How I’d improve the BCS (notice I didn’t say “fixâ€￾ it)

[LSimbolo]

I’d like to propose some changes to the BCS that really should be doable, except I’m sure those teams/conferences they’d hurt would disagree so they’re probably not easily implementable:

1. Obviously, there should be no Coaches Pre-Season Poll. First poll could come out first week of October – still ahead of first BCS rankings.
2. The only path to a conference’s automatic qualification should be whether one of the BCS bowls wants to have a contract specifically with that bowl – sorry, Big East. If one of the bowls cannot say that they want your champion (no matter what), then your conference doesn’t belong.
3. So, the 10 teams should qualify as follows:
a. #1 vs #2
b. Any conference champion in the Top 10 automatically qualifies
c. The highest rated independent (if in the Top 10) automatically qualifies
d. From that point on the bowls pick whoever they want regardless of conference affiliation (and no limit of 2 teams per conference)
4. Selection order should be as follows (in order to get best matchups):
a. #1 vs #2
b. Conference affiliations
c. If a Bowl loses its conf champ to the NC game then it chooses first (just like now, including “Iowa Ruleâ€)
d. Any bowls without a conference tie-in rotate their first pick year-to-year (like now)
e. Once every bowl has one team selected, the bowl with the highest rated team gets to pick first, and so on, and so on.
5. If item #2 cannot be implemented then a final BCS standings should be released after the bowls. The Coaches and computers have a post-bowl poll – just need Harris voters to do the same. These post-bowl rankings are what should be used to determine conference’s automatically eligibility. If there are criteria for maintaining automatic status, how your conference performs in the BCS bowls should weigh in. Bowl performance does weigh-in slightly now (just in the minds of voters in preseason polls), but it should factor more.

Your thoughts???


This year, my rules probably would have arrived at the same 10 teams getting invited, but the matchups may have been different:

· Alabama –Texas in NC game
· OSU – Oregon Rose Bowl
· Sugar still would have picked Florida
· Fiesta would have picked TCU
· Orange still would have gotten GaTech
· Then Fiesta would get next pick and probably would have taken Boise, but maybe Iowa
· Sugar would have the following pick and would have picked Iowa if available (I think), and Boise if not Iowa
· Orange would have ended up with Cincinnati

 

[GodGodGodBathia]

Changes that don't address the main problem of the BCS won't change any of the controversy surrounding it. Help it, maybe, but solve the BCS, no. The BCS is awful because it uses humans in the system. Whoever is ranked highest at the beginning of the season has an inside track to the national championship if they go undefeated, regardless of what the other teams do. Who cares if TCU goes undefeated, Texas started out higher? The other thing that bugs me about the BCS is that it actually matters when you lose during the season. I have tried and can't justify putting Florida over Alabama in the national championship last year. Think about it. Alabama had one loss last year to the number 2 team in the nation, while Florida had one loss to a much weaker Ole Miss. By this logic, Alabama should be in the national title, but since Florida/Alabama took place later in the season, Florida gets the nod for some unexplainable reason.

 

[LSimbolo]

no discussion?

 

[bws258]

Nah, easier to scrap the whole POS!

16 team playoff! Play the first two rounds before finals, the Final Four (semis) during bowl time (on/near Jan 1), and the Championship a week later.

Notes: all but the Final Four teams would still be eligible for a bowl game ... split into two regions, East & West ... 1st round home teams must be conf. champs

EAST - Rd 1
#1 Alabama (SEC champ) vs #8 Troy (Sun Belt champ)
#2 Cincinnati (Big East champ) vs #14 CMU (MAC champ)
#3 Ohio St (Big Ten champ) vs #6 Virginia Tech (ACC at-large)
#4 GA Tech (ACC champ) vs #5 Florida (SEC at large)

WEST - Rd 1
#1 Texas (Big XII champ) vs #8 ECU (Conf-USA champ)
#2 TCU (M-West champ) vs #7 Nebraska (Big XII at-large)
#3 Boise St (WAC champ) vs #6 BYU (M-West at-large)
#4 Oregon (Pac-10 champ) vs #5 Iowa (Big Ten at-large)

----------

EAST - Rd 2
#1 Alabama (SEC champ) vs #5 Florida (SEC at large)
#2 Cincinnati (Big East champ) vs #3 Ohio St (Big Ten champ)

WEST - Rd 2
#1 Texas (Big XII champ) vs #5 Iowa (Big Ten at-large)
#3 Boise St (WAC champ) vs #7 Nebraska (Big XII at-large)

---------
break / Christmas
---------

FINAL FOUR
#1 Alabama (SEC champ) vs #3 Ohio St (Big Ten champ)
#1 Texas (Big XII champ) vs #3 Boise St (WAC champ)

 

[chadfrey]

I hate the current system. I like some of the changes you put forth. However, the BcS will always be a BS system as long as pairings for the national title are determined by polls.

