Major BCS changes coming?

[erik316wttn]

Very interesting article. Apparently there's some talk among the BCS bigwigs to alter the system to where the BCS rankings would only determine who plays in the National Championship Game, leaving all the other BCS bowl pairings up to the actual bowls themselves. They're trying to eliminate things like automatic bids, as sometimes that doesn't generate the best matchup. The BCS would only determine 1 vs. 2, and we would no longer have things like unranked UConn in a BCS bowl game just because they lucked into winning the Big East.

 

It's still not a 16-team playoff like it should be (all 11 conference champions and 5 wild cards is the only true fair way to go), but at least it could be better than the crap we've got now.

 

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7248953/bcs-proposes-only-handling-national-championship-game-sources-say

[SpongeWorthy]

Calling any changes in the BCS "radical" that don't actually create a playoff or at least a +1 format is a farce.

 

98% of the bitching about the BCS is over the title game. Who gives a [expletive] about the rest?

[Guest]

FINALLY, someone thinks of the Bowls themselves.

 

This would be a step backwards.

[UMFan83]

This is pretty stupid, but it would be nice to not have to see the Big East and ACC winner waste a BCS game playing each other.

[Guest]

This is pretty stupid, but it would be nice to not have to see the Big East and ACC winner waste a BCS game playing each other.

 

The proposed alternative(8-4 Notre Dame v. 7-5 Florida State!) is even more annoying.

[erik316wttn]

FINALLY, someone thinks of the Bowls themselves.

 

This would be a step backwards.

 

Not really. If left up to the individual bowls, you'd probably get a good matchup instead of one-sided snoozers like Oklahoma/Connecticut.

 

I'm not saying this is the perfect system-- far from it. I'm just saying it's better than what's in place now and could lead to better viewing as a fan.

[Guest]

FINALLY, someone thinks of the Bowls themselves.

 

This would be a step backwards.

 

Not really. If left up to the individual bowls, you'd probably get a good matchup instead of one-sided snoozers like Oklahoma/Connecticut.

 

I'm not saying this is the perfect system-- far from it. I'm just saying it's better than what's in place now and could lead to better viewing as a fan.

 

No, it would not be better. For example, this year Stanford would wind up in the Holiday bowl or some such nonsense because the Fiesta Bowl and Orange Bowl want to set up Georgia v. Nebraska or Michigan v. Texas, because those fans will buy more tickets. The Bowls need less power, or none if we can help it, not more.

[SouthSideRyan]

This won't happen. The Big Ten/Pac 12 won't give up the Rose Bowl.

[erik316wttn]

FINALLY, someone thinks of the Bowls themselves.

 

This would be a step backwards.

 

Not really. If left up to the individual bowls, you'd probably get a good matchup instead of one-sided snoozers like Oklahoma/Connecticut.

 

I'm not saying this is the perfect system-- far from it. I'm just saying it's better than what's in place now and could lead to better viewing as a fan.

 

No, it would not be better. For example, this year Stanford would wind up in the Holiday bowl or some such nonsense because the Fiesta Bowl and Orange Bowl want to set up Georgia v. Nebraska or Michigan v. Texas, because those fans will buy more tickets. The Bowls need less power, or none if we can help it, not more.

 

True. I could see that happening.

 

No changes will happen til 2013 though, and these proposed changes don't have any teeth yet-- it's pretty much just thinking out loud. And the BCS folks are stubbornly resistant to change, so these changes probably have less than a 50% chance of happening anyway.

[buckeye27]

As long as boise state keeps losing on missed FGs, im happy with whatever system they throw out there.

[Guest]

As long as boise state keeps losing on missed FGs, im happy with whatever system they throw out there.

Hopefully the BCS system won't matter much to Buckeye fans for a long time!

[NewUserName]

FINALLY, someone thinks of the Bowls themselves.

 

This would be a step backwards.

 

Not really. If left up to the individual bowls, you'd probably get a good matchup instead of one-sided snoozers like Oklahoma/Connecticut.

 

I'm not saying this is the perfect system-- far from it. I'm just saying it's better than what's in place now and could lead to better viewing as a fan.

