The reason college football owns the NFL Options

[Oasis]

Is the thing that everyone is bitching about

The BCS.

Say whatever you want about the BCS. The fact is that it (along with the Bowl Alliance and all previous incarnations) is the reason college is infinitely better than the NFL.

Kirk Bohls - resident token dumbfuck negative apocalyptic sportswriter for the Austin American Statesman - had this gem of a headline today: Time to trash the map that led to this state of confusion

Yeah.

It's a computer's fault that thirteen football teams compromised of living breathing human beings beat 13 top five teams. It's the reason 5 different teams were ranked #1 this year, most in college football history.

Yeah, right.

A playoff would royally suck. It would destroy what makes college football great. Not only the fact that every game matters. I don't know about you, but most football fodder between my friends involves college football, not the NFL. We talk about the NFL on Sunday, Monday, and occasionally Thursday. College football comes up every single day.

Controversy is good. It keeps people talking and watching, which is really all the NCAA really cares about. Money. And a team like App State beating Michigan is controversial. Constant upsets are controversial.

I don't feel like looking up the TV ratings (and honestly, I don't even know where the hell to find them), but I'm willing to bet that the ratings are up this year vs. last year. And a big reason is because this is a wacky season. And one of the main reasons it's a wacky season is because of the ranking system they have in place.

I wish sportswriters and the general public would realize this and appreciate it for what it is. Especially sportswriters, because honestly the BCS is the reason some of those morons still have jobs. I can't imagine they could find anything to write about if it wasn't for controversy

[jonathan83]

I kind of have a love/hate relationship with the BCS.

I agree that it makes for good drama, controversy and debate. Without those things, it wouldn't be as exciting or talked about.

Then again, I start thinking...it's not exactly fair that the best, undisputed team in nation won't play for the championship. There's no way anybody will know unless there was SOME sort of playoff system. So it sucks that we have to guess and just put the top 2 teams that were voted in by AP reporters and coaches who may very well have a political agenda.

I wish there was some sort of way to incorporate the system we have now with a quick playoff. I have no idea how it would work, but what if you just took the top so many (12 or 16?) teams in the polls and then had a playoff of them?

I know it wouldn't make for as good as drama and controversy, but you'd still get the drama on which teams would make the top cut to receive bids to play in the playoff...and most importantly, we'd at least know that the best team won.

This post has been edited by jonathan83: Dec 2 2007, 03:23 PM

[Oasis]

What if? Is a great thing.

Of course, I'm only saying this because Texas has never been in a "what if?" situation. If they were I'd probably be fucking pissed and demand a playoff system. But until that happens, I won't have to be a hypocritical jackass quite yet.

By the way, how about Les Miles? He called a press conference two and a half hours before the most important game in those kids' lives then faked everyone out by saying he was staying at LSU. Then called his 94th, 95th, and 96th "what the fuck are you thinking!?" coaching decisions of the year and they somehow happened to work. Maybe LSU knew what they were doing in hiring him and I'm an idiot for thinking he's a shitty coach. Still hate the bastard, though.

[jonathan83]

yeah but Texas was almost in that situation a few years ago when Mack Brown held that press conference trying to rally the voters, which ultimately worked.

I've disliked Les Miles ever since he was at Oklahoma State...because I hate everything from there. He's in a pretty awesome situation though.

[impala454]

I'd like to see a 16 team playoff... take the conference champs and fill the other spots with wild cards based on a BCS type system. You could also use the BCS type system to seed the playoff spots. You could brand the playoff games just like the current bowls already do, and even still have the lower bowl system for the teams that don't make the playoffs.

IMHO trying to choose two teams to play in the national championship based on a handful of people's opinions and a bunch of computer calculations is not the way to do it. Let them play for it. The 17th worst team (who also didn't even win their conference) has no gripe about not playing for the national title.

Just my $0.02.

[blaarg]

When I think about the BCS I always imagine what would college basketball look like if they didn't have a tournament. Coaches and the AP pick the top two teams at the end of the year to play for the national championship, and that's it...I think that would be crazy. So why should football be the same way? (Granted b-ball scheduling/amount of teams involved would be way different than f-ball, but still...)

March Madness is in a tournament setting...they have plenty of drama/controversy associated with it. I don't think having a tournament eliminates that aspect.

I agree 16 team playoff with conference champs then at large is the way to go...

[Mommy]

i say we put all teams on the field at once and let them tackle the shit out of each other. last team standing wins.

[2wolUTT]

i say we put all teams on the field at once and let them tackle the shit out of each other. last team standing wins.

ok.

[hodge]

When I think about the BCS I always imagine what would college basketball look like if they didn't have a tournament. Coaches and the AP pick the top two teams at the end of the year to play for the national championship, and that's it...I think that would be crazy. So why should football be the same way? (Granted b-ball scheduling/amount of teams involved would be way different than f-ball, but still...)

March Madness is in a tournament setting...they have plenty of drama/controversy associated with it. I don't think having a tournament eliminates that aspect.

I agree 16 team playoff with conference champs then at large is the way to go...

actually given a larger pool of games a computer aided system would work better.

[blaarg]

actually given a larger pool of games a computer aided system would work better.

that's interesting you said this, I remember reading an article from espn.com discussing how the BCS system would best be suited for the NFL because of less teams and a longer schedule...

however, I still can't imagine not having march madness every year (a testament that the BCS still isn't as exciting as a tournament even when it WOULD be appropriate)

[hodge]

if you cut it down to a playoff style you basically cut half the teams out of the post season(going from 64 to 33) to retain the same number of bowl games. the big issue is distributing $ and costs of transporting teams. march madness works since its localized for the most part and the ticketing schemes workout for it. football... not so much so.

http://www.adultswim.com/video/?episodeID=...116a08b42b80005

[impala454]

You could still have regular bowl games for those that don't make the playoffs. Or even a separate tournament like the NIT.

[woody]

no matter what, i think at least mizzou got fucked out of a BCS game

[hodge]

You could still have regular bowl games for those that don't make the playoffs. Or even a separate tournament like the NIT.

like i said. to have the same number of bowl games you have to cut the field down. if you were to keep the same number of teams and do playoff for both, guess what? you double the amount of bowl games. explain how that will work both financially and logistically and ill be impressed.

[impala454]

like i said. to have the same number of bowl games you have to cut the field down. if you were to keep the same number of teams and do playoff for both, guess what? you double the amount of bowl games. explain how that will work both financially and logistically and ill be impressed.

Why do you have to keep the same amount of bowl games? How would the logistics not work out? Extra games would make more money for everyone involved. A sixteen team playoff only adds seven games, I dunno where you're getting this "double the amount of bowl games" business.