Is the BCS Good or Bad for College Football?

[SabresRule]

With the college football season drawing closer,

I'd like to discuss the BCS for a minute.

Last night, I recorded 'The Top 5 Reasons You Can't Blame the BCS for the lack of a college football playoff' and felt like talking about it on this forum.

There are far more BCS bashers than BCS backers, but I would like to know if you consider it a good thing or not.

(Personally, I'm for it and DON'T want a playoff- I do not want a three-loss team playing for all the Tostitos/Oranges/Roses.)

Here are my views of both sides of the argument.

The case for:

Gives us matches that normally don't happen.

Remember the Ohio State-Miami Fiesta Bowl or the USC-Texas Rose Bowl? Prior to the BCS, they would have likely shared the title.

(HD, Jimbo, try to imagine if your boys in Scarlet and Red SHARED the national title with Miami)

If there are at least two unbeaten teams, it gives us a decent solution (In the old days, three undefeated teams play in three separate bowls and it's difficult to choose a champion if they all won their respective games)

Remember the Penn State-Nebraska 1994 and Michigan-Nebraska 1997 title controversies? All that could have been settled with a BCS.

It tries and make things easier than the old days

Gives us great drama

The Case Against

Conference-qualifiers allow unworthy teams (2002 and 2005 Florida State) to make it in over more worthy teams (2004 Cal, 2005 Oregon)

Notre Dame

Nebraska in 2001

Florida State in 1998 and LSU last year backing into the title games

Allows team that don't play in a conference title game to still get in (Kansas last year)

Notre Dame- Need I say more?

Switching from ABC as its main network to FOX (ABC's announcers would have done a marvelous job with that Oklahoma/Boise Fiesta classic)

Cares more about strength-of-schedule than actual record (Remember what I said about West Virginia getting screwed in 1993 in favor Florida State because the press and such wanted Bowden to win his first title?)

What do YOU think?

 

[Hart5150]

It is good for the Big 10 and Big 12, but it sucks for the SEC.

 

[satjay]

Oh boy...this should be a good one: I think when you mention topics that are off limits it should be politcs, relgion and the BCS.....lol

Anyways I like, I was not a fan of it, but I do enjoy it now. I think the BCS matchups have been good in the past. I know its a money thing and that is why there in norreal "playoff" But it makes college football different!! Plus it keeps the last few weeks of the season very intresting, as far as what ifs, and as of late the what ifs have been happening (late season upsets and such)

So could me as a vote for yes

 

[anders5189]

The BCS is better than the previous system for all of the reasons you mentioned, but that does NOT mean it's a good system. The fundamental problem is that only 2 teams play a meaningful game, and those 2 are usually the media darlings like Ohio St. Anybody with half a brain knows that all the teams ranked in the Top 10 could beat each other so why not give them the chance?

Boise St's win over Oklahoma was fantastic, I'd have loved to see them try their luck against someone else after that. The NY Giants didn't just pack up and go home after they beat Tampa Bay in the wildcard game, they got to keep going. Look how that turned out. Just think of the unique matchups you'd see if you had a playoff. I just hate the fact that finishing 3rd in the BCS standings is about the same as a team who went 6-6. Where's the justice in that?

 

[jwfgeol]

I agree with anders that it is better than what we had. I personally would like to see at least a "plus one" game added. They already added an extra BCS game. Why they didn't make it a plus one I have no clue.

 

[yourbeliefs]

I think they really need to cut down on the number of bowl games. I think I counted 32 of them, and most of them are just corporate named bowls. I never played college football, but I can't imagine that a lot of "pride" or "reverence" can be given to a team that wins something called the "Papajohns.com" Bowl. No one remembers who wins these little bowls, let alone watches them, and it reeks of this horrible trend that seems to be going on with children sports where everyone gets a trophy or a medal. The idea of winning a bowl game means nothing if no one remembers you won it. I think there should be no more than 10 bowl games. Don't stretch us so thin with all these games that no one cares about which the BCS or the networks created just because you wanted money from corporate hogs who just wanted to splatter their names all over something. That's like Toyota trying to make a national holiday called "Camry Day."

 

[cybok0]

We do this same thread every year, Jimbo always has the right answer for this.

 

[SideshowBob]

I personally like the bowl system in general and think the BCS was a very good improvement. I'd be a fan of just making the BCS championship game a "plus one" and set up the matchup after the bowls.

