The BCS finally totally fails!!!

[RShack]

Like I said, all 11 I-A conferences would get their champion in automatically. Then, the next top-five (supposedly) would be taken as at-larges.

Well, it's debatable no matter what you do. Which is one of the great things about college football. Once you impose sanity somehow, it will lose a lot of good timeless arguments.

I think it's not quite right to give minor conferences the same "in" as heavy-hitter conferences. Although, if you did that, then maybe Arkansas would join the Mid-America Conference, etc., and things would get re-arranged Yet Again. So, who knows?

Who cares? "Famous" bowls like the Cotton, former Peach, Sun, Liberty, etc. are already NIT bowls. And the Rose wouldn't care as long as they got USC/Cal vs. Michigan/Ohio State every year.

I agree it's debatable. I agree the big bowls appear to have too much influence for not-much reason.

Part of how you look at it is what your frame-of-reference is. I grew up when there were 4 big bowls: Rose, Sugar, Orange, and Cotton. So, therefore, to me personally, those are the ones with pedigree. All the rest of them never were much. Then, about the same time that the SW Conf went downhill (demoting the Cotton Bowl to lesser status), the Fiesta Bowl came out of nowhere with a fat paycheck. I like the idea of Rose, Sugar and Orange taking turns about the semi-finals and the final. But maybe that's just me.

[geschinger]

Well, it's debatable no matter what you do. Which is one of the great things about college football. Once you impose sanity somehow, it will lose a lot of good timeless arguments.

I think it's not quite right to give minor conferences the same "in" as heavy-hitter conferences. Although, if you did that, then maybe Arkansas would join the Mid-America Conference, etc., and things would get re-arranged Yet Again. So, who knows?

I don't think programs bolting for smaller conferences would be any more of an issue as a result of full inclusion in a football system any more than it is with basketball.

[RShack]

I don't think programs bolting for smaller conferences would be any more of an issue as a result of full inclusion in a football system any more than it is with basketball.

I think a lot of that is because every stout conference gets its best *several* teams playing in March. That wouldn't happen here.

[BaltimoreTerp]

I think a lot of that is because every stout conference gets its best *several* teams playing in March. That wouldn't happen here.

The top-five at-larges would probably b judged in-part by their strength of schedule, so if Arkansas wants to go MAC, they basically lower the chances of them getting in, because they would have to win the conference every year.

[geschinger]

I think a lot of that is because every stout conference gets its best *several* teams playing in March. That wouldn't happen here.

That's true, but in a 16 team playoff there would actually be more at large teams which would go almost exlusively to current BCS conferences. Before the Big East added the stellar teams that they added I didn't see a lot of interest from teams from other BCS conferences to want to switch to take advantage of an easier road to a BCS pay day. I just don't see it being any different if all of the sudden there were auto bids into a playoff for all the football conferences.

[BaltimoreTerp]

I agree it's debatable. I agree the big bowls appear to have too much influence for not-much reason.

Part of how you look at it is what your frame-of-reference is. I grew up when there were 4 big bowls: Rose, Sugar, Orange, and Cotton. So, therefore, to me personally, those are the ones with pedigree. All the rest of them never were much. Then, about the same time that the SW Conf went downhill (demoting the Cotton Bowl to lesser status), the Fiesta Bowl came out of nowhere with a fat paycheck. I like the idea of Rose, Sugar and Orange taking turns about the semi-finals and the final. But maybe that's just me.

I'm old enough (barely ) to have real memories of those times.

I think that to have a successful system, one needs to exclude the bowls altogether. They only act in their own interests, even now with the Rose having special rules within the BCS, and there is no reason to think that wouldn't continue.

Of course, they could also hold early-round sets of games in addition to the bowls themselves, getting increased money.

The whole reason the bowl system became as successful as it did was the matchups they created, i.e. the Pac-10 versus the Big 10 in the Rose Bowl. Go back to that situation, and I think we get the best of both worlds: a real national champion and the tradition of the sport.

[RShack]

I think that to have a successful system, one needs to exclude the bowls altogether. They only act in their own interests, even now with the Rose having special rules within the BCS, and there is no reason to think that wouldn't continue.

I don't see how it's any easier to exclude them than it is to just explain to them that there's new rules. Tell the Rose Bowl that either they can rotate among the semi-finals and the finals where they take whatever teams the playoffs say, or else they can be a NIT-bowl and pick whoever they want from the also-rans. Give them a choice. That's no harder than dumping them would be.

Plus, there's no good reason to dump them. If you have a playoff, it's better for the playoffs and better for the Rose Bowl to have them in it. It's better for everybody concerned. The hard part is getting the TV people to persuade the college prez's to quit being asses and hypocrites about it. Once the TV people and the college prez's get on the same page, then the bowl's will just say "Yes, sirs!" They'd have no choice, really.

