Blow Up The BCS
18 comments so far
January 7, 2009 by
On Thursday, Oklahoma and Florida will play for the coveted and hotly debated BCS National Championship. Somebody will win and be crowned. It will be a moment for fans and media to enjoy. And yet, because of undefeated Utah, (and very talented one loss teams from USC and Texas), a debate will likely rage on. The 2009 season could end up in a split national title, with somebody else taking home a symbolic (if not real) Associated Press title, as voted by AP members. Some clamor for a playoff system. But, there are flaws to that idea as well. So, I'm here to ask the question - why not just blow up the BCS and go back to the way it was? Many coaches - including Nebraska's Bo Pelini - are likely in favor of doing just that.
Why The BCS Is Broken...Really
The BCS is more of a punching bag than ever these days. It gets "tweaked" every year, and people (especially those sage members of the media) love to deride the use of computers or data to establish any kind of rankings. Many hate the have-have not situation with the 6 "BCS Conferences" and everybody else fighting to get in. Others love the underdog (BCS Buster) mentality. Maybe it reminds them of March Madness. Who knows? But that isn't the real reason the BCS system is broken, in my opinion. The problem dwells in conference equitability.
Just focus on the six BCS Conferences for a second. Does it not strike anyone as almost unreal that the six conferences don't even really play under the same format? Three conferences - the ACC, SEC and Big 12 - are 12 team leagues with conference title games at the end. Three others - the Big East, PAC 10 and Big 10 (er, 11, or whatever) - don't have 12 teams and don't play title games. Talk about un-even footing!
The notion of somehow establishing which of the schools from these conferences is the most deserving is a total joke when they don't play under the same format. It's small wonder that the Big 10 habitually has two BCS participants, considering that three of the other conferences have a game that arguably pits the best two schools against each other to end the year.
If they want to really fix the BCS, they should force the Big East, PAC 10 and Big 11 to add teams to get to 12 members, and then play a title games. I guarantee you there will be less controversy. Oh, and Notre Dame needs to join a conference already. Their sweetheart deal of just needing 9 wins to qualify for the BCS is just laughable.
Playoffs?
So, assuming for a second that my little scenario actually happens and every conference has title games. We may not even need playoffs. Just consider the first week of December each year. If you sit down and watch all of those title games, is sure feels a heck of a lot like playoff football to me. Win, and you are in.
But, if you really must have a playoff, I suggest going with 8 teams. You could have the six conference champions (again, assuming title games for all) plus two at large births. This could cover a conference having more than one really great team, or a Utah type team from a "non BCS" conference. Play them off over 3 weeks, and it would be pandemonium, I'm sure. Leave it all on the field. March Madness in December.
As a bonus, I think the integrity and meaning of the regular season would be intact, because a team would still need to win their division and conference to qualify. And you could play the games at the big bowl spots -Rose, Sugar, Fiesta and Orange. Everybody wins and everybody profits.
It will never happen.
Why That Won't Happen
Money. Just like everything else in this world, it boils down to money. Wait a second. Didn't I just say "everybody profits?" Well, sure, those 8 teams have big pay days and the big bowls get theirs. But, the NCAA - in their vast and infinite wisdom - is against extending the season past 12 games. It's already too long in their mind.
So, to make space for a playoff for those 8 teams, everyone else would need to scale back their schedule. Basically, this would mean teams cutting two non-conference games off of the slate. Fans would be okay with it because it would get rid of some of these dreadful early season match ups. But, no athletic director or university president would ever vote for cutting those games, because that is where teams make their money.
Big schools won't give up home games and the millions of dollars that come with them. Small schools won't give up those "pay day" games against the big boys because they basically run their programs with that cash. Since the NCAA has a cap on the season, and those early season games are here to stay, those wishing for a playoff are out of luck.
Coaches Say To Just Start Over
So, where does that leave us? Back at square one. The BCS system doesn't work any better than the Bowl Alliance that preceded it and the total chaos that most of us grew up with. It's just a fancier trophy (oooh, a crystal football). Think about it. Were the split titles of earlier years really so bad. Just consider Nebraska (this is a Husker site after all). Sure, we love to endlessly debate 1997 with Michigan fans and would love to have seen that decided on the field. But, both teams get to celebrate a title from that year.
Or consider the case for Utah this year. How different are they from the BYU team in 1984 that won a national championship by popular vote? Were they the very best team this year? I don't know, I was 9 years old. But, they didn't lose a game and you can't take it from them.
I've heard many coaches state that they would prefer to just go back to the old bowl system. Maybe even consider getting the conference bowl relationships back in place. Big 10 and PAC 10 fans desperately covet that Rose Bowl. And NU fans sure do appreciate the taste of Oranges.
