2004 NCAA Football season (1 Viewer)

[Blu]

Why oh why do the people who are in charge of the BCS so opposed to a playoff system?



This just makes no sense to me!
It is one of the lead stories on Yahoo Sports and this guy claims that the fans want the BCS system over a playoff system!

I very much doubt you would find much support for the current system over a playoff system.

 

[Patrick Sun]

Bob Stoops isn't in favor of a playoff system either. On ESPN, he said that some years, we're going to have split-champs, and other years, an extra game gets played for nothing (Stoops cited when his team recently won the championship with a win in a bowl game and were the only team to go undefeated that year, would it have been fair to make that team play yet another game in a playoff system?) Plus, the college players aren't pros and don't have to prove their team's worth in a playoff system if they already go through the bowl system).

Life will go on after the Sugar Bowl.

 

[george kaplan]

Yeah, unfortunately these guys are talking out of both sides of their mouths. On the one hand they tout the BCS as supposedly selecting the #1 team, but then lots say, well there's nothing wrong with a split championship. A system that has to be modified every year, isn't one that works.

Wrong. USC is the best team, and they only way you'll convince me and most other people otherwise, is if the winner of the Sugar Bowl plays USC in a week or two. Oh, I know it won't happen, but there's no good reason why it couldn't happen. LSU, OU and the BCS can spin tonight's game anyway they want but it's just spin.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

Why oh why do the people who are in charge of the BCS so opposed to a playoff system?

The answer is quite simple -- the bowl system generate lots and lots of money. Any other reason given by NCAA officials is just a smoke screen.

Let's see. The biggest excuse is that a playoff system will take the "students" away from the classroom too much. However, this doesn't seem to be a problem in Division 1-AA, II or III, which all have playoffs -- and there are a lot more real students at those levels than at the big Division 1-A schools. Nor does it prevent teams like Michigan from heading out to the west coast a couple of weeks before their bowl game.

 

[Bill_D]

I agree with most of you that USC is getting the shaft by not be afforded the opportunity to lose to, er I mean play Oklahoma or LSU but I am not going to propel them to the number 1 spot because of it. However, I will admit that USC has the better cheerleaders. USC should be happy with the no. 1 status in the popularity polls and no.2 in the BCS.

Congratulations to USC and the LSU/OU winner for excellent championship seasons.

 

[Carlo_M]

You know what, I don't think we need a playoff system either.

In the past "X" number of years I've been watching college football, the WORST that has happened is a split national championship. Other years, the NC has been unquestioned.

So how about this:

1. Keep some form of the Bowls (even if it's BCS decided) intact. In years where the system gets it right, pitting #1 vs. #2, then the results stand.

2. In the even of something like the #1 and #2 teams don't end up playing, or other types of controversy like this year (i.e. who is #1, #2, #3 according to AP, BCS, Coaches Poll) then you have the top four teams play in separate bowls just like this year, and play ONE ADDITIONAL GAME IF NECESSARY.

Since USC won this year they would simply play the Sugar Bowl winner. If USC had lost, then the Sugar Bowl winner is the NC.

 

[ThomasC]

In the even of something like the #1 and #2 teams don't end up playing, or other types of controversy like this year (i.e. who is #1, #2, #3 according to AP, BCS, Coaches Poll) then you have the top four teams play in separate bowls just like this year, and play ONE ADDITIONAL GAME IF NECESSARY.

AFAIK, there has never been a football game played out of necessity, so I don't think it's ever going to happen.

 

[Chris]

There will never be a playoff system for this simple reason: Money.

The moment you have a playoff system, you screw up the money; let's say there was a playoff this year; how many Michigan fans would have travelled to Pasadena to root on their team knowing that if they win, there will be another game, maybe in Arizona or Florida, etc. the next week? How many people would pass on tickets, because they can't fly out to see their team one week and then fly the next week for the "big game"?

Very few bowls actually make big money; they operate because of the advertising value; controversy actually works to their benefit, not the other way, whereas a playoff works the other way.

For basketball, because of the lower # of fans in the seats and the speed of the game, it's more financially beneficial to do it the other way; but let's be honest: the NCAA tournament makes -significantly- less money then the bowl system for the universities.. and that's what the U's are after, it's what defines most of the decisions they make.

 

[KyleS]

Well I have to say that something needs to be done because I am disgusted at this point watching Oklahoma play LSU. LSU is taking care of business at this point and OU is starting to throw balls up in desperation. I sure wish we could have seen LSU play USC (should have been) then we would have had a good game.

There will hopefully be a lot of positive things that come out of this game like getting RID of the BCS when the contract is up and going with a smaller bowl series of some type like 1 or 2 extra games for the winning teams without as long of a break through December.

KyleS

 

[John Thomas]

Just got through watching this year's championship bowl game. Excellent game, and congratulations to LSU. I look forward to watching them repeat as national champions when college football starts back up next fall.

 

[Jason L.]

I'm surprised that ABC is downplaying that non-LSU fumble with 3 minutes to go. He had two feet down and had control of the ball. That would have been huge for OU.

 

[ThomasC]

I don't get it, why didn't Oklahoma try to return it? I know the odds were most definitely not in their favor, but it's better than not trying at all, isn't it?

 

[Patrick Sun]

Brain fart.

 

[ThomasC]

Brain fart.

That's quite a brain fart.

 

[John Thomas]

I agree that the BCS system is flawed but it will spit out the same results with constant inputs. No so with the opinion polls.

No doubt. It's similar to the Olympics scoring system, ejecting the high and low of each of the individual polls and using a scientific method determining SoS and the like. The AP is simply opinion/popularity polls, which is even incorporated into the BCS system.

Congratuations to LSU for winning the 2003 NCAA Football championship (shared?). I'm guessing Nick Saban will be staying

 

[Patrick Sun]

I think Saban is just glad to be making $1 more than Bob Stoops after this win.

 

[Chris]

Yeah, it's only a $1,000,001 raise (and a nice palindrome)

 

[Frank Grimes]

"I don't get it, why didn't Oklahoma try to return it? I know the odds were most definitely not in their favor, but it's better than not trying at all, isn't it?"

Though they definitely should have had someone back there, there was an equally good chance that the punter was just going to run back with the ball, run the clock, and take a safety if necessary. That's most likely the reason they rushed everyone, all or nothing in a block/forced fumble.

 

[Frank Grimes]

Did I neglect to mention, national champions beeeeeyotches...

 

[Chris]

The big laugh is on the Big-12.. lets see..

Texas: L
Oklahoma: L
Nebraska: W
Kansas: L (though how a 6 game winner gets a bowl *shrug*)
Kansas State: L
Texas Tech: W
Missouri: L
Oklahoma State: L

Hmm... 2-6

OU looked like they never recovered from the KState shellacking, and KSU looked stunned through the first half from Ell's debacle; those were both games against good opponents.

Missouri played a mixed Arkansas team and never presented a real effective plan; OSU played a tight game against a good Eli Manning.. KU should not have been in a bowl, and Texas got humiliated..