RoadRage

The BCS is up for renewal after the 2005 season. The BCS currently has a majority of I-A schools, 62 (63 if you include Notre Dame) out of 117 (118 next year, Florida A&M). With the Big East's replacement of ACC-defector, the total would be 65 (or 66).

Scuttlebutt had it that the Big Least would be scuttled on the next contract. With the booting of insufficient-attendence schools, the BCS would maintain a majority even without the Mountain East.

Now, the Pac-10 might not resign with the BCS. They've got good reason to tell the BCS to stick it, they think they've been screwed three times in the past 4 years by the BCS: this year with Southern Cal, 2001 with Oregon, and 2000 with Washington. They still have yet to play for the title, and after 2005 they may tell the BCS to take the title and shove it.

The approval of a majority of I-A is required to give the BCS its mandate, and to prevent its dissolution every four years. Without the Pac-10, the BCS has 55 (56) out of 118, no majority. In order to regain a majority they would have to: 1) kick 7-9 teams back to I-AA ("insufficient attendence" being the preferred excuse), and 2) retain the Big Easy despite its inferiority to the Mountain West and possibly the WAC or MAC, and/or 3) bring in the Mountain West, WAC, MAC, or Conference USA to replace the Pac-10.

Given the Pac-10/Big-10 history, the Pac-10 leaving the BCS will make at least some Big-10 members reconsider their conference's association with the BCS. Maybe you could still call it a National Championship without the Pac-10 (and 2 of the 10 largest TV markets), but you certainly can't without the Big-10.

Tweaking the formula won't solve this problem. They tweaked the formula back after the 2000 season, and Oregon got screwed for it. They tweaked it again after 2001, and this time Southern Cal got hosed. The Pac-10 won't settle for a tweaking, a wholesale change is what they're going to demand.

This summer the BCS honchos ruled out playoffs in the next incarnation. Now it may not be their decision to make, depending on if the Pac-10 forms a coalition with the "Have-Nots" to kill the BCS once and for all. The question remains if this coalition would support a playoff or a return to the bowl situation of the 1980s, where #1 playing #2 was almost guaranteed not to happen.

__________________
Join TFP Team SETI
43K workunits complete, 34 members, more of each needed.

TitleFight

Interesting and informative read, many a thanks...

__________________
"The radio reminds me of my home far away....."

pangavan

But:

The Bowls are independant organizations that are making a ton of money off the BCS, The BIG 10 would not drop out of BCS if it was just Rose Bowl or nothing. All BCS would do is pump money into a lesser bowl and try to up its prestige

__________________
He is, moreover, a frequent drunkard, a glutton, and a patron of ladies who are no better than they should be.

geodaro

BCS Bad, Playoff Good!

The_Dude

Yeah, playoffs sound great right about now.

I think the big xii championship game should just decide the national champion

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

RoadRage

True, but a coalition of the Have-Nots plus the Pac-10 could vote the bowl system out of existence, especially since most of the Have-Nots only receive tiny sums of bowl money after it's been split.

Sun Belt: $46,875 each from North Texas's appearance in the New Orleans Bowl.
MAC: $53,571.43 each from Miami-OH's appearance in the GMAC Bowl and Bowling Green's in the Motor City Bowl.
WAC: $150,000 each from 4 appearances (including Boise State in the Fort Worth Bowl, a spot originally slated for a Big XII team).
Mountain West: $178,125 each from 3 appearances
Conference USA: $195,454.54 each from 5 appearances
Navy: $550,000 from its appearance in the Houston Bowl
Pac-10: $940,000 each from 5 appearances
ACC: $998,611.11 each from 5 appearances
Big East: $1,123,437.50 each from 5 appearances
SEC: $1,200,208.33 each from 7 appearances (and their Houston Bowl bid went to Navy because the SEC didn't have enough eligible teams)
Big XII: $1,350,000 each from 8 appearances
Big Ten: $1,591,136 each from 8 appearances

The Football Bowl Alliance actually ADVERTISED on the Bowl Selection show yesterday. Maybe they're sensing something in the air as well. "Bowl Games ARE College Football", whatever.

__________________
Join TFP Team SETI
43K workunits complete, 34 members, more of each needed.

bish

You would think that the PAC-10 would be wise to leave the BCS, but I truly doubt they will. Hell, USC's Athletic Director is saying he doesn't want a playoff and that USC will be happy to play in the Rose Bowl. Money talks much louder than common sense when it comes to the brass of the NCAA.

captain

A playoff is the only fair way. I wonder what the fear of a playoff is.

Smaller schools have done it successfully for years.

__________________
captain

Manwich

I know Cal's AD also said that a playoff is out of the question.

