Goodbye BCS......

[jrebel87]

http://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal ... ll-playoff



and good riddance. The middle paragraph says it all: "you made terrible matchups, with the only classic being the 2005 Texas-USC game."

[Rebchuck18]

Once it is gone we will realize that the BCS was the one system in all of sport which truly produced worthy, non watered down, Champions. And if this new "committee" truly wants to get the best 4 teams, they will use the BCS model. But they will instead use subjectivity and this thing WILL be expanded and college football will be as lame as the NFL!

[rebeljim]

Once it is gone we will realize that the BCS was the one system in all of sport which truly produced worthy, non watered down, Champions. And if this new "committee" truly wants to get the best 4 teams, they will use the BCS model. But they will instead use subjectivity and this thing WILL be expanded and college football will be as lame as the NFL!

Disagree Chuck, the BCS sucks. I rather see the champion crowned for winning on the field. If there was a 4 team playoff this year, bama would probably be crowned the NC again. They have the best team and would be able to prove it on the field. No way awbarn is as good as bama. Too hard to stump your toe when playing in the SEC as opposed to other conferences. Even though Fla. St. is a very good team, the rest of that conference isn't very good. Doubt bama would lose to any team in the ACC if they were in Fla. St.'s place. Here u are complaining about the softies the SEC plays outside the conference, when playing tough OCC games only makes it harder to go undefeated. And going undefeated is what usually gets u in the NC right now.

[Titles 'R Us]

I agree with Chuck on this one. The subjectivity of the rankings will not change one iota because the goal is now to get the four best teams in the country instead of the two best. From week to week the voters and coaches routinely reflect the biases of their regions or the leagues they cover and coach. That will not change--guaranteed. Also: some teams will get the benefit of the doubt because of past reputation and achievements over teams that do not have as impressive a long-term resume. This new committee smacks of political correctness in including non-football people who will factor in such thing as 'fairness,' 'distributing the wealth,' and their own personal prejudices which they will keep to themselves but will manage to work into these 'Beltway-type' discussions.

I think the BCS worked just fine. I liked it. ESPN, which now owns football, and their talking heads will be told to promote the idea of expanding to six or eight teams for this 'smoke-filled, backroom committee' to pick the first year that the fifth and sixth place teams complain about not being included. This one's a no-brainer. ESPN wants more games to televise for more revenue. All of this means more games to play and will prove nothing. I'm not looking forward to the NFL-ization of the college game.

It's all just sad.

[3rdR8Bromance]

Ah, yes - the ol' "on-the-field" argument – Was not the Iron Bowl on the field? Are not September games on the field? Is not the BCS title game on the field? One huge reason for the "horrible" match-ups is because the non-SEC teams have been so weak, relatively, and got there by running through a lesser schedule. I guess, what is being said, in essence, is that neutral field/everyone paying attention (convenience, for the fan/viewer)/late-season/a team being 'on a run' is deemed a better "proof" of actual team quality/strength, than an entire season's body of work. I honestly believe that this will ultimately lead to watered-down, some level of sand-bagging, elite "Super-Conference" exclusive, NCAA football. But that's just me, I suppose.

This I also agree with, whole-heartedly, as much as it pains me:

I agree with Chuck on this one. The subjectivity of the rankings will not change one iota because the goal is now to get the four best teams in the country instead of the two best. From week to week the voters and coaches routinely reflect the biases of their regions or the leagues they cover and coach. That will not change--guaranteed. Also: some teams will get the benefit of the doubt because of past reputation and achievements over teams that do not have as impressive a long-term resume. This new committee smacks of political correctness in including non-football people who will factor in such thing as 'fairness,' 'distributing the wealth,' and their own personal prejudices which they will keep to themselves but will manage to work into these 'Beltway-type' discussions.

I think the BCS worked just fine. I liked it. ESPN, which now owns football, and their talking heads will be told to promote the idea of expanding to six or eight teams for this 'smoke-filled, backroom committee' to pick the first year that the fifth and sixth place teams complain about not being included. This one's a no-brainer. ESPN wants more games to televise for more revenue. All of this means more games to play and will prove nothing. I'm not looking forward to the NFL-ization of the college game.

It's all just sad.

[jrebel87]

But the problem is the BCS has produced horrible match-ups on a year-to-year basis. Look at last season for example. We all knew that Notre Dame wasn't worthy of playing for the championship, no matter what their record was. Most of us acknowledged that when we destroyed Pitt and then realized that it took the Irish double overtime to beat the same team. There has only been two "good" games during the BCS era, with the rest of them being terrible match ups. The play off will even things out. Teams will have to earn their spot by playing other great teams! Think about this: Chuck, how many times have you seen people on here complain that "Ohio state, Notre Dame, or Oklahoma shouldn't be playing for the championship because their regular season schedule was too easy?" It happens nearly every year with the BCS. SEC teams ALWAYS earn their way to the championship because they have to beat the best in the country to make it to the championship game. That's not the case with other conferences. Now it won't matter. Teams that played easy schedules will have to beat other good teams to prove that they belong and most likely it will be SEC teams that they have to beat.