 

[cjwct]

yourbeliefs is sort of right witht all the corporate games

THERE WILL BE NO PLAYOFF SYSTEM OR LESSENING OF A BOWL SCHEDULE AS LONG AS THE CORPORATE WORLD IS INVOLVED

 

[stevenl]

I think they really need to cut down on the number of bowl games. I think I counted 32 of them, and most of them are just corporate named bowls. I never played college football, but I can't imagine that a lot of "pride" or "reverence" can be given to a team that wins something called the "Papajohns.com" Bowl. No one remembers who wins these little bowls, let alone watches them, and it reeks of this horrible trend that seems to be going on with children sports where everyone gets a trophy or a medal. The idea of winning a bowl game means nothing if no one remembers you won it. I think there should be no more than 10 bowl games. Don't stretch us so thin with all these games that no one cares about which the BCS or the networks created just because you wanted money from corporate hogs who just wanted to splatter their names all over something. That's like Toyota trying to make a national holiday called "Camry Day."

Id be for it if Camry Day meant an extra paid day off work

 

[CharlesO]

The whole system is a joke, with the BCS being the biggest one.

All the BCS really concerns itself with is having teams it calls "#1" play what it call "#2" and call it a "Championship Game" regardless of fact that they are or are not.

It gets worst every year because there is no consistency of "the rules" that are applied.

The newest joke being what I have deemed the "Herby Factor", named after ESPN's Kirk Herbstreit, in that the human polls should "live and breathe" thus advocating using the polls to get the result you want. Basically making it a football version of ice skating, a judged sport.

While there is a legacy with the bowl system, it only extends to games like Rose, Orange and even ones like the Sun. But there is no legacy with a papajohns.com bowl or watching two 6-6 teams play in places like Toronto or Albuquerque.

The other arguments of "extra games" and "most meaningful regular season" are laughable.

The "plus one" concept is just another flawed idea spawned by a flawed system.

But like others, as long as the ESPN, FOX and corporate sponsors keep throwing money at this joke the longer it won't change.

 

[anders5189]

The newest joke being what I have deemed the "Herby Factor", named after ESPN's Kirk Herbstreit, in that the human polls should "live and breathe" thus advocating using the polls to get the result you want.

Great. That will all but ensure that Ohio St. plays for the championship every year. Anything for the old alma mater.

 

[Mets82]

As a casual observer of college football, I have an opinion on this. I believe it was on dbsforums where I talked about this subject. Maybe it was or wasn't but I feel ALL BOWL GAMES SHOULD END ON JAN. 1. I feel this way because it was tradition that bowl games end on Jan. 1. I think if you have games after Jan. 1, it loses it's cache or its aura. I mean think about this. You have the Rose and the Sugar or whatever the BCS dictates on Jan. 1 and then you have the International Bowl and the GMAC Bowl but those bowls are before the BCS title game. My point is those two bowls should be one of the first ones played. Those bowls shouldn't sniff the BCS bowls.
The BCS has been a pain every year. Every year people complain about the BCS. I thought the BCS was to stop the complaining and have a champ every year. All it is are the games best for tv. I've never understood why you have the BCS when you don't know all your games are going to be good. There's a good chance that the BCS games that stand alone are going to be blowouts. What does FOX do then? One of their biggest games is a blowout and they'll do a lousy rating.

 

[riffjim4069]

It's very, very bad...

 

[John W]

But the money is good..... in or out of a BCS game ..... win or lose

 

[Paul Wozniak]

It's better than nothing, but not as good as a playoff.

 

[SamCdbs]

The BcS is vomit.

The BcS makes its 6 conference, plus UND, equal. The goal is to get into a BcS bowl for this half of a division is to win their conference. The ultimate goal is to go undefeated. The quality of the conference is totally irrelevant.

For the other half of the division, they must go undefeated to get in the lowest BcS bowl.

Its a crime.

Return to the previous system. Each bowl makes its own deal and the polsters pick a champion. If you are passed over, as Penn State was three times, UPGRADE.

No system that says beating Rutgers, Syracuse, South Florida, etc is the same thing as beating LSU, Tennessee, and Florida is sane.

 

[SabresRule]

Return to the previous system. Each bowl makes its own deal and the polsters pick a champion.

Sam,

the old system?

THAT WAS EVEN WORSE!

If there was no BCS, USC and Texas would have shared a national title.

Instead of their epic game, fans would have said, "What if the Trojans played the Longhorns?"

Ditto for Ohio State and Miami a few years ago.

And what about the USC-Oklahoma-Auburn mess?

 

[SamCdbs]

No. The pollsters would have simply made a rational decision, as they did when they passed over then Lambert Leaster Penn State three times, on which team had the better record against the better schedule.

Far superior to equating South Florida with Florida, Syracuse with Auburn, and Rutgers with Georgia.

 

[SabresRule]

No. The pollsters would have simply made a rational decision, as they did when they passed over then Lambert Leaster Penn State three times, on which team had the better record against the better schedule.

Funny you mention Penn State.

In 1994, they got jobbed by Nebraska, and we all know that Tom Osbourne's Huskers had schedules with opponents that were the epitome of what a college football creampuff is.

One of their 1994 opponents was Pacific.