The BCS is ruining college football.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

If a team can't make it into the top 16 of the rankings, I don't think they should be playing for a chance at the title. The top 16 would be perfect. Take a year like this where the Big 12 has at least 4 teams who are legitimate top 10, even top 5, teams. The SEC has at least 2. Why exclude them due to conference affiliation? If you win, you can be in the top 16. Look at BYU, Utah, TCU, Tulsa, BSU, Ball State, Hawaii (last year), etc.

The NCAA basketball tournament is by far the greatest collegiate sporting event precisely because everyone has a shot to get in and anything can happen. Small conferences may only get one team in, but they shouldn't be excluded because they're not ranked.

I just believe that if a team wins it's conference in football it should be given a chance to play for a national championship, no matter what conference it's from. If the more traditional powers want in, they should win their conference titles.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

The voters would skew the rankings to exclude the teams they didn't want in.

Sure, but you can use computers in the formula too (which is why I suggested sticking with a BCS-type poll, but with the non-conference SOS added in as a separate factor).

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

The NCAA basketball tournament is by far the greatest collegiate sporting event precisely because everyone has a shot to get in and anything can happen. Small conferences may only get one team in, but they shouldn't be excluded because they're not ranked.

I just believe that if a team wins it's conference in football it should be given a chance to play for a national championship, no matter what conference it's from. If the more traditional powers want in, they should win their conference titles.

I think that works when you have 65 teams in a tournament, but if you had to eliminate 49 of those teams, I don't think you ought to be eliminating legitimate top 16 teams in favor of a team that could be ranked in the 50s or lower. I think the games would be far more entertaining if they were true top 16 teams fighting it out.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Sure, but you can use computers in the formula too (which is why I suggested sticking with a BCS-type poll, but with the non-conference SOS added in as a separate factor).

Right, and that's what they started with in the BCS, to remove the human influence, but over the years they've watered it down so that the humans can control it again to make sure the "wrong" teams don't get in. That's what would happen here, too.

And yes, your hypothetical sixteen for this year is great, but that's assuming the voters would have voted the same way in that scenario, which they wouldn't have.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Right, and that's what they started with in the BCS, to remove the human influence, but over the years they've watered it down so that the humans can control it again to make sure the "wrong" teams don't get in. That's what would happen here, too.

And yes, your hypothetical sixteen for this year is great, but that's assuming the voters would have voted the same way in that scenario, which they wouldn't have.

Maybe the teams change at the margins, but it is tough to think that Utah, TCU and BSU don't get in right now. Do you think the voters would actually drop them that far? Maybe Ball State is left out, but they are undefeated, and the teams right behind them are Tulsa and BYU. I don't think they could go totally crazy in excluding teams.

The BCS formula has changed a lot because people get mad that the best team is left out of the title game. I think there would be far less fan "outrage" at the bubble teams who may be left out, thereby requiring far fewer tweaks to the system to water down computer influence.

In any event, even if it wouldn't be perfect, it would be so much better than what we have now.

[BarbaraGordon]

I could be wrong. I suppose I'm awfully cynical. It just seems to me that the people who are in control aren't about to cede any control, and certainly not any money. They would just find a different means to achieve the same end.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I think that works when you have 65 teams in a tournament, but if you had to eliminate 49 of those teams, I don't think you ought to be eliminating legitimate top 16 teams in favor of a team that could be ranked in the 50s or lower. I think the games would be far more entertaining if they were true top 16 teams fighting it out.

You make a great point, but I'm just one who believes that teams shouldn't be punished because they are perceived as weaker. Let them play and if they get clobbered, so be it. But if they somehow pull off a win or two, it would be a great story and I think football would be better as a result.

Allowing all conference champions could also create more parity because all schools would be able to recruit better players. Kids that would go to a team like USC and sit might choose a smaller name where he could play and still have a shot at a title.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

I could be wrong. I suppose I'm awfully cynical. It just seems to me that the people who are in control aren't about to cede any control, and certainly not any money. They would just find a different means to achieve the same end.

I agree and this is exactly why one of two things need to happen:

The NCAA needs to have the guts to tell the BCS to stick it. Brand and his band of pussies have allowed the BCS to dictate what happens in college football because of the money that comes in from it. He needs to stand up to the cartel.

But that will never happen so:

Congress needs to go after the BCS for the monopoly that it is. Perhaps there's some kind of anti-trust violation.

The BCS is not about football, but money.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

You make a great point, but I'm just one who believes that teams shouldn't be punished because they are perceived as weaker. Let them play and if they get clobbered, so be it. But if they somehow pull off a win or two, it would be a great story and I think football would be better as a result.

Allowing all conference champions could also create more parity because all schools would be able to recruit better players. Kids that would go to a team like USC and sit might choose a smaller name where he could play and still have a shot at a title.

We will disagree on this one, although I see where you are coming from (I do love the NCAA tournament because of the Saint Mary's upsets over Arizona, but I think it is a different animal than football).

Here is how the tournament would look now under your scenario:

Florida State
Texas
Penn State
West Virginia
Tulsa
Central Michigan
TCU
USC
Alabama
Boise State
Troy

Plus 5 at large teams (taking highest ranked which are not already taken):
Oklahoma
Florida
Georgia
Texas Tech
Oklahoma State

Seedings look like this:

1. Texas v Troy (6-2, ranked 73 in CBS Sportsline)
2. Alabama v Central Michigan (5-2, ranked 51 in CBS Sportsline)
3. Penn State v West Virginia (5-2, #27)
4. Oklahoma v Tulsa
5. USC v Florida State
6. Georgia v TCU
7. Texas Tech v Boise State
8. Florida v. Ok State

I don't think this is better than what we would have with just the top 16. Ironically, you hurt Utah, who has the misfortune of playing in a tougher conference than Tulsa, Central Michigan and Troy. So you trade Utah for Tulsa, Troy for Ohio State (who already lost to Ohio State and OK State), and Missouri for Central Michigan (who got creamed by Georgia and Purdue). I think it is better with Utah, tOSU and Missouri.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

We will disagree on this one, although I see where you are coming from (I do love the NCAA tournament because of the Saint Mary's upsets over Arizona, but I think it is a different animal than football).

Here is how the tournament would look now under your scenario:

Florida State
Texas
Penn State
West Virginia
Tulsa
Central Michigan
TCU
USC
Alabama
Boise State
Troy

Plus 5 at large teams (taking highest ranked which are not already taken):
Oklahoma
Florida
Georgia
Texas Tech
Oklahoma State

Seedings look like this:

1. Texas v Troy (6-2, ranked 73 in CBS Sportsline)
2. Alabama v Central Michigan (5-2, ranked 51 in CBS Sportsline)
3. Penn State v West Virginia (5-2, #27)
4. Oklahoma v Tulsa
5. USC v Florida State
6. Georgia v TCU
7. Texas Tech v Boise State
8. Florida v. Ok State

I don't think this is better than what we would have with just the top 16. Ironically, you hurt Utah, who has the misfortune of playing in a tougher conference than Tulsa, Central Michigan and Troy. So you trade Utah for Tulsa, Troy for Ohio State (who already lost to Ohio State and OK State), and Missouri for Central Michigan (who got creamed by Georgia and Purdue). I think it is better with Utah, tOSU and Missouri.

I can agree to disagree about this - mainly because your scenario is assuming that TCU wins the MWC. That hasn't happened yet, so the Utes are still in the hunt.

I will say, however, that your playoff idea is much better than what we currently have.