This new BCS adjustment just voted on.

[HogDawg]

Not with the Dukes, Iowa States, Washington States, Baylors, etc. still out there... don't forget, even in the BCS, there are teams that just absolutely suck.

Just do the math. Most BCS conferences have 12 teams and yet only 1 or 2 bad teams to go around in each. It won't take long for the "middle tier" schools (e.g., Kansas St, Ok St, T Tech, T A&M, etc....) to figure out that they are now TOTALLY hosed, and no longer have a chance to make it to ANY bowl game because they can no longer buy easy wins over non-BCS schools.

If this scenario happened, alumni donations and athletic support would quickly dry up at most of these "middle tier" schools. Neither the NCAA or the states taxpayers want that to happen. In this situation, I guarantee you that the BCS would be killed IMMEDIATELY.

The non-BCS schools have the power to fix the problem.......they just don't know it yet.

HD

[Brian96]

Just do the math. Most BCS conferences have 12 teams and yet only 1 or 2 bad teams to go around in each. It won't take long for the "middle tier" schools (e.g., Kansas St, Ok St, T Tech, T A&M, etc....) to figure out that they are now TOTALLY hosed, and no longer have a chance to make it to ANY bowl game because they can no longer buy easy wins over non-BCS schools.

If this scenario happened, alumni donations and athletic support would quickly dry up at most of these "middle tier" schools. Neither the NCAA or the states taxpayers want that to happen. In this situation, I guarantee you that the BCS would be killed IMMEDIATELY.

The non-BCS schools have the power to fix the problem.......they just don't know it yet.

HD

I wonder if it will catch on to not play the $$$ games now that Utah, Boise, and Hawai'i have made serious BcS runs (and 2 of 3 got in) by NOT playing those games.

[BrettStah42]

I suggested that several years ago when the whole BCS bowl thing was first put into play. If the non-BCS schools would simply boycott playing the BCS schools, the whole BCS thing would blow up in one year.

HD

I'm a huge playoff proponent, but if the BCS system went away, one alternative that they could choose over a playoff would be for all bowls to go back to how they used to do it... SEC to the Sugar Bowl, Rose Bowl would have the Pac-10 vs. Big Ten, etc. How many times did the what we now call non-BCS teams get invited to the big bowls back then?

[HogDawg]

I'm a huge playoff proponent, but if the BCS system went away, one alternative that they could choose over a playoff would be for all bowls to go back to how they used to do it... SEC to the Sugar Bowl, Rose Bowl would have the Pac-10 vs. Big Ten, etc. How many times did the what we now call non-BCS teams get invited to the big bowls back then?

That's just more proof that almost nothing has changed. Essentially, the BCS schools still have their own set of bowls and the non-BCS bowls have theirs.

HD

[littleshoe]

Apparently when you die you get to take your stuff with you... who knew?

[BrettStah42]

That's just more proof that almost nothing has changed. Essentially, the BCS schools still have their own set of bowls and the non-BCS bowls have theirs.

HD

Yep, unfortunately that is correct. It's not as if, prior to the BCS system, all bowl were equal in terms of money, etc. The main priority of the BCS was to allow for a matchup of #1 and #2, not to suddenly start doling out money to the conferences that do not provide teams to those bowls.

[littleshoe]

My two cents incoming: (avert your eyes)

Where is my college playoff system? Take the top 2 teams from each conference and enter them in a playoff bracket. Yes, I said conference. That way everybody is happy... then there will be multiple bowl-like appearances for each team that wins or keeps winning. There will also be opportunities for big upsets... and that is always entertaining. Half the people I know that watch college ball watch it for the upsets and don't have a team they root for specifically. The WINNERS (that progress through the bracket) will make the most money simply because they make the most appearances. Tah-dah... if you're not pleased by a system like this then you must be inebriated... or money-hungry.

[DONW]

I suggested that several years ago when the whole BCS bowl thing was first put into play. If the non-BCS schools would simply boycott playing the BCS schools, the whole BCS thing would blow up in one year.

HD

That's the key to the whole mess. The teams in the BCS conferences think they should have 8 home games every year. They also have referees that call the games in their favor. The non BCS schools need to get together and work out schedules among themselves and stop whoring themselves out to the BCS schools. No school should ever have less than 6 home games.