[Rebchuck18]

It is definitely ESPN driven. If you prefer the NFL over college you will like this. If you prefer the magic of college football IMO you will ultimately rue this day. Especially since it allows non conference champions in. For instance this year Bama would certainly be in the four, which would make the Iron Bowl virtually meaningless. IMO the only time the BCS got it glaringly wrong was when Bama got a second shot at LSU after losing to the SEC Champs in the regular season. In fact under the playoff format, Bama would have been better off than Auburn because they didn't have to risk injury (or loss) in the SEC Championship Game. The magic of college foitball is the importance of the entire season and huge regular season games, especially in the SEC. This is a bad thing for college football and it was forced by people who don't appreciate or love college football like those of us who think it is the greatest game of all! As far as last year goes, Bama was clearly the best team in the land and were going to handle any team.

[jrebel87]

Ah, yes - the ol' "on-the-field" argument – Was not the Iron Bowl on the field? Are not September games on the field? Is not the BCS title game on the field? One huge reason for the "horrible" match-ups is because the non-SEC teams have been so weak, relatively, and got there by running through a lesser schedule. I guess, what is being said, in essence, is that neutral field/everyone paying attention (convenience, for the fan/viewer)/late-season/a team being 'on a run' is deemed a better "proof" of actual team quality/strength, than an entire season's body of work. I honestly believe that this will ultimately lead to watered-down, some level of sand-bagging, elite "Super-Conference" exclusive, NCAA football. But that's just me, I suppose.

This I also agree with, whole-heartedly, as much as it pains me:

I agree with Chuck on this one. The subjectivity of the rankings will not change one iota because the goal is now to get the four best teams in the country instead of the two best. From week to week the voters and coaches routinely reflect the biases of their regions or the leagues they cover and coach. That will not change--guaranteed. Also: some teams will get the benefit of the doubt because of past reputation and achievements over teams that do not have as impressive a long-term resume. This new committee smacks of political correctness in including non-football people who will factor in such thing as 'fairness,' 'distributing the wealth,' and their own personal prejudices which they will keep to themselves but will manage to work into these 'Beltway-type' discussions.

I think the BCS worked just fine. I liked it. ESPN, which now owns football, and their talking heads will be told to promote the idea of expanding to six or eight teams for this 'smoke-filled, backroom committee' to pick the first year that the fifth and sixth place teams complain about not being included. This one's a no-brainer. ESPN wants more games to televise for more revenue. All of this means more games to play and will prove nothing. I'm not looking forward to the NFL-ization of the college game.

It's all just sad.

But thats just the issue! How about this: completely forget about the SEC for a second. These other teams that "earn" their way to the championship game do so because their regular season schedules are way too easy. Now it won't matter how easy they are, they will most likely have to beat SEC teams that are in the top 4 to earn their spot in the championship game. This will tell us who the true champion is.

[jrebel87]

It is definitely ESPN driven. If you prefer the NFL over college you will like this. If you prefer the magic of college football IMO you will ultimately rue this day. Especially since it allows non conference champions in. For instance this year Bama would certainly be in the four, which would make the Iron Bowl virtually meaningless. IMO the only time the BCS got it glaringly wrong was when Bama got a second shot at LSU after losing to the SEC Champs in the regular season. In fact under the playoff format, Bama would have been better off than Auburn because they didn't have to risk injury (or loss) in the SEC Championship Game. The magic of college foitball is the importance of the entire season and huge regular season games, especially in the SEC. This is a bad thing for college football and it was forced by people who don't appreciate or love college football like those of us who think it is the greatest game of all!

There's no magic in teams like Notre Dame making the championship game when it took them two overtimes to beat Pitt, a team we destroyed in the Compass bowl. There's no magic in teams like Oklahoma getting demolished by 30 when the second best team in the country was clearly Auburn. I mean Chuck do you realize that had Louisville or Ohio State gone undefeated this season, they would be in the national championship game against FSU?!?!?! Not one person can acknowledge that Bama isn't better then either of those teams but it wouldn't matter because those other teams played easier schedules.

[Rebchuck18]

Why should Bama get another shot! They had their shot, they lost. They do not deserve another shot. The long term and ultimate byproduct (and I believe goal) of this is the diminishing role, and ultimate disappearance, of conferences in favor of a big corporate controlled divisional NFL type setup run by ESPN. This is not only going to ruin the unique magic of the college game, it is likely a very bad thing for Ole Miss. And Louisville would not have been in the NC game and if Ohio State had beaten that Michigan State Defense IMO they should be in the NC game over an Auburn team that won two fluke games.

[GtownRebel]

It is definitely ESPN driven. If you prefer the NFL over college you will like this. If you prefer the magic of college football IMO you will ultimately rue this day. Especially since it allows non conference champions in. For instance this year Bama would certainly be in the four, which would make the Iron Bowl virtually meaningless. IMO the only time the BCS got it glaringly wrong was when Bama got a second shot at LSU after losing to the SEC Champs in the regular season. In fact under the playoff format, Bama would have been better off than Auburn because they didn't have to risk injury (or loss) in the SEC Championship Game. The magic of college foitball is the importance of the entire season and huge regular season games, especially in the SEC. This is a bad thing for college football and it was forced by people who don't appreciate or love college football like those of us who think it is the greatest game of all! As far as last year goes, Bama was clearly the best team in the land and were going to handle any team.

