BCS--Devil's Advocate Position

[jay santos]

I've hated the bowls long before the BCS came out. I've been tweaking my 32 playoff system for the last ten years, and I believe it is doable, would address all the anti-playoff concerns, and would be incredibly awesome. And I think BCS power broker and Big 10 commissioner Jim Delany is the devil. I imagine his face melting Indiana Jones style to reveal he has no soul (similar to Seattle Ute in that regard).

BUT

Delany made some arguments for the BCS which I actually might have some merit.

1. Exciting regular season. The regular season for college football seems to get bigger and bigger every year. Regular season for college basketball seems to get less and less relevant every year. Every week there are national championship implications and major interest in several big games. As the season winds down it gets bigger and bigger as teams shuffle for the shot at the national championship or a BCS bowl.

2. $. This goes back to #1. Delany says there is only so much money out there. If you try to squeeze more out of the post-season all you'll do is take it from the regular season. He helped negotiate the regular season and BCS TV ABC contracts and believes he has maxed out the revenues college football can get.

3. It's fair. Everybody has a shot at the national championship and a BCS bowl. I believe this. A prerequisite before the season even starts is at least a reasonable SOS, but if you have this, everyone has a shot. The regular season really is like a long playoff. Now that they have softened the rules for non-BCS qualifying for BCS game, even that part is fair. As compared to basketball, the best two teams don't always play in the championship. It's the teams that have played the best over a five game stretch. Football just takes the two best over the whole regular season.

[Indy Coug]

Why do we need 32 teams in a playoff?

[ute4ever]

Originally Posted by jay santos

1. Exciting regular season. The regular season for college football seems to get bigger and bigger every year. Regular season for college basketball seems to get less and less relevant every year. Every week there are national championship implications and major interest in several big games. As the season winds down it gets bigger and bigger as teams shuffle for the shot at the national championship or a BCS bowl.

I think a 32-team playoff would put a quick end to that. Even a WAC team with two losses could get in, as would some 5-loss SEC teams.

That's why I think an 8-team playoff would be just about right. That way if a team loses a game, their chances are hurt, but they would still have a shot and would keep playing their best, rather than playing unmotivated.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by ute4ever

I think a 32-team playoff would put a quick end to that. Even a WAC team with two losses could get in, as would some 5-loss SEC teams.

That's why I think an 8-team playoff would be just about right. That way if a team loses a game, their chances are hurt, but they would still have a shot and would keep playing their best, rather than playing unmotivated.

It's a double edge sword, an 8 or 16 team playoff completely takes the life out the lower tier bowls, which are barely alive as it is now.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by jay santos

It's a double edge sword, an 8 or 16 team playoff completely takes the life out the lower tier bowls, which are barely alive as it is now.

The lower tier bowls are harmed by the fact they suck. Las Vegas, Poinsettia, Fort Worth Armed Forces, New Mexico bowl--they all suck.

I wouldn't care if they disappeared due to a playoff. The bowl is meaningless.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by jay santos

It's a double edge sword, an 8 or 16 team playoff completely takes the life out the lower tier bowls, which are barely alive as it is now.

This contradicts your Delany #3 comment above.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by jay santos

I've hated the bowls long before the BCS came out. I've been tweaking my 32 playoff system for the last ten years, and I believe it is doable, would address all the anti-playoff concerns, and would be incredibly awesome. And I think BCS power broker and Big 10 commissioner Jim Delany is the devil. I imagine his face melting Indiana Jones style to reveal he has no soul (similar to Seattle Ute in that regard).

BUT

Delany made some arguments for the BCS which I actually might have some merit.

1. Exciting regular season. The regular season for college football seems to get bigger and bigger every year. Regular season for college basketball seems to get less and less relevant every year. Every week there are national championship implications and major interest in several big games. As the season winds down it gets bigger and bigger as teams shuffle for the shot at the national championship or a BCS bowl.

2. $. This goes back to #1. Delany says there is only so much money out there. If you try to squeeze more out of the post-season all you'll do is take it from the regular season. He helped negotiate the regular season and BCS TV ABC contracts and believes he has maxed out the revenues college football can get.

3. It's fair. Everybody has a shot at the national championship and a BCS bowl. I believe this. A prerequisite before the season even starts is at least a reasonable SOS, but if you have this, everyone has a shot. The regular season really is like a long playoff. Now that they have softened the rules for non-BCS qualifying for BCS game, even that part is fair. As compared to basketball, the best two teams don't always play in the championship. It's the teams that have played the best over a five game stretch. Football just takes the two best over the whole regular season.

Yes, everybody has a shot, but they don't have an equal shot. That is the problem.

As for money, Delaney is really saying that the BCS people don't want to share any more money with the non-BCS schools than they absolutely have to. The actions of the powers that be in the BCS have proven this.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Yes, everybody has a shot, but they don't have an equal shot. That is the problem.

As for money, Delaney is really saying that the BCS people don't want to share any more money with the non-BCS schools than they absolutely have to. The actions of the powers that be in the BCS have proven this.

Why should the University of Texas get the same amount of money as San Diego State?

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Why should the University of Texas get the same amount of money as San Diego State?

I'm talking about the payout of BCS bowls. That little club would rather not share that pie.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Why should the University of Texas get the same amount of money as San Diego State?

Exactly. There should be some minimum average home attendance requirement. I suggest 45,018.