As I predicted last week, the end of the BCS...

The bowls have always catered to the larger schools. Before the BCS, conference tie-ins to specific bowl games kept the smaller schools out of the big money games.


Why do the bowls do this? Two reasons: BCS teams travel better and BCS teams ARE better. It's ludicrous to think that the smaller schools could give top BCS teams a good game. TCU wouldn't stand a chance against LSU, OU, OSU, USC etc.


I don't think that these smaller teams should be rewarded for going undefeated in conference that are filled with weak teams.


The BCS works better than the old way of hoping that the top 2
teams end up in the same bowl. Every year of the BCS there has been a 'National Championship' game.


I think they should add baack in margin of victory up to a set limit, like 21 points. That would reward a team for a dominant victory but wouldn't encourage running up the score during a blowout.

 

I agree with a lot of what you post MikeD, but what should non BCS schools do. Play football for the love of the game, and give the BCS schools teams to fill their schedules. If any team goes undefeated they deserve a spot in a BCS bowl game.

I have no problem with non BCS schools getting rewarded for undefeated seasons. It's not easy to do, usually the best teams drop a game or two. So to win all your games should be rewarded, it used to be that way. No one is asking for TCU to be in the Sugar bowl, but to just get a chance at a BCS game. Why should a 4 loss West Virgina get in over an undefeated team?

Why play the games at all? Who needs to see the match ups when we already know who will win? If the lesser team wins, it is only a fluke anyway . . . right? This year more than ever, it was proven on the field that the non BCS teams can hold their own agianst the big boys. Of course, TCU couldn't go undefeated against the SEC. But if they get to a BCS bowl, they might get the chance to prove it on the field. Why take that away from the kids? Undefeated seasons should be rewarded with good bowls in college football, if not, then the system is wrong and the same 20 teams will be taking the best spots reguardless of how good they really are.

 

I don't believe that a playoff system would detract from the regular season. It would critical to most teams to win their conference, or finish highly ranked, in order to even make the playoffs. So you'd have high interest in teams such as Tennessee, Georgia, Michigan, and Texas in winning their remaining games so that they could remain highly ranked and/or win their conference title. And we have the same exact situation now.

Also, a 16 team playoff would mean a total of 15 games, which would be spread around the various bowls that exist now. Imagine the money that those 15 games would bring in... look at the money CBS has paid for the Final Four tournament rights. Sure there aren't as many games, but football brings in a lot more money per game than basketball. And teams that don't make the playoff could still play in other bowl games, just like teams that don't make the BCS title game (or other BCS bowl games) still play in other bowl games.

I'd love to see some sort of expert and impartial analysis of what a playoff system would bring in moneywise vs. the current BCS system.