When a coach like Mack Brown goes on the radio and backs this notion, I sort of dismiss it because he has a stake in things for this year. You always kind of get the feeling that he's stumping for that AP title. But, when Bo Pelini mentions a preference for the old bowl system (as he has earlier this year), then I tend to listen up. Sure, I'm a Bo fan. Also, his team isn't involved this year. Plus, he has actually been a benefactor of the BCS mess in the past. Lest we forget his title came with a two loss LSU team.
So, when Bo says blow up the BCS, I think people should listen. Besides, it might be the only choice at this point.
Did you enjoy this article?
Get Husker news by email
Follow us on Twitter
Related Stories: BCS
Post a comment
OU7times Jan 07 09
How about this idea?
If you are a BCS Conference school then you can only schedule BCS Conference schools on your schedule.
If 'you' are not good enough to attend the so called 'ball' then you shouldn't be considered good enough to play during the season. This would also eliminate the 'cupcake' portion of most teams non conference schedule.
I still go on record that the better the teams you play , the better you will become.
The Utahs' and Boise States' are exceptions to the rule and should make a move to BCS Conferences. Both are fairly solid from year to year and not flukes.
Besides, cupcakes are fattening and nothing good comes from a steady diet of them.
zE bOp Jan 07 09
I will say that we will be shopping eBay online with our holographic computers for discount space shuttle excursions to the moon before they change the BCS system in any significant way or move to a playoff system. Not gonna happen, folks!
So, respectfully I say, the topic is pretty much a waste of time.
The only thing I could see changing with the BCS is a reevaluation of the weaker, non BCS conferences and incorporation of them into the BCS as they become 'mo' betta'.
BSU and Utah are like big fish in a small pond, though the MWC is not so small anymore.
Though those 2 teams are gaining more and more clout as they win, win, win, they still have to work harder for respect and kind of get shafted. If they keep knocking off the big boys though they'll be alright, but may have to move into BCS conferences if things don't change.
Brandon Jan 07 09
If we're not going to improve the way we decide a national champion--which I think was the intended purpose of the BCS--why not go back to the old bowl system?
You never hear them say it publicly but you have to think the bowl committee members hate having the selection process essentially stripped from their hands. Really, what is your job as part of the Orange Bowl selection committee? You get to wear your orange blazer and go to a bunch of great football games all year long but it's basically just a sweet gig because, in the end, the Orange Bowl had to take Virginia Tech and, owing to the MNT game being in Miami, was left with the last choice of the four bowls and got Cincinnati. Nobody, outside of the Rose Bowl who will take a Big/Pac 10 team no matter what, is really selecting anybody.
Compare that to the old way where the Orange Bowl could CHOOSE to pit OU against NU in a rematch because that was an exciting match-up that would a) bring people to Miami and b) get a big national audience.
As it stands now the "big four" bowls feel cheapened and if our national title hunt is to remain a beauty contest, give me the old beauty contest and more appealing bowl match-ups rather than one, hotly contested and protested game that rarely solves anything.
HuskerFan4Life Jan 07 09
I agree 100%...I miss the old system. The best thing about the old system was the "upset factor". Remember 1982 Orange Bowl, #4 Neb. vs #1 Clemson. Earlier in the day the #2 and #3 teams lost, all of a sudden Nebraska has a shot at the National Championship. With the old system you watched all the major bowls rooting for this team to lose or this team to win knowing if the right things happened your team could be #1. This system made things more interesting....now we have just one game to crown the champion, to me not so much fun.
About Utah, sorry but I do not feel a bit sorry for them. Do you think any player out of High School went to Utah to win a National Championship???? Urban Meyer left Utah because he knew he could not win a Championship there. Are they the best team in college football? We will never know...I say join the Pac Ten and win them all, then Utah will get their crystal ball.
OU7times Jan 07 09
Brandon,
I failed to mention in my earlier post that I am ALL in favor of the old bowl system, as mentioned in Darrens post. The scenario HuskerFan4Life mentioned is exactly HOW this thing should be going down, in my opinion.
There are countless stories where teams, throughout the years, have entered a bowl game just finding out that they were actually playing for the championship crown. It's exciting and creates scenarios whereas the current BCS format is just plain dull.
I have a DVD showing Tom Osborn and AD Bob Devaney being told that Nebraska (rematch) was playing OU in the Orange Bowl Classic (1979?).
The look on Tom Osborn's face was priceless!
Find the video, it's worth the trouble.
OU7times Jan 07 09
My bad. It's Tom OSBORNE.
zE bOp Jan 07 09
whoa, if you want really old time favoritism, the buddy system and politics, yea, go back to the old bowl system.
zE bOp Jan 07 09
OU7,
"...I have a DVD showing Tom Osborn and AD Bob Devaney being told that Nebraska (rematch) was playing OU in the Orange Bowl Classic (1979?)."
