BCS bowls

nael · #1 (**permalink**) 12-08-2003, 07:56 PM

For those of you who follow college football, the BCS bowl selections were made on Sunday evening. USC was left out of the championship Sugar Bowl game despite being voted #1 in both major polls.
I personally think that is great. The system should be based solely on a computer generated score with no polls factoring in at all. I knwo this will hurt the self-important media, but it is the fairest way to approach this. Simply calculate a score based on your margin of victory and your record, then do the same for each teams' opponents, and their opponents, and their opponents. There should be no bias towards any particular conference, guaranteeing the Big 12, big 10, pac 10, etc a spot each year.
thoughts?

Ned Flanders · #2 (**permalink**) 12-08-2003, 10:13 PM

but strength of schedule is a factor (and a bias) leaving USC high and dry as the Pac-10 is a cakewalk. My only two cents is that after Oklahoma embarrased themselves in the Big 12 championship, they have lost the right to play for a national title.

Idioteque · #3 (**permalink**) 12-09-2003, 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by nael

thoughts?

Playoffs

HighLordDave · #4 (**permalink**) 12-09-2003, 07:37 PM

If you don't win your conference, you have no business playing for the national championship.

Last week the Mount Union Purple Raiders advanced to the Divsion III semifinals for the ninth consecutive year, a span of 109 games, of which they have won 108, and won 54 consecutive games twice. They've won six of the last seven Divsion III national championships, all decided in a 28 team playoff format.

The only thing missing is high-profile "student"-athetes and gobs of money.

Don't tell me playoffs don't work for college football.

BaronTx · #5 (**permalink**) 12-09-2003, 08:56 PM

A 16 team playoff format is what division 1 needs. And seedings should be based on the BCS format. Keep the lesser bowls so people can have have fun watching their team that had a descent season and keep some revenue flowing to the smaller schools. That's 4 weeks of good football that would culminate at new years and keep the teams fresh so we don't see some of the blowouts you get when a team is inactive for so long.

nael · #6 (**permalink**) 12-09-2003, 10:15 PM

I think everyone except certain bowls and their sponsors would want to see a playoff system, I know I would want to see it happen.
those bastard purple raiders beat my Trinity Tigers on more than one occasion in the Div. III playoffs.

@ned- strength of schedule would be calculated in when you look at your opponents opponents opponents, etc. Teams like Notre Dame who don't have a conference would be crucial games since they would be a link between various conferences.

HighLordDave · #7 (**permalink**) 12-14-2003, 09:03 PM

It's not the bowls that want to keep the current system; it's the BCS conferences. With the automatic tie-ins they have, the 56 or so teams in the ACC, SEC, Pac 10, Big 10, Big East and the Big 12 (plus Notre Dame) get around 90% of all the bowl revenue.

If you were Florida State, Michigan or Notre Dame, would you want to see the TCUs, Tulanes and Miamis (OH) getting a shot at playing for a $14 million bowl instead of the $750,000 payouts that MAC, WAC and Conference USA teams get with their meager tie-in deals?

smass · #8 (**permalink**) 12-15-2003, 02:34 PM

I think we are likely to see one additional game added for the National Championship.

It would go like this - you have the top four teams play their bowls - then the winners of these two games play for the National championship the following week.

Another workable scenario is to use the four "big" bowls - the Sugar, Rose, Orange, and Fiesta - for an 8 team playoff.

I think the one additional National Championship game would be the best solution - but we will have to wait and see....