The whole reason the bowl system became as successful as it did was the matchups they created, i.e. the Pac-10 versus the Big 10 in the Rose Bowl. Go back to that situation, and I think we get the best of both worlds: a real national champion and the tradition of the sport.

The Rose Bowl was a huge deal for decades before they ever had prefab conference match-ups. Really. Georgia Tech played in it a couple times, way back when. They only started the prefab match-ups when other bowls started popping up like crazy.

If you have a playoff, you can't go back to the prefab matchups unless those teams aren't in the Top-Whatever. There's no way you're gonna get a playoff of X-rounds plus still have extra bowl games in addition to that... unless the big bowls wanna take scrub NIT teams. No way that USC and Michigan or OhowIhateohiostate are gonna do the playoffs to try to get a NC, and then turn around and play another game in the Rose Bowl. 'Never happen. The Rose Bowl would be picking from whatever PAC10-BIG11 teams don't make the playoffs. They'd much rather get a NC game every third year and semi-finals the other two years. They'd be crazy not to. That would be the best way to get good games, which was their motivation for inventing the automatic Pac8-Big10 match-up in the first place.

[Birds of B'more]

Part of how you look at it is what your frame-of-reference is. I grew up when there were 4 big bowls: Rose, Sugar, Orange, and Cotton. So, therefore, to me personally, those are the ones with pedigree. All the rest of them never were much. Then, about the same time that the SW Conf went downhill (demoting the Cotton Bowl to lesser status), the Fiesta Bowl came out of nowhere with a fat paycheck. I like the idea of Rose, Sugar and Orange taking turns about the semi-finals and the final. But maybe that's just me.

Obviously the money was a big part of the Fiesta Bowl's rise to prominence, but it didn't hurt that they also were free of conference tie-ins, which helped them get some very appealing matchups back in the day when many big-time programs were still independants. The game really vaulted into Rose/Sugar/Orange status in the mid 80's when they were able to get the PSU/Miami National Championship matchup, followed by ND/WVU two years later. Luckily for the game's organizers, the game had reached elite status by the time all the big-name independants (minus ND, of course) joined a conference and spawned the Bowl Coalition, now known as BCS.

[RShack]

Obviously the money was a big part of the Fiesta Bowl's rise to prominence' date=' but it didn't hurt that they also were free of conference tie-ins, which helped them get some very appealing matchups back in the day when many big-time programs were still independants. The game really vaulted into Rose/Sugar/Orange status in the mid 80's when they were able to get the PSU/Miami National Championship matchup, followed by ND/WVU two years later. Luckily for the game's organizers, the game had reached elite status by the time all the big-name independants (minus ND, of course) joined a conference and spawned the Bowl Coalition, now known as BCS.[/quote']

Having no prefab tie-in's sure helped. But the Sugar, Orange, and Cotton Bowls each only had one prefab commitment. If their team was #1 or #2, they could pick the other team. Unless of course that team's conference was already committed to a prefab tie-in with another bowl. The Rose Bowl had no wiggle room at all. The Fiesta came out like a bandit mainly when both #1 and #2 were from conferences that had no tie-in (which did not happen often), otherwise they couldn't get the NC game either. All of which drove people nuts, which is how we got to the BCS scam we've got now. The only single thing the BCS planners could see was they had to arrange a game with #1 vs. #2. Except for that one idea (which led to their existence) they didn't think about anything else.

[Birds of B'more]

Having no prefab tie-in's sure helped. But the Sugar, Orange, and Cotton Bowls each only had one prefab commitment. If their team was #1 or #2, they could pick the other team. Unless of course that team's conference was already committed to a prefab tie-in with another bowl. The Rose Bowl had no wiggle room at all. The Fiesta came out like a bandit mainly when both #1 and #2 were from conferences that had no tie-in (which did not happen often), otherwise they couldn't get the NC game either. All of which drove people nuts, which is how we got to the BCS scam we've got now. The only single thing the BCS planners could see was they had to arrange a game with #1 vs. #2. Except for that one idea (which led to their existence) they didn't think about anything else.

True....which is why I seem to recall the Orange Bowl having the most significance from about the late 70's and through the 80's.....since they had the tie-in with what was then the Big 8. Basically it seemed that in most years either Oklahoma or Nebraska was #1 or 2 going into the bowls. Of course the rest of the conference was so pathetic back then that whomever won the head-to-head matchup between the two was usually undefeated, thus the lofty ranking.

[BaltimoreTerp]

I don't see how it's any easier to exclude them than it is to just explain to them that there's new rules. Tell the Rose Bowl that either they can rotate among the semi-finals and the finals where they take whatever teams the playoffs say, or else they can be a NIT-bowl and pick whoever they want from the also-rans. Give them a choice. That's no harder than dumping them would be.

