defending the BCS

[Hokie200proof]

I appreciate your input bigesse... I still disagree but you've given me some points to think about. Here's what I would say to your last response:

By jeopardizing your product, there's a good chance that the game is less fun to watch. If Stanford, Baylor, Oklahoma State, or Alabama lose Luck, Griffin, Blackmon, and Richardson, are fans outside of those programs going to tune in? Maybe the die hard college fans like you and me, but the regular viewer probably won't. Stars have to be protected, even if they are the minority.

If playing one-four extra games a year for 15% of the players in CFB is going to cause such a rash of injuries that it will diminish the product...

I hate to say it, but those kids would never have survived year 1 in the NFL. And will have even less of a chance when the next CBA ends and they flirt with an 18-game season again.

Also... the vast majority of the college players DON'T end up in the NFL and are NOT jeopardizing $$$ in the NFL because they aren't 1st/2nd round material. That's only 64 kids. That's not even a full team of scholarships. They are the minority by far and away. The very moderate increase in games should have no real impact on the overall health of the players in CFB. I'm sure the majority of players would want the extra big games to prove themselves, maybe even sneak into the later rounds of the draft with a big performance on a big stage.

Scheduling a playoff would garner higher ratings than the Beef O'Brady bowl, but would a Saturday game for the Sugar Bowl in the semi final help improve ratings to a Monday or Tuesday game? Maybe, but I think it all depends on the matchup, which is what BCS bowls are killing themselves with tie ins and AQs. If the BCS bowls were allowed to choose who they wanted, then I think the current system would have higher ratings than playoff games on Saturdays. It's the one day of the week that people just don't watch as much TV.

We're both guessing here. The only additional piece I would add would be that having a big playoff would increase gambling... even casual office bracket gambling. That translates into much much more casual interest. Right now no one gives a shit about the lesser bowl (or the big bowls for that matter) unless they are a diehard or they are bored with other TV. Millions follow and tune in for March Madness because they have a small stake in its results. A playoff is more exciting. I can only assume this would lead to far better ratings.

Stanford and Oklahoma State would want a fair opportunity, not just an opportunity, which you are providing. Stanford and Oklahoma State have not played any similar opponents to LSU and Alabama, but yet they are supposed to travel to their field. I don't see why they should do that.

The NCAA tournament doesn't have opponents travel to Cameron Indoor because they know how unfair that would be. I don't think a line should be drawn for any of these teams because homefield advantage in college football is huge for any team. There's a reason why not many OOC teams are trying to schedule home and homes with VT.

You're criticizing the fairness of a system that gives 16 teams a shot (albeit a very unlikely shot for some) at the NC versus a system that only allows two teams to play? I don't see your point here. Is there an advantage to being 1st in the BCS and gaining the first two rounds at home? Yes, of course. Would Ohio think it's unfair that they have to play @ LSU in the first round because their conference is weak? I guess. How is that any different from how they feel now where they have ZERO chance to compete for an overall championship? I think they'd rather have the chance. You can't have ALL of the games at neutral sites. That WOULD make a playoff cost-prohibitive. You need to have some games at home fields. So something's got to give.

 

[757Hokie83]

Scheduling a playoff would garner higher ratings than the Beef O'Brady bowl, but would a Saturday game for the Sugar Bowl in the semi final help improve ratings to a Monday or Tuesday game? Maybe, but I think it all depends on the matchup, which is what BCS bowls are killing themselves with tie ins and AQs. If the BCS bowls were allowed to choose who they wanted, then I think the current system would have higher ratings than playoff games on Saturdays. It's the one day of the week that people just don't watch as much TV.

hey speaking of ratings, last nights game had the lowest TV ratings ever of any national championship game in the BCS era, lol

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/01/alabama-lsu_produces_lowest_tv.html

 

[Hokie200proof]

hey speaking of ratings, last nights game had the lowest TV ratings ever of any national championship game in the BCS era, lol

Alabama-LSU produces lowest TV rating for national championship in BCS era | al.com

LMAO. Uh-oh.

I hope this means times are a changing.

 

[Chrish1023]

While I'm glad that the ratings sucked, the fact that the game aired on ESPN as opposed to the basic 4 networks does hurt a little bit (when comparing to games earlier in the decade). Down 14% from last year is cause for concern, though.

