BCS Talk: Looks like a separate 5th game option is back on tap

Oh, I know there are holes in it, as there would be with almost any system, but it would at least eliminate some of the argument. And yes, some of those schools would get screwed, but at present, they are not really a part of the BCS...example TCU last season.

 

Seems to me, somebody is gonna have to die to get it right. How long are we gonna split NC's. Every league in any sport that wants to determine a champion does so thorough either a playoff or tournament of some sort. In a world that is so politically correct, and if you and i can see how stupid the old way of doing things are, then what's stopping change. I'll use an oldy but a goody, "Follow the money". Somebody is super duper scared of losing some greenbacks over this one. I hate the old system and the equillivant new system, it has to go. My 2 cents are to take the top 8 or 10 teams and divide them up in 2 brackets. Seems to me like the "tournament" would end around the same time as well. Shoot, you could even still have bowl games w/ the teams that didn't make it into the top 8 or 10. Does this seem doable or just BcS?

 

I know I have chimed in on this one before but out of all the systems out there NCAA or NFL. The computer polls have to be the best out there. The sos is by far the best element in this system. With the exception being the case when we beat the Dawgs twice. UGA has to be a top 5 team last year both times we played them. It all worked out in the end except for the fact that humans gaot involved wanted to sell some papers or airtime and got on the band wagon of the most populated state in the union stirred up the pot and wola you have a AP National Champion. BS BS BS

Agree on the input and bring on the computers

 

Yea USC whined until they won ,the BCS worked ,now its useless look for USC \TCU or TCU-TULANE or BIG EAST -MIAMI or usc creampuff vs another creampuff.pitiful

 

You are so right about egos holding this up, and about the Pac-10's ego in particular. They have already gone on record saying they are bitterly opposed to a playoff and now want a system that will guarantee Big-10 vs. Pac-10 at the Rose Bowl in every year that neither conference has a national title contender or that the Rose Bowl isn't the national title game.

Thing is, if they would go along with MY system (and it's not totally mine, because I borrowed a lot of the ideas from several different proposals, I just have yet to see a system that is 100% identical to mine) then the Rose Bowl would still be a very important bowl and they could get to it (though not every year of course) My system would be a playoff using the current bowl games as playoff neutral sites. My idea:

A 16 team playoff (11 conference champions and the best 1-A independent, plus four wild cards)
Seed the teams 1 through 16, and at neutral site bowl games that are geographically convenient for both teams, but if that's impossible, closer to the higher seed.

The round of 16 would be very minor bowls, like the Independence Bowl and the Sun Bowl. The national quarterfinals would be four second-tier bowls (my picks would be the Peach, Cotton, Fiesta, and Holiday). The national semi-finals and finals would rotate between three bowls; Rose, Sugar, and Orange.

What about money? You can't tell me this system would not make all the parties involved FIVE-FOLD the money they are making now. Yes, you would have to share some with the current non-BCS conferences. So freakin' what?!?! There will be plenty for all and a rising tide floats all boats. Even if the 12 game season is made permanent, a four week playoff, with most of the games falling during Christmas break, will not "hurt the kids" anymore than they are already being hurt, so put that lame academician excuse to rest.

The Pac-10 had better snap to. If it is found out that they are the only ones holding progress back, the rest of us just might decide that the Pac-10 is not really a "big-league" conference and just exclude them from the process.

 

There is no guarantee that the current bcs system or a new system would work or last. Why should the first and best bowl game jeopardize their future on the whims of the conferences such as the big east and acc--two conferences that have credibility issues. The pac ten and big ten are most likely in this together with the Rose Bowl. They are just looking out for their best interests. There was a defacto gentlemen's agreement with the current bcs system that the rosebowl would always have big ten vs. pac ten unless the rosebowl is the title game or a big ten pac ten team is in the championship game. You can blame the Orange Bowl Committee for backstabbing the RoseBowl in 2003.

Any attempt to exclude or play hardball with the pac ten will fail, since the big ten and rosebowl have been in parternership for over the last 50 years. The truth is the big ten and pac ten could decide to tell the other conferences to stick it and still make millions of dollars while the big least and acc especially suffer from a factured bowl coalition. The Rose Bowl would still be a sellout and ratings getter since 1 out of 4 tv sets in the country are in the big ten states and the California is the biggest state in the country with the second and fifth largest markets in the country. An 9-2 Michigan State versus an 9-2 Oregon State would still be a sellout and a proven ratings getter. While 11-0 TCU versus 9-2 Arkansas would be a big ratings loser in the rose bowl, while a sugar bowl or a cotton bowl between those two teams would be better for everyone.

 

I disagree with that 100%. As has been said before, the SOS component used in the BCS is fundamentally flawed in its pure objectivity. All 8-4 teams are not created equally. Conference strength should be a consideration, but is not.