G_Lock

I think there should definately be a playoff system. Here's my suggestion. I say, you can keep the BCS ranking system, but use it as a playoff setup, with one exception, remove the quality win component. Then take the top 1-8 teams in the BCS standings, and have them play a bracketed playoffs. 1v8, 2v7, 3v6, and 4v5, and then next round have the highest remaining seed play the lowest remaining seed, etc. Keep doing it, until u have two teams left that play in the "national title game". The only problem with that scenario, is there are times when a conference champ will not be ranked in the top 8, but I say thats fine. I mean this year Kstate is number 10 in the BCS, and therefore in my system would be left out, even though they won the big XII, but I say thats okay. I mean come on, they have three losses. I think that would REALLY make it the top 8 teams in the country playing against each other. None of this automatic bid because you are a conference champ. I mean both Oklahoma and Texas are better (record wise and BCS wise) than Kstate, but because its Big XII north v south, Texas is automatically out cuz OU beat them, and KState, who not only lost to Texas, but also has a worse record, would get to go to it. And none of these rules that say only x number of teams from a conference can go. If teams 1-4 are from one conference in the BCS, thats fine, because that means they deserve it. And since Strength of Schedule is part of the BCS, you will truly get the teams that have few losses and are playing tough teams to get there. You can still keep the all the current non-BCS bowl games as they are now, and have teams play in them that are not in the top 1-8. Then you take the four major bowls (Rose, Sugar, Fiesta, and Orange), have them host the playoff games. For example, have Rose host 1v8, Sugar 2v7, Fiesta, 3v6, and Orange 4v5. And you can rotate that every year. That would be the first round, and you would then be down to 4 teams. Then you could pick 3 of the four major bowls to host the next round (2 bowls), and the championship (1 bowl). For example, lets assume seeds 1-4 win the first round. Then lets say, Rose will host 1v4, and Sugar will host 2v3. Then lets again assume 1 and 2 win. Then have the Fiesta host the national championship game. And just rotate the bowls. And lets say, if you host the championship game, then the following year, you will be the one bowl that is left out of the 2 and final rounds of the playoffs, which in my scenario would be Fiesta. So the next year, all four bowls would host a first round game, and this time lets say the Orange and Rose get to host the 2nd round. This leaves the Sugar bowl to host the national championship. And the next year rotate again, and so on. I would really like some feedback on why this scenario would not work. I am trying to think of things I am overlooking that would make my suggestion flawed. Thanks.

G_Lock

RoadRage

Can a playoff system yield more money than the bowls do?

To get one voted in, $1M per school would need to be generated. (Sure, everyone won't be happy but a good majority would be.) That's $117M per year, plus a little bit more for inflation (though hopefully not the same inflation rate as tuition).

Will a TV network plonk down $117M per year for 7-15 games (depending on 8-16 teams) in mid-December to early January?

Right now, NBC pays Notre Dame $8-9M per year to show Notre Dame football home games (5-7 per year). CBS coughs up about $50M per year for SEC football for 15 weeks, including the SEC Title Game sponsored by Dr Pepper™.

The BCS is paying out $56M for 4 games, most of which is coming straight from Disney via ABC. Per game, that's close to the needed payout for the 7 game set (8 teams). An 11-game set (12 teams) is cheaper per game for Disney, but it means that 4 teams could have the National Championship Game as their 16th for the season, as the rules stand now. A 15- games set (16 teams) means that all 16 would be on their 16th game for the Championship, but would let itself to regional broadcasting and pay-per-view for "out-of-market" areas.

I don't know. It looks too close to call. Maybe if people would boycott the bowls, that might swing it. Given the number of state institutions, maybe people ought to be writing their state legislators. Votes do swing political opinions.

__________________
Join TFP Team SETI
43K workunits complete, 34 members, more of each needed.

cementor

Road Rage has it covered it is all about the money, just like the Conference Championship games!!!

__________________
Cementor
If I was any better I'd have to be twins!

G_Lock

Speaking of a playoff system. I ran into this on ESPN, its pretty neat. Lets see what the public thinks, so all of you guys go vote.

http://espn.go.com/page2/s/bracket/bcs.html


G_Lock

BigGov

Wow, a popularity contest, that's going to work great!

There's one thing college's don't like about a playoff system. If they lose in the first round, they're screwed. Big time.

The BCS system isn't that bad. Hell, they got the two teams right again this year.

__________________
One day an Englishman, a Scotsman, and an Irishman walked into a pub together. They each bought a pint of Guinness. Just as they were about to enjoy their creamy beverage, three flies landed in each of their pints. The Englishman pushed his beer away in disgust. The Scotsman fished the fly out of his beer and continued drinking it, as if nothing had happened. The Irishman, too, picked the fly out of his drink but then held it out over the beer and yelled "SPIT IT OUT, SPIT IT OUT, YOU BASTARD!"

G_Lock

Well that's how the playoffs work. To be the BEST you have to bring your A GAME always. I understand that OU didn't play like they have all season, and so they lost. BUT, if that had been say the first round of the playoffs, well then they deserve to be GONE! You don't come to play, your out. That is the beauty of the playoffs. None of these computers deciding your fate, just plain old football at its best.

Oh, and about your quote that they got it right, WRONG. All three teams technically deserve it. So they DID NOT get it right. To get it right, it would be proper to either have a round robin between the three teams, or have the winner of the OU / LSU and USC / Michigan game play each other for the REAL national title. I don't like the BCS system the way it is and I REALLY hope they change it in some way for next year.

G_Lock

siddhartha

I'm not so sure getting rid of the quality win component is a good idea. What happens if a team wins every game, each by a point, but a different team wins every game quite easily with the exception of one? That doesn't necessarily mean 11-0 is a better team than 10-1.

__________________
The sun is the same in a relative way but you're older, shorter of breath and one day closer to death.

G_Lock

The quality win component applies ONLY if one team beats another team, that is ranked in the top 10.

aswo

The BCS is ridiculous but it still gives power to those curropt college football power confrences so for the time being it will never change.

__________________
People who love people