 

No, it would not be better. For example, this year Stanford would wind up in the Holiday bowl or some such nonsense because the Fiesta Bowl and Orange Bowl want to set up Georgia v. Nebraska or Michigan v. Texas, because those fans will buy more tickets. The Bowls need less power, or none if we can help it, not more.

 

I understand how this is unfair, but bowl games are in business to make money. I think the real issue is that NCAA football has always had these post season tie ins to for profit businesses. Which of course makes the whole system seem like a big hypocrisy.

[shnsajax]

This would make all of the conference reshuffling pointless if the bowls can choose whoever they want. Might as well go independent.

[Flames24Rulz]

As long as boise state keeps losing on missed FGs, im happy with whatever system they throw out there.

Hopefully the BCS system won't matter much to Buckeye fans for a long time!

 

Beat me to it.

 

Hey, go Luke Fickell, huh??

[jersey cubs fan]

If the Bowls were smart and really looking out for their longterm future, they would work with the NCAA to have the bowls be the opening round of a small tournament. 4 New Years day games for 8 teams, followed by semifinal night games the week after NFL's opening round, and a championship game on the NFL bye before the Super Bowl.

[SouthSideRyan]

You are the first person to have ever suggested that.

[jersey cubs fan]

this is the first time you have made that statement

[SouthSideRyan]

I'm sure there will be no problem getting fans to travel cross country 3 times in 3 weeks to watch their teams.

[jersey cubs fan]

I'm sure there will be no problem getting fans to travel cross country 3 times in 3 weeks to watch their teams.

 

4 weeks.

[bukie]

I'm sure there will be no problem getting fans to travel cross country 3 times in 3 weeks to watch their teams.

Because the NCAA basketball tournament is a disaster with all that travel.

[Guest]

I'm sure there will be no problem getting fans to travel cross country 3 times in 3 weeks to watch their teams.

Because the NCAA basketball tournament is a disaster with all that travel.

 

There's about 50-75,000 fewer people at NCAA tournament sites than there are at the big bowls.

 

I'd like a playoff, but if it's more than 4 teams, it's pretty necessary to have home games.

[SouthSideRyan]

I'm sure there will be no problem getting fans to travel cross country 3 times in 3 weeks to watch their teams.

Because the NCAA basketball tournament is a disaster with all that travel.

 

The NCAA tournament sells games in packages because they can't sell out individual games.

[jersey cubs fan]

I'm sure there will be no problem getting fans to travel cross country 3 times in 3 weeks to watch their teams.

Because the NCAA basketball tournament is a disaster with all that travel.

 

There's about 50-75,000 fewer people at NCAA tournament sites than there are at the big bowls.

 

I'd like a playoff, but if it's more than 4 teams, it's pretty necessary to have home games.

 

If it's 16, absolutely. If it's 8, I think it might work. There would be 4 bowls which is essentially what they already do, but with more on the line and more reason to attend. Then you go a little more than a week later for matchups in previously agreed upon locations, and if the championship game is the NFL bye week before the Super Bowl, there is enough time for people to plan trips.

 

That said, I'm in favor of a simple 4 team playoff involving the bowls. That maintains the intensity of the regular season where any loss can end your season, and opens it up a bit for the best of the best to prove it on the field.

[Andy]

This is pretty stupid, but it would be nice to not have to see the Big East and ACC winner waste a BCS game playing each other.

 

The proposed alternative(8-4 Notre Dame v. 7-5 Florida State!) is even more annoying.

I'm fairly sure the revamped system would retain benchmarks for BCS eligibility that would prevent such things, it just wouldn't force-feed the ACC winner into the Orange Bowl (even if they're 8-4) and whatnot.

[Guest]

This is pretty stupid, but it would be nice to not have to see the Big East and ACC winner waste a BCS game playing each other.

 

The proposed alternative(8-4 Notre Dame v. 7-5 Florida State!) is even more annoying.

I'm fairly sure the revamped system would retain benchmarks for BCS eligibility that would prevent such things, it just wouldn't force-feed the ACC winner into the Orange Bowl (even if they're 8-4) and whatnot.

 

The article mentions the current BCS bowls "severing ties" with the BCS. Without AQs or any official ties to the BCS, why would the Rose/Sugar/Fiesta/Orange self-impose restrictions that would cost them money when they can just take 9-3 Texas instead of 11-1 Boise?