This quote sums it up: "If you thought Auburn fans cried about biases and political deals when the selection process was public and arbitrary, just wait until 10 suits emerge from a hotel suite and try to tell America that the best two teams are the best two teams because, ah, well, they said so."
As it is now, that's not far from the situation already. Just more opinions. I really fail to see why anyone can feasably support any non-playoff system. It's so simple. It all comes down to freaking money. Stupid stupid stupid.
I thought it was very telling when the OB crowd booed the introduction of Roy Cramer as "Father of the BCS" on Tuesday. The only bigger boos of the night were reserved for the screeching Ashley Simpson. The BCS and Ashley Simpson do share something in common though ..... they're both being force-fed to America.
Only the BCS has been changed multiple times since Roy introduced it. Besides, he was just looking for a way for the major conferences to make more money, that's all. He wasn't interested in a Nat'l Championship.
The BCS was created to match up the #1 and #2 teams in a NC bowl game at the end of every season, before the BCS #1 and #2 only played in a year ending bowl game 7 x's. I'm not saying the BCS is perfect or even good, but without it you wouldn't have a #1 v #2 bowl game. So to me, the BCS is a step in the right direction . . . it got us out of the business of teams making backroom bowl deals in mid October. The voters use the BCS as a scapegoat, considering the voters were given more power than ever this season to influence the results. The AP practically strong armed the system to give conferences like the PAC10 a MORE than fair shot to compete with the SEC and Big12. It's easier for fans to say I hate the BCS, than to find the dumb voters who skewed the results with their unfair voting (voting without actually watching the teams play and then fairly judging them with other teams). I agree it's all about money, so would a playoff post season format . . . everything is about money in organized sports. They certainly wouldn't play those playoff games for free or to just please fans, in fact a lot of playoff supporters say a playoff would create even more money. If it wasn't about money then there wouldn't be an SECCG, BIG12CG, or a MACCG; 12 game seasons, you wouldn't have televised thrusday night games, etc. I just don't see how a playoff format wouldn't also be about the money. To me the biggest problem is that "voters" want to take objective factors out of a subjective formula, to better influence the results. Even with a playoff you will have that problem, you will have a 3 or 4 loss BCS conference winner taking the place of a 1 or 2 loss BCS conference team that doesn't win it's own conference (depending on how deep the playoff format is of course). You will also have unfair polling, it's not like the polls will be thrown out when a playoff is created. I'm all for giving the top 8 BCS spots BCS bowl bids, and throwing out all conference tie ins . . . that way we don't have a 3 loss Big East teams taking the place of a real worthy team. For example, if 3 of the top 8 are in the SEC (or Big12/10, Pac10, ACC, etc) then those teams gets BCS bowl bids. Good luck getting weak BCS conferences to agree to that idea though. However I think the only real change that needs to be made is a "plus one" bowl after all the bowls have been played. I don't see why #5, #6, or #7 deserves a shot at an NC anyway. You can have the best of both worlds with a plus one bowl game . . . making everybody happy while making plenty of money to go around. You would have had SC/LSU final bowl game last season and AU/SC game this season. Plenty of money will be made with that extra game so no one can complain either way, you are not adding 4 more games to a teams schedule (just 1 game for two teams), and it should satisify both the bowl fans and the playoff fans. For me that is the most realistic option. I don't endorse a full playoff because I'm tired of college football becoming more and more like the NFL. I don't need a playoff to enjoy the season, in fact I like the season long playoff atmosphere of the college football regular season. I don't need a college basketball tourney either to make college football interesting. I have enough patience to follow a team through several months. I don't see college football as a laughing stock, like some say (ESPN), and I don't think there is a problem with keeping the regular season and bowls just as important as it is today . . . with a plus one bowl game you really do settle this issue for everyone. The lesser teams get the chance to walk off the field champs in whatever bowl they play, and two schools get to prove on the field which is really the best . . . which seems to be the main problem for all fans. I know this is a heated issue with passionate fans on both sides of the fence, so all of that is just my opinion. It doesn't mean I'm right, or have any influence over the NCAA . . . it's just my personal opinion.
Hey LSU fan, count me as one that thinks the whole system as it is now needs to be chucked out the window. But you hit the nail on the head (where is that pic?) that there are people on both sides of the fence. And all over the fence. How do you fix something so screwed up? I was floored that last year OU didn't win their conference, but was in the Sugar. If USC had not been a contender, I would rather have seen a team that was undefeated and their conference winner even if not from a BS school play in the Sugar. But a lot of people will think I am loco for that. I personally like Weiberg, but I think he has his head in the sand on this issue! :dis: All IMHO.