 

[Hokie200proof]

So Arkansas State has more of a reason to be in the playoff than Arkansas because they won the Sun Belt? I think it's too difficult to do 16 team playoff for this very reason. We can't please everyone, so is the playoff to reward the best teams for their season or to give everyone a chance? Giving everyone a chance is basically extending the beginning of the season to December. We complained when we played Arkansas State at the beginning of the year, but we want to play them now since they won the Sun Belt? I doubt many sponsors will be thrilled to have to pay for those matchups.

Also, Arky State and Arkansas would both be in this year's 16-team playoff...

First Round
1 LSU
16 Louisiana Tech

8 Kansas State
9 Wisconsin

4 Stanford
13 West Virginia

5 Oregon
12 Southern Miss

6 Arkansas
11 Texas Christian

3 Oklahoma State
14 Northern Illinois

7 Boise State
10 Clemson

2 Alabama
15 Arkansas State

 

[Taz_Hokie]

How about conference champions ranked in the top 25 get an automatic, at larges fill in the rest?

 

[hunzworth]

Late to the party today and i cant read through this whole thread (I tried, i really did)

To start let me just say that im against a full blown playoff but im all for a +1, +2, or actually let all the conf champs and a few at large (aka the bcs teams) play in a playoff. Whether it cost the schools or not I honestly just like the ideas that guys are rewarded at the end of the year for a winning season. FTR: i would be fine with eliminating the bottom 5-10 bowls but if people want to pay to host a crappy football game that is their business. Another thing about bowls v/s playoffs is the fact that just like the bowls teams would actually "lose" money on their travel and hotel cost. I "_" lose because considering the amount of money football makes for schools I look at it more as a business expense than a loss.

things that i think would help the BCS.

- do away with preseason polls. The polls shouldnt come out until wk 4 or 6 in the season.

- Lets get all the "major" conferences to the same # of teams. Whether it be 14, 16, or whatever. Or at least make it so that every BCS level team has to play the same # of BCS level opponents (ten imo). If your conference only plays 8 conf games you should be required to schedule 2 bcs level teams.

- No coaches poll. As has been stated there is no way that coaches are seeing very many of these ballgames and @ the least they are basing their vote on the opinion of newspapers, ESPN, and the like. There should also be a poll comprised of every day people but some how regulated so that large fan bases dont have an advantage.

- If we are keeping the BCS we need to only allow conference champions in the BCS game.

 

[Taz_Hokie]

I would love to see them eliminate the 12th game just in general, having bowl teams finish with a losing record is ridiculous. This would also free up a weekend for the 8 team playoffs featuring the top 6 ranked conference champions + 2 at large teams.

This years playoffs would be:

LSU
TCU

Stanford
Wisconsin

OK St
Oregon

Bama
Clemson

(should be Stanford v Oregon and OK St v Wisky, but switched them for not wanting to see a rematch in the first round or two)

 

[hunzworth]

I posted this in the OT thread but i thought it fit the topic here a little better

Bowl Championship Series officials to discuss possible format changes - ESPN

 

[bigesse16]

hey speaking of ratings, last nights game had the lowest TV ratings ever of any national championship game in the BCS era, lol

Alabama-LSU produces lowest TV rating for national championship in BCS era | al.com

The fact all the BCS bowls down this year shows that CFB was down this year. Last year, the game was the highest rated game on ESPN, so it being down 14% this year is not that bad, considering it was a rematch.

I appreciate your input bigesse... I still disagree but you've given me some points to think about. Here's what I would say to your last response:

If playing one-four extra games a year for 15% of the players in CFB is going to cause such a rash of injuries that it will diminish the product...

I hate to say it, but those kids would never have survived year 1 in the NFL. And will have even less of a chance when the next CBA ends and they flirt with an 18-game season again.

Also... the vast majority of the college players DON'T end up in the NFL and are NOT jeopardizing $$$ in the NFL because they aren't 1st/2nd round material. That's only 64 kids. That's not even a full team of scholarships. They are the minority by far and away. The very moderate increase in games should have no real impact on the overall health of the players in CFB. I'm sure the majority of players would want the extra big games to prove themselves, maybe even sneak into the later rounds of the draft with a big performance on a big stage.