However, looking through your ideas I see the cream of the crop - no polls for the first few weeks of the season. However, you undermine that with No. 5.

The previous season should have nothing to do with naming a national titlist. Only the current season should be considered.

 

[shonblatt]

Changes that don't address the main problem of the BCS won't change any of the controversy surrounding it. Help it, maybe, but solve the BCS, no. The BCS is awful because it uses humans in the system. Whoever is ranked highest at the beginning of the season has an inside track to the national championship if they go undefeated, regardless of what the other teams do. Who cares if TCU goes undefeated, Texas started out higher? The other thing that bugs me about the BCS is that it actually matters when you lose during the season. I have tried and can't justify putting Florida over Alabama in the national championship last year. Think about it. Alabama had one loss last year to the number 2 team in the nation, while Florida had one loss to a much weaker Ole Miss. By this logic, Alabama should be in the national title, but since Florida/Alabama took place later in the season, Florida gets the nod for some unexplainable reason.

The BCS is awful because it starts out with a premise that only two teams deserve a chance to win the title.

That premise - especially this year, with so many undefeated teams - is flat-out wrong.

The current system pretty much puts all the emphasis on one bowl game. The rest of the BCS is for nothing more than jockeying for position in the top ten.

 

[egami]

The BCS is awful because it starts out with a premise that only two teams deserve a chance to win the title.

That premise - especially this year, with so many undefeated teams - is flat-out wrong.

Yet...we ended up with the right teams there.

 

[LSimbolo]

My #5 in OP was only regarding a conference's need to re-qualify for its automatic spot from year to year. Currently, if a conference's average champion is ranked below a certain number in the final regular season BCS rankings over a given timeframe then that conf loses its automatic bid.

I'm just saying there should be a poll after the bowls that is used for this calculation. That way how you do in the bowls affects whether your conference keeps its tie-in. This final poll would in no way be used for the next year's team rankings.

 

[NewMexHawk]

I think to improve on the first posters idea:

First round of voting is based on who teams play in the preseason. If a team like Florida does not play another BCS team they automatically are out of the running for a top 20 ranking that first round of voting. If on the other hand a team like Fresno State plays two or three teams from BCS conferences and beats those teams and or beats two and plays one down to the wire they would get a very high ranking.

After the first round of voting, the ONLY voting that really matters is computer voting. Coaches and media can vote but their polls only matter for 10% each when deciding who plays for the national championship.

I also think that teams would have to schedule other BCS teams out of conference during the year to get a good reading of how conferences are playing against each other rather than all games being early games. Some conference games could be played early. For instancel, Iowa/Arizona game would be played game 7 instead of game 2 or 3. Plus all conferences would have to play other conferences or be penalized. Thus Alabama, Florida and so on would have to travel to play a Big 10 school or be penalized (home and away)--of course the better the school, the better for their ranking.

Wouldn't that be fun for the fan to see Florida travel to Michigan or Ohio State or Iowa in late October say? And wouldn't it shake up the rankings fairly often...

 

[DLReynolds]

In the 16 team playoff, where are all these games going to be played? The final two teams will have played 4 "bowl" or playoff games. If those are in sunny California, Texas, Florida, or Arizona, how many actual fans are going to be in attendance? If less fans attend each game where does the money come from, and how much fun will it be to see empty stadiums for these playoff games. The lower divisions play at the higher rated teams home until the finals and don't need 75,000 to 120,000 fans to fill the stadiums. If some of these games are played on one of the teams home field, I can't wait till a Texas or Florida gets to come to Iowa City or Minneapolis or Madison on a late December/early January day for a game. Heck not sure I want to be in Kinnick last Saturday with temps in the below zero range.

I still say the talk about playoffs scr*ws the fans, or at least the ones who attend the games. Obviously those that watch the games from their couch could care less.