OU7, why'd ya have to go there, bud? I was there, in the marching band, witnessed all dat 1st hand.
Don't go there.....:)
Anyway, one other thing, is that one change they need to make in the BCS--this is not an original thought--is to make all the D-I, BCS and non BCS have a conference championship game.
So, in the very least, getting to and winning your conference could be like part of a quasi playoff which could give a team a better shot at the NC game.
Ya still have the polls/voting for who goes to the NC game, so it's not a true playoff, but maybe a little fairer, at least all teams would be playing the same # of games.
HuskerDeck Jan 07 09
I think the idea OU7times has of BCS schools only be able to schedule BCS teams is one of the best ideas I have heard in a long time.
The ole Swede and Husker in South Arkansas
nu-isu-fan Jan 07 09
Point1: My first time writing here. I'm going through Husker news withdrawal and this is just what I need. Y'all run a great blog.
Point2: Yes. I'm a Husker and a Cyclone. Born in Omaha, grew up in Iowa, ISU grad. I dread the day my teams play each other. But we don't choose who we love. (Just thought I'd get that out of the way.)
Now to the real point - BCS v playoff v old System.
In my opinion folks just need to decide one thing: Do they really want to know who the best team in the country is or not?
If the answer is yes, a playoff is the only way to do it. I'd suggest all conferences do not have a title game (but I guess as long as all were consistent, that'd be ok). Take the top eight teams. First two rounds are played at one of the teams home fields, because not many can afford to travel to three games in warm places. The final is done in one of the major bowls (Rose, Orange, whatever) but it alternates from year to year. As for the other 6+ win teams not in the top 8? We still have bowl games for them. They won't have a shot at the title. My Cyclones would be happy to be at one of the bowls. And same goes for the Huskers on some years. So we determine who is best and we have plenty of bowl games for people to make money and teams to extend their seasons.
If the answer is no, let the teams play their bowls (old system or something close). Let the voters choose who wins at the close of the bowl games. If there is a tie, fine. Let two tie.
zE bOp Jan 07 09
Well, playoffs dont always determine the two best teams left standing at the end either since the seeding process isn't necessarily fair or accurate. NCAA BB, they have a poll system throughout the year which has it's subjectivity: the w/l records and conference position of teams COMBINED WITH POLL OPINION determines where teams are seeded. Then you have a situation where 2 or more temas in one bracket may, in fact, be the best teams in the country, but only one team gets to advance.
The NFL does not have the polls, but you just have to look at this years playoffs and see that the best teams are not necessarily all in the playoffs. San Diego @ 8-8 gets in cuz they were in a weak division whereas NE Pats do not @ 11-5--tougher division.
What if, say TX and OU are 11-1 and play in a divisional playoff, and Boise and Utah at , say, 9-3 each play in their division and OU and Boise end up moving on. Is Boise better than TX?
darren Jan 07 09
Ze Pop makes a good point - playoffs aren't "perfect" either. Consider the NFL if you like. Or consider March Madness. There is still plenty of hand wringing and bitching during the selection process, right? And, does the "best team" from that season always win the tournament? No way.
But we *heart* playoffs and tournaments because they season is finished on the field. So, it all feels right.
Part of college football's quality is that the regular season means so much. And, the rampant debate is another (hard to miss?) quality that makes this game special.
Would playoffs do away with all that? I'm not sure.
zE bOp Jan 07 09
I used to be an advocate of playoffs, and I suppose if NE was in the hunt for a NC and we felt like we getting 'jobbed' by the BCS then I(we) might be screaming for them as well.
But after some thought and as I described above, I just don't think a playoff system would be an improvement.
The BCS hasn't done that bad a job filtering out the 'best' team, I guess. And the endless debate/speculation/importance of every game make CFB a unigue and most intriguing sport(the media knows that). Plus, I think the TV networks and BCS have all their multibzillion $$ contracts all sewn up thru 2012 or something.
No matter what you do, there will always be some teams that felt like they got jipped. USC comes to mind because for most of this decade nobody has wanted to play them at the end of the season whether they were in the NC game or not.
But, as I'm writing this the feeling like, 'the BCS IS messed', up seems to be coming over me, LOL.
So, WTF, I dunno....LOL!
KH in Missouri Jan 07 09
Another long-time, first-time here ... love the site.
Any system that allows a team to go undefeated but not earn the championship is fatally flawed. I can't imagine a non-BCS team ever having a better resume than Utah this year. If they don't get at least a share of the title (which I guess is the best they can hope for), what you're telling the non-BCS portion of the FBS is that they are never going to win a championship. That being the case, why have them in the same division at all?