Again, the minority makes CFB the most money and are the most likely to get drafted. Increasing the risk of injury hurts the players and the game if they are to get hurt.

We're both guessing here. The only additional piece I would add would be that having a big playoff would increase gambling... even casual office bracket gambling. That translates into much much more casual interest. Right now no one gives a shit about the lesser bowl (or the big bowls for that matter) unless they are a diehard or they are bored with other TV. Millions follow and tune in for March Madness because they have a small stake in its results. A playoff is more exciting. I can only assume this would lead to far better ratings.

I agree about the lesser bowls as it had diluted TV, but they are viewed as rewards to teams and are played by themselves so those fans can watch. Those games know they aren't going to bring in tons of viewers and I doubt that would change even with a playoff. The bowl system is just too popular to completely get rid of.

Millions tune to March Madness because games are played much more frequently (minus breaks for travel) and because there is nothing to compete with it in March. There are no holidays and the only other sports going on are NBA and NHL.

You're criticizing the fairness of a system that gives 16 teams a shot (albeit a very unlikely shot for some) at the NC versus a system that only allows two teams to play? I don't see your point here. Is there an advantage to being 1st in the BCS and gaining the first two rounds at home? Yes, of course. Would Ohio think it's unfair that they have to play @ LSU in the first round because their conference is weak? I guess. How is that any different from how they feel now where they have ZERO chance to compete for an overall championship? I think they'd rather have the chance. You can't have ALL of the games at neutral sites. That WOULD make a playoff cost-prohibitive. You need to have some games at home fields. So something's got to give.

The BCS is not set up to be fair. It's set up to pick the top 2 teams, which no one likes to hear, but it does it's job. If a playoff is advocating fairness and equality, then it should not give an advantage as big as homefield advantage based on a poll. I hate the BCS because of the polls and any system that continues to use the polls is going to fail in my opinion. I think the BCS minimizes the damage from polls, which is why I think it is better than a playoff.

The BCS would be fair if there were not polls. Remember Oklahoma State was #2 in the computers, but the Harris Poll and Coaches poll ranked them #3. It's the human element that is killing how teams are selected and I think that giving teams homefield advantage based on the polls is a mistake. Is it more fair than the BCS? Yes, but does it accomplish the level of fairness that you are trying to advocate? I don't think so, but that is up for debate.

My problem is I believe the whole thing needs a huge overhaul that a playoff right now would not fix. College football is all about tradition and I don't think the polls and bowls are going any where. I also think the players are the ones who get shafted in a playoff and everyone assumes that because these guys are such competitors and want to play in a playoff, that it is good for them to do so. That's just my 2 cents and I know alot of people will disagree, but I think the best we can hope for is a +1.

 

[NickVT10]

The polls are great and are what make the sport different but they should be used in a smaller role. The coaches poll needs to go away completely. The ideal situation IMO is an 8 team playoff set up by the BCS that does not include a coaches poll and maybe bring the AP poll back into it (even though they didn't want to be in it currently). Coaches can't and don't watch other teams enough to have any input. A 8 team playoff adds 2 games to 2 teams, 1 game to 4 teams' season including the bowl they would have been in. Nothing major. Keep the other bowls during the week and saturday mornings with the playoffs saturday afternoon and nights. Championship game on or the weekend before New Year's eve or maybe New Year's Day. The first round of the playoffs held at current BCS bowl sites. 2nd round at NFL stadiums that rotate, NCG rotates between the 4 current BCS bowl sites.

The issue becomes getting the fans to up to 3 games in 3 weeks. Possibly doing 2nd round at higher seed's stadium and having ticket's purchased from the schools being valid for all 3 games if the school is involved in them. I think that would increase the demand for the tickets from the schools. Extra games means more sponsors which means more money as well which is what it all comes down to in the end.

 

[757Hokie83]

my biggest concern with a playoff scenario would be....and i hate to say it....but given VT's history in "big games"...i think we'd be a lot more likely to win one big game if we were to get back to the title game, rather than have to win 2, 3 or however many "big" games back to back