Last point, when has the BCS championship been way off base. We have this argument every year, but every year it seems to have the two teams I want to see playing. I guess Alabama or Texas, or Boise or TCU could have obviously lost in a playoff system, but in a sense we have conference playoffs to eliminate a lot of that.

 

[chadfrey]

Last point, when has the BCS championship been way off base..

2003-04. Oklahoma lost in the B12 championship, then went on to lose in the National Title game to LSU.

USC, ranked No. 1 by the AP and USA Today, got passed over. Oklahoma was not a conference champ, yet got the chance to play for a "national title"

If you can't win your conference, should you play for the national title?

 

[egami]

If you can't win your conference, should you play for the national title?

Sure, why not. In a playoff scenario it could very well happen. Wild card teams win the Super Bowl.

 

[bws258]

In the 16 team playoff, where are all these games going to be played? The final two teams will have played 4 "bowl" or playoff games. If those are in sunny California, Texas, Florida, or Arizona, how many actual fans are going to be in attendance? If less fans attend each game where does the money come from, and how much fun will it be to see empty stadiums for these playoff games. The lower divisions play at the higher rated teams home until the finals and don't need 75,000 to 120,000 fans to fill the stadiums. If some of these games are played on one of the teams home field, I can't wait till a Texas or Florida gets to come to Iowa City or Minneapolis or Madison on a late December/early January day for a game. Heck not sure I want to be in Kinnick last Saturday with temps in the below zero range.

I still say the talk about playoffs scr*ws the fans, or at least the ones who attend the games. Obviously those that watch the games from their couch could care less.

Last point, when has the BCS championship been way off base. We have this argument every year, but every year it seems to have the two teams I want to see playing. I guess Alabama or Texas, or Boise or TCU could have obviously lost in a playoff system, but in a sense we have conference playoffs to eliminate a lot of that.

first two rounds would be home games for the better-ranked team (conference champs get first dibs, and I'd be open to reseeding after each of the first two rounds, like the NFL does after the first round ... a certain % of tickets would be allotted to the visiting teams. This means 12 of the 15 games would be home games for someone or near home (a team like Cincinnati might choose to play it's first round "home" game in the Bengals stadium, for instance). These games would be right at the end of the season ... if we did this we could mandate the season be done the last weekend of Nov, and the first two rounds could be the 1st and 2nd weekends of December

The Final Four games and Title game would be played at predetermined locations, for example East semi in Miami, West semi in Phoenix, Championship game in Jerry Jones new toy in Dallas ... the only teams with an "extra" trip would be the two in the Title game

another option is an eight-team playoff then you aren't talking about any extra trips, just 1 and 2 extra home games for 4 and 2 teams, respectively

 

[Warhawks77]

In the 16 team playoff, where are all these games going to be played? The final two teams will have played 4 "bowl" or playoff games. If those are in sunny California, Texas, Florida, or Arizona, how many actual fans are going to be in attendance? If less fans attend each game where does the money come from, and how much fun will it be to see empty stadiums for these playoff games. The lower divisions play at the higher rated teams home until the finals and don't need 75,000 to 120,000 fans to fill the stadiums. If some of these games are played on one of the teams home field, I can't wait till a Texas or Florida gets to come to Iowa City or Minneapolis or Madison on a late December/early January day for a game. Heck not sure I want to be in Kinnick last Saturday with temps in the below zero range.

I still say the talk about playoffs scr*ws the fans, or at least the ones who attend the games. Obviously those that watch the games from their couch could care less.

Last point, when has the BCS championship been way off base. We have this argument every year, but every year it seems to have the two teams I want to see playing. I guess Alabama or Texas, or Boise or TCU could have obviously lost in a playoff system, but in a sense we have conference playoffs to eliminate a lot of that.

Exactly! The BCS is all about the benjamins! Money talks, the current bowl system generates so much money through promotion, destination packages, city, state, advertising and television. A playoff system would never work the same as you can't charge the same prices or put the same relevence on the prior games. Only the NC title game would be the most important. but ulimimately, while there are many good ideas to fix the problem with the system, none really address the loss of revenue concerns. which is why the BCS is always going to be.

 

[chadfrey]

Sure, why not. In a playoff scenario it could very well happen. Wild card teams win the Super Bowl.

Correct, however, FBS does not have a playoff. We have this BcS system that is supposed to pit No. 1 vs No 2. each year. That year, there is a serious question of if that happened.