools in Canada.

The CIS is comprised of 4 conferences:

CAN West Conference - 7 teams
OUA - 10 teams
QIFC - 5 teams (6 next season)
AUAA - 4 teams

Yes, the conferences are unbalanced when it comes to the number of member schools but they are all considered even. Each school plays 8 games, most of which are just conference games, though the AUAA and QIFC play against each other out of conference.

Each conference has it's own seperate playoffs:

CAN West 4-team playoff
OUA 8-team playoff
QIFC 4-team playoff
AUAA 2-team playoff

Each of the conference playoff champs advances to the National semi-finals. The semi-final matchups are on a 3 year cycle. Each conference faces the other 3 over the course of 3 years. The 2 semi-final winners make it to the National Title Game or the Vanier Cup.


Fact:

Vanier Cup started out as a Bowl-type game with teams invetented, then switched to a title game of a playoff.

I seriously doubt you are going to see any major conference realignment to get to a playoff. IMHO you don't need it, and the drawbacks of a conference of more than 9 have been made more than clear with the Ohio St/Iowa debate going on all year. If you don't play every team in your conference IMHO you are not the true champion, no matter what kind of title game you play. Also 1-AA has unbalanced conferences....other than this year you don't normally hear too much complaining. It doesn't matter...most of the conferences out there are satisfied with the way things are now.

As for a team with less wins making the playoff as an automatic because they win the Conference and a team with less losses being left out because they didn't.....tough. Either win the conference or sweat out getting an at large bid. If I had my druthers....the tourney would be for conference champions only with no at large bids. Div 1-AA teams know going in the season the only sure way they get in the tourny is to win the conference.

Tigerfan 79
BYU rule- To be the man you have to beat the man. BYU does not play anybody. D1B schools don't count. Miss ST was good the year before, but has been in a terrible slump the last 2 yrs. BYU and Marshall need to play ALL their nonconference games against traditional top 20 teams, or join a stronger conference. Marshall apparently wants to. The BE or ACC should have some courage and let them in.

Catdaddy
What happens when the SEC east or one of the Big 12 divisions has two of the top 5 teams? Tough is not fair. As previously noted (I think by KingCal) on another thread, what is to stop NB from joining CUSA and not getting seriously challenged for 10 years. (Note FSU's run in the ACC.)

If you rearrange the conferences to balance them, you wind up on the dream thread. :) The next best thing is to have bowl games on the weekend of the SEC and Big 12 championship games. These bowls would pit the BCS conference champs that don't have a championship,
against the non BCS conference champs. The fact that the MAC gets left out is tough... but fair. Marshall needs to join a BCS conference. Thre rest are not much better than the Sun Belt.

FBfan

First thing that stops them is there has to be a bid. I doubt very seriously that any conference would allow a 300 lb gorilla to join knowing full well it would cost the existing memebrs a chance at the national title.

Nobody knew that FSU was going to have a 10 year dominance of the ACC, especially the ACC. Coming into 1991 the ACC had several teams who were playing great. Clemson was coming off their 5th Conference Title in 10 years in 91 and a final #17 ranking that season, their 6th consecutive year of being in the final rankings of one poll or another, Ga Tech was two years removed from their National Title and a solid 8-5 record in 91, and Virginia was coming off their 5th straight winning season. What helped FSu with their run is changes at the head coaching position at Clemson and GT. Danny Ford was fired after a run in with Clemson's President...Bobby Ross bolted to the pros. The rest is history. I feel very confident in the fact that if both Danny Ford and Bobby Ross had stayed that FSU wouldn't have owned the ACC like they had. FSU had a solid program and wanted to make sure that they would have a spot to play post season ball with the bowls all making conference alignments. They were 1-1 against Clemson in the immediate years before joining the ACC...with a blowout loss in Tally. The last thing in FSU's mind when they joined the ACC was " Hey...we join them our road to the National Title is a whole lot easier." If that were the case they wouldn't play as tough an OOC slate.

As for the teams that do not win their conference but are highly ranked....I think they really have no arguement...unless of course they play in a conference where you don't play all the other conference teams during the regular season. IMHO if you don't win your conference you don't deserve a shot at the national title.

if all conferences realign to either 9 or 12 teams, then the first problem is solved. no at-large team will have an excuse. that will require the pac 10 and big 10+1 to do something. and that's why we're all on this site in the first place.

under those circumstances, i could deal with the champs of the big six, plus play-ins among the mid-majors to fill out the remaining two spots. especially if that realignment forces the mwc and wac to create a super-mid-major conference. i would then argue that the champion deserves a bid in an 8-team playoff.