I agree with you. In fact I think this will fall on it face in a couple of years as there will be many more complaints of teams not making the final 4 every single year, not much different than it is today with only two teams making it to the finals. It will expand to 8, 16, and possibly 32. Just an interesting way to extend the season for more $$$$'s.

[3rdR8Bromance]

It is definitely ESPN driven. If you prefer the NFL over college you will like this. If you prefer the magic of college football IMO you will ultimately rue this day. Especially since it allows non conference champions in. For instance this year Bama would certainly be in the four, which would make the Iron Bowl virtually meaningless. IMO the only time the BCS got it glaringly wrong was when Bama got a second shot at LSU after losing to the SEC Champs in the regular season. In fact under the playoff format, Bama would have been better off than Auburn because they didn't have to risk injury (or loss) in the SEC Championship Game. The magic of college foitball is the importance of the entire season and huge regular season games, especially in the SEC. This is a bad thing for college football and it was forced by people who don't appreciate or love college football like those of us who think it is the greatest game of all! As far as last year goes, Bama was clearly the best team in the land and were going to handle any team.

I agree with you. In fact I think this will fall on it face in a couple of years as there will be many more complaints of teams not making the final 4 every single year, not much different than it is today with only two teams making it to the finals. It will expand to 8, 16, and possibly 32. Just an interesting way to extend the season for more $$$$'s.

BINGO!!! & have you noticed that, right now, the NFL is (quietly) trying to avoid non-sellout induced TV 'blackouts' in GB, and other places, for the PLAYOFFS!!! That's where this is heading; and the college variety will have to take a 'back seat' to the NFL, as that has been a solely profit-driven model, for years; whereas NCAA will be late to that particular 'game.' I think there are certain interests, who would strongly prefer for the NCAA to eventually 'morph' into a farm system, for the NFL (thus talk of "paying the players" and having a similar playoff system).

[Rebchuck18]

BINGO!!! & have you noticed that, right now, the NFL is (quietly) trying to avoid non-sellout induced TV 'blackouts' in GB, and other places, for the PLAYOFFS!!! That's where this is heading; and the college variety will have to take a 'back seat' to the NFL, as that has been a solely profit-driven model, for years; whereas NCAA will be late to that particular 'game.' I think there are certain interests, who would strongly prefer for the NCAA to eventually 'morph' into a farm system, for the NFL (thus talk of "paying the players" and having a similar playoff system).

Exactly... If you want to see what it will become look at college basketball.

[rebeljim]

Ah, yes - the ol' "on-the-field" argument – Was not the Iron Bowl on the field? Are not September games on the field? Is not the BCS title game on the field? One huge reason for the "horrible" match-ups is because the non-SEC teams have been so weak, relatively, and got there by running through a lesser schedule. I guess, what is being said, in essence, is that neutral field/everyone paying attention (convenience, for the fan/viewer)/late-season/a team being 'on a run' is deemed a better "proof" of actual team quality/strength, than an entire season's body of work. I honestly believe that this will ultimately lead to watered-down, some level of sand-bagging, elite "Super-Conference" exclusive, NCAA football. But that's just me, I suppose.

This I also agree with, whole-heartedly, as much as it pains me:

I agree with Chuck on this one. The subjectivity of the rankings will not change one iota because the goal is now to get the four best teams in the country instead of the two best. From week to week the voters and coaches routinely reflect the biases of their regions or the leagues they cover and coach. That will not change--guaranteed. Also: some teams will get the benefit of the doubt because of past reputation and achievements over teams that do not have as impressive a long-term resume. This new committee smacks of political correctness in including non-football people who will factor in such thing as 'fairness,' 'distributing the wealth,' and their own personal prejudices which they will keep to themselves but will manage to work into these 'Beltway-type' discussions.

I think the BCS worked just fine. I liked it. ESPN, which now owns football, and their talking heads will be told to promote the idea of expanding to six or eight teams for this 'smoke-filled, backroom committee' to pick the first year that the fifth and sixth place teams complain about not being included. This one's a no-brainer. ESPN wants more games to televise for more revenue. All of this means more games to play and will prove nothing. I'm not looking forward to the NFL-ization of the college game.

It's all just sad.

The Iron Bowl wasn't on a neutral field. Big difference. If they were to play 10 times, bama would win the majority of them. Bye bye BCS and good riddance.

[3rdR8Bromance]

The Iron Bowl wasn't on a neutral field. Big difference. If they were to play 10 times, bama would win the majority of them. Bye bye BCS and good riddance.

Maybe so, maybe no. That's what I call purely speculative. The simple fact is, the Tide had their shot, on the Plains, and lost. Even on a 'neutral field,' neither Bama, nor anyone else, will get an opportunity, @ 9-out-of-10 games, to prove it. BTW, didn't aTm win, last season, in Tuscaloosa?