[DONW]

I'm a huge playoff proponent, but if the BCS system went away, one alternative that they could choose over a playoff would be for all bowls to go back to how they used to do it... SEC to the Sugar Bowl, Rose Bowl would have the Pac-10 vs. Big Ten, etc. How many times did the what we now call non-BCS teams get invited to the big bowls back then?

I remember Wyoming playing lsu in the sugar bowl one year.

[HogDawg]

My two cents incoming: (avert your eyes)

Where is my college playoff system? Take the top 2 teams from each conference and enter them in a playoff bracket. Yes, I said conference. That way everybody is happy... then there will be multiple bowl-like appearances for each team that wins or keeps winning. There will also be opportunities for big upsets... and that is always entertaining. Half the people I know that watch college ball watch it for the upsets and don't have a team they root for specifically. The WINNERS (that progress through the bracket) will make the most money simply because they make the most appearances. Tah-dah... if you're not pleased by a system like this then you must be inebriated... or money-hungry.

Agreed. I'd love to see a playoff system too. But if we had a playoff system similar to the one you suggest, we might suddenly see some mid tier SEC teams and mid tier Big 12 teams jumping to the WAC, CUSA, and other non-BCS conferences. Why? Because it would be MUCH easier for some of them (e.g. Kansas State, or Iowa St, etc....) to qualify for the NCAA playoffs --and earn more money-- as members of the WAC or CUSA, etc...

This is one reason you'll never see a playoff system for Div 1A football. It has the ability to destroy the major football conferences --and their sources of revenue-- instead of stregthening them.

HD

[champion110]

Agreed. I'd love to see a playoff system too. But if we had a playoff system similar to the one you suggest, we might suddenly see some mid tier SEC teams and mid tier Big 12 teams jumping to the WAC, CUSA, and other non-BCS conferences. Why? Because it would be MUCH easier for some of them (e.g. Kansas State, or Iowa St, etc....) to qualify for the NCAA playoffs --and earn more money-- as members of the WAC or CUSA, etc...

This is one reason you'll never see a playoff system for Div 1A football. It has the ability to destroy the major football conferences --and their sources of revenue-- instead of stregthening them.

HD

I see your point, HD, but I am not so sure about that. We have a similar system with bball and they remain in those conferences. The key question will be the "at large" bids. In bball, the "at large" bids are what keeps the strong conferences together. Also, SOS plays a big part. I don't know how they would do that in football, though, since you obviously cannot play as many games in a playoff situation - so you may be right.

However, if they started jumping, it would just create the same strength in the non-bcs conferences that exists now in the bcs ones.

[playdablues]

I see your point, HD, but I am not so sure about that. We have a similar system with bball and they remain in those conferences.

Ah, but they remain because of the football BCS money.

[weunice]

I wish they would force a 10 game season and a 32 team 5 week playoff. Take the conference champions as automatic and then you have, what, 21 at large bids. I am sure the BCS would be happy that they would take most, if not all of the 22 at large slots and it introduces the theoretical possibility of a national championship for everyone.

Play games at home stadium of higher seeded teams at least in the first 3 rounds ... let the current bowl sponsors bid for the right to run games before they are announced. The problem with my plan as with every playoff is that the bowl money will never let something like this happen.

[littleshoe]

Agreed. I'd love to see a playoff system too. But if we had a playoff system similar to the one you suggest, we might suddenly see some mid tier SEC teams and mid tier Big 12 teams jumping to the WAC, CUSA, and other non-BCS conferences. Why? Because it would be MUCH easier for some of them (e.g. Kansas State, or Iowa St, etc....) to qualify for the NCAA playoffs --and earn more money-- as members of the WAC or CUSA, etc...

This is one reason you'll never see a playoff system for Div 1A football. It has the ability to destroy the major football conferences --and their sources of revenue-- instead of stregthening them.

HD

Thats true. The idea I mentioned did base itself on most people being good and honest.... my bad.

[TulsaDawg]

That's the key to the whole mess. The teams in the BCS conferences think they should have 8 home games every year. They also have referees that call the games in their favor. The non BCS schools need to get together and work out schedules among themselves and stop whoring themselves out to the BCS schools. No school should ever have less than 6 home games.

I wonder why the non-BCS schools don't get together. I think they would have more clout than they think they do. The BCS teams need the non-BCS to get to the coveted 6 wins and a bowl. According to the typical BCS team, all you have to do is schedule your four OOC games with winnable non-BCS teams, usually at home, and then just win two conference games and you go bowling.