OU7's suggestion that Utah and BSU join a major conference is a little too glib ... for one thing it assumes a BCS conference would welcome them. Has the Pac-10 (the most likely candidate based on geography) expressed any interest in expansion? Besides, what about the next team from a non-BCS conference that the pundits deem worthy ... TCU or BYU or Air Force or whoever it may be. Do the BCS conferences just keep expanding?
I like a 12-team playoff format, with the first two rounds played on the home campus, so that the top 8 seeds get an extra home game. The BCS system is flawed, but could be tweaked to select the field. This year, based on the BCS standings, Oklahoma, Florida, Texas and Alabama would have first-round byes. The first round games would have Cincinatti at USC, TCU at Utah, Ohio State at Texas Tech and Boise State at Penn State. A good mix of the traditional powers and the new kids on the block, in my view. The four-week playoff could begin shortly after the early December conference championship games, ending sometime around New Year's Day.
zE bOp Jan 08 09
Well, they were saying last night that the BCS does a reeval. of non BCS conferences every 3 or 4 years to see if they are 'better' and can me made BCS conferences.
James Moore Jan 08 09
I've always thought that they should keep the Bowl and BCS System but add one tweak to the end of the process. . .
The Bowl Season and all the bowl games are great. Every one is important because they offer the few teams who are fourtunate enough to earn the rights to go the opportunity for an extra month of practice, the chance to finish the season with a win, more reps, more hitting before Spring Practice, and most important, momentum going into the spring. This process is priceless for college football, and the fact that some merit is involved with being invited to a Bowl Game should not be removed. It is essential for the maturation of programs and players. . .
Keep the BCS. Polls, standings everything. They bring attention to the sport. But where the BCS is GREAT for college football is the payouts for winning a BCS game. West Virginia, Boise State, Utah, Kansas & Virginia Tech have all been awarded payouts between $10-$14-17 million over the past few years. For Boise State and Utah to get 8-figure payouts for winning their games is EVERYTHING for those schools, the respective athletic budgets, and their ability to meet their student-athletes needs in the in the best manner possible. It means as much for football facilities as it does for Water Polo traveling accomodations. Not every school has a T Boone or a Phil Knight as alumns. . .
Play all the Bowl Games, every one & make the Cotton BCS too. When they're all done, play a Final Four taken from the final Coaches and BCS poll standings. So for this year you would have the winner of Oklahoma/Florida, Utah, USC & Texas. Oklahoma (assuming a loss to Florida), this time you would be out because you got the first chance to play for the BCS National Game BUT because Texas beat you head-to-head, you would get voted out for the Final Four. If Oklahoma wins then you have Oklahoma, Utah, USC & Texas for the Final Four in my solution(Florida with two losses could not get in if they were to lose to Oklahoma due to everyone ahead of them being undefeated or with one loss). Play the Semifnals of The Final Four the Saturday of NFL Conference Championship Weekend and the National Championship the week before the Super Bowl. The money is EVERYTHING for those Cinderellas who crash the dance and the win. Those payouts mean a lot, for a lot of people. . .
Dwayne Jan 08 09
Don't we already have a playoff with the BCS? It's the top two teams based on whatever. What would expansion of this present to college football fans? If college football fans would start conversing about expanding the field rather than pleading for a playoff, then that makes sense to me if that's their argument. I've never really understood this. Folks, we have a playoff. Is it fair? Probably not. Will it ever be? Probably not. Enjoy what we do have. One versus two. An expanded playoff of more than four teams would diminish chances for smaller programs with limited resources and roster depths like NU and probably only help those with those programs which carry enormous pools of talent.
Scott Jan 09 09
The BCS can be manipulated....just ask the voters.
Playoffs don't give you the best team in College Football....they give you the best team that won that day.
The old Bowl System won't solve anything either. But I will say it was fun to watch.
To avoid all of the crap that Mack Brown and Pete Carroll are saying (yes, I'm sick of hearing from them) then let's just settle it on the field.
In 1997 Tom Osborne said, "We've done all we could do. We won all of the games we've played." He didn't say that NU was the best team in America and that no one could beat them. Mack Brown and Pete Carroll...SHUT UP! No one cares and that was obvious with the votes. Texas squeaks by Ohio State in the last minute (maybe should have thought about doing that vs. Texas Tech) and USC beat a Penn St. team that went through a mediocre Big 10 schedule. Even the Big 12 suffered through a mediocre bowl season to question their conference.
No system is perfect and it will never be perfect. In my honest opinion, go back to the old system where there was usually only a debate between a couple schools, and even that didn't occur every season.