Plus, there's no good reason to dump them. If you have a playoff, it's better for the playoffs and better for the Rose Bowl to have them in it. It's better for everybody concerned. The hard part is getting the TV people to persuade the college prez's to quit being asses and hypocrites about it. Once the TV people and the college prez's get on the same page, then the bowl's will just say "Yes, sirs!" They'd have no choice, really.

The Rose Bowl was a huge deal for decades before they ever had prefab conference match-ups. Really. Georgia Tech played in it a couple times, way back when. They only started the prefab match-ups when other bowls started popping up like crazy.

If you have a playoff, you can't go back to the prefab matchups unless those teams aren't in the Top-Whatever. There's no way you're gonna get a playoff of X-rounds plus still have extra bowl games in addition to that... unless the big bowls wanna take scrub NIT teams. No way that USC and Michigan or OhowIhateohiostate are gonna do the playoffs to try to get a NC, and then turn around and play another game in the Rose Bowl. 'Never happen. The Rose Bowl would be picking from whatever PAC10-BIG11 teams don't make the playoffs. They'd much rather get a NC game every third year and semi-finals the other two years. They'd be crazy not to. That would be the best way to get good games, which was their motivation for inventing the automatic Pac8-Big10 match-up in the first place.

You are not seeing how this is being planned.

The bowls would go alongside the tournament, both as a backup plan and as an extra incentive. I would have it so that a team that loses in the playoff could still go to a bowl game.

Since most of the teams in the tournament are still going to be the USCs, Ohio States, Oklahomas, etc. of the college football world, a bowl like the Rose Bowl would do well to make deals with a couple teams so that they can pick one or two of them when they lose. Same with the other bowls.

They get the marquee teams just as now, and the nation gets a national champion.

It doesn't make any sense to include the bowls in the system, because the games being played would not be the final game of the season for a team, in most cases. It wouldn't be a bowl except in name only, and in that case they become irrelevant.

I would MUCH rather have the games rotate between different cities, just like the NCAA Basketball Tournament and the Super Bowl, so that everything is spread out.

[Birds of B'more]

It doesn't make any sense to include the bowls in the system, because the games being played would not be the final game of the season for a team, in most cases. It wouldn't be a bowl except in name only, and in that case they become irrelevant.

Honestly, in your scenario I think the bowl games, especially the bigger ones, would be even more irrelevant if they were to become a "consolation prize" for a playoff loser than they would be if they were incorporated into a playoff system. Think about it.....how many fans of a team, after getting their hopes up for a national championship only to have a disappointing loss in an early round will then want to travel to Pasadena, Miami or New Orleans a week later to watch them play a meaningless exhibition?

[BaltimoreTerp]

Honestly' date=' in your scenario I think the bowl games, especially the bigger ones, would be even more irrelevant if they were to become a "consolation prize" for a playoff loser than they would be if they were incorporated into a playoff system. Think about it.....how many fans of a team, after getting their hopes up for a national championship only to have a disappointing loss in an early round will then want to travel to Pasadena, Miami or New Orleans a week later to watch them play a meaningless exhibition?[/quote']

It's the same way for all four "big" bowls now. Because of the "national championship" game, no bowl has any relevance whatsoever.

Only difference is now one site gets to host an extra game every four years.

[RShack]

You are not seeing how this is being planned.

The bowls would go alongside the tournament, both as a backup plan and as an extra incentive. I would have it so that a team that loses in the playoff could still go to a bowl game.

Since most of the teams in the tournament are still going to be the USCs, Ohio States, Oklahomas, etc. of the college football world, a bowl like the Rose Bowl would do well to make deals with a couple teams so that they can pick one or two of them when they lose. Same with the other bowls.

They get the marquee teams just as now, and the nation gets a national champion.

It's not that I don't understand. I do. I just don't believe it would ever work. You're basically turning the Rose Bowl into a meaningless exhibition game among losers that nobody will care about. The NFL used to have a Consolation Bowl for two division runner-ups. The old Colts beat the snot out of Dallas after the ref's stole their tie-breaker game with the Packers. Nobody cared, so they quit doing it. Nobody wants a consolation game. The Rose Bowl is way better off being in the playoff mix, and getting the NC game every three or four years, than they are getting stuck with some consolation game between losers.

[Birds of B'more]

It's the same way for all four "big" bowls now. Because of the "national championship" game, no bowl has any relevance whatsoever.

Only difference is now one site gets to host an extra game every four years.

No, it's different. Even for the non-championship bowls you're talking about fans that haven't seen their team play in a month or so travelling to see them matched up against a presumably (unfortunately not always) equal team. It's a chance to see just how good they are and it generates enough excitement for them to buy tickets and travel. In your scenario, the fans will be too disappointed and apathetic to do that right after being eliminated from the national championship playoff.