Possible BCS Changes Might Not Be Good for Little Guys

[JonDMiller]

Official Sports Report - Home

 

[beaverdaleguy]

touche' sir. well written.

 

[CFHawk]

I always liked the old system.

 

[theboat]

Their is no perfect system and never will be. As soon as people figure that out and stop arguing for a playoff system, they will be able to sit back and enjoy the greatest sport which is college football.

 

[racerhawk]

That was a really well written article. Thanks.

 

[Oleo31]

I always envisioned the 'plus-one' scenario being seeded at year end, but prior to all bowl games, with top 4 teams playing then winners playing each other. Not playing all the bowls then voting for the two teams to play for NC, which is what I interpretted your article to say.

 

[DYK88]

It would really be nice if they just stick to the same thing for a while...this constant tweaking is dumb.

 

[LSimbolo]

I prefer the old system too (with all games on Jan 1 - or maybe one or two on the 2nd).

And even though the Hawks would have made a 16 team playoff this year, I think any playoff like that will only widen the gap between the TOP tier teams and the rest. "The rest" of these teams are the majority, so my guess it stays the way it is. Over time the only B10 teams that would have consistently made a 16-team playoff are OSU, Mich, and PSU so why would the other 8 B10 teams be in favor of a system that would further downplay the bowls they typically are invited to?

Then again, those "other 8 schools" allowed the B10 to change its last Rose Bowl tiebreaker from "removing the team that most recently got the bid" to using the highest ranked team in the BCS, so who knows what may get approved??? Using the BCS rankings - which are influenced by reputation and preseason polls - clearly favors teams like OSU that typically start out the season ranked higher simply for being tOSU.