Congress to investigate BCS

[White Shogun]

As if figuring out what to do about getting our troops out of Iraq, paying off the deficit, making the tax system more fair, ad infinitum, wouldn't give them enough to worry about, Congress now wants to look into the "deeply flawed" BCS.

Un-friggin'-believable

Congress looks into BCS

 

[Colonel_Reb]

If the No Clue At All could make decent decisions, they would institute a playoff, but that is asking too much, apparently. I guess it gets under the skin of some politicians who have too much time, so they announce investigations. I'd rather have the old two poll method than the Bull Crap System we have now.

 

[bigman]

.. all well and good Colonel Reb, but I love the Bowls... and besides what would we have to argue about if there were a playoff system... no I like the idea that there is always some doubt about who is the best team in the country... this year I can imagine any of top 6 teams being quite able to beat Texas or USC....

 

[Colonel_Reb]

I never said the Bowls couldn't be utilized in a playoff system. They could and should be. I don't like having doubt about it. All it is, whether we like it that way or not, is a big mess.

 

[jaxvid]

The Bowl playoff system appeals to those of us who stay home and watch the game on TV. But really, how in the world could a playoff system be instituted?

You must remember that football is a sport that is played on a weekly basis. For a team to compete in a playoff there must be a weeks layoff between bowls. If a team wins a game it has to wait a week before playing. How can that be done? All of the major bowls play within a couple of days of each other. Are these bowls supposed to give up the short time around the holidays to be the 1st or 2nd round of a game?

What about the fans? Travel to a bowl game is a holiday vacation. There are virtually no fans that can afford to travel to say Orlando and then next week to Pasadena. Is the Bowl season supposed to stretch until February? How many people can take a week off at Christmas/New Years and then take more time off to go to another game later.

What about the cost to the teams? It costs a fortune to travel a major college team with all of its equipment support personel, band members, school officials, etc. They could not afford to do that more then once.

What about the students? Most college players are still students at some level. How can a student take an extra few weeks off from school and still be able to successfully complete classes?

And it would not end controversy. At some level the 120 Div-IA teams will have to be ranked, so even if you get No.1 and 2 right what about the argument over the No.10 and No.11 teams? And what happens when a 8-3 team gets hot and beats a 12-0 team in the final in a game that they would have never had gotten to because of their poor play during the season? That would be fair?

College football teams are merely amusement for the fans. It should not be made into a pro-style championship where there is only one "winner".

 

[backrow]

College football teams are merely amusement for the fans. It should not be made into a pro-style championship where there is only one "winner".

some very good points, out of which this one strikes me as best we can just sit back and enjoy young guys playing their hearts out

 

[White Shogun]

Personally, I don't care about the BCS or whether they move to a playoff system.

I just don't think Congress has any business meddling in the affairs of college football. Don't they have enough to do with the war in Iraq, the War on Terrorism, illegal immigration, and tax reform to keep themselves busy or what?

 

[Colonel_Reb]

Well, if we don't have just one winner, we will continue to have teams complaining they got left out or that they should have been awarded the title, ala undefeated Alabama in 1966. They could have, and probably should have been the first 3 peat team ever in college history. I don't think you'd worry about why the number 10 or 11 team got left out of a playoff system, because there would likely be 16 teams in the playoff system.

The bowls could surely be used. It's not like the bowl eligible teams would sit home during the playoffs. There would be the lower tier bowls scattered throughout the playoffs that would lead up to the big bowls for the championship. We currently have 28 bowls. If we had 4 weeks of playoffs, that would take 15 bowls, leaving 13 bowls for the teams that are left out of the playoffs, that way there would still be an incentive for those teams, and these 13 bowls could still take place around the holidays. You take the 15 oldest bowls and use them for the playoff system. By the time you get to the Championship, you are around or at January 1.

As for moving major teams around for the playoffs, do you think it is that less expensive to move I-AA teams around during their playoffs? I would argue that the money I-A schools would spend going to the playoffs wouldn't be taxing on the schools at all. They have plenty of money compared to smaller schools, and besides, they are already playing 12 games seasons, what will 4 more games hurt, especially since they would be playing for a lot more money. The bowls would still be paying out money to the teams. For each round of the playoffs you play in, you'd make more money for you and your conference, just like it is now.

It may seem complicated, but really it isn't. It is very easy to come up with excuses for why we shouldn't go to a playoff system like the one I just outlined, but none of them hold water. I think it is by sheer ignorance and laziness that we, myself included, continue to support the current BCS-bowl system. After all, Division I-A college football is the only major college sport that doesn't have a playoff system. If it is good enough for everyone else, why not have it in I-A and get a real champion every year?

 

[SteveB]

As someone who has played in two bowl games, I can tell you that I don't see the current system changing much. The reason is money. When a team plays in a bowl game, they travel to the bowl city 4 or 5 days before the game. This is unlike a normal road game where the team travels to the game the day before. During these days leading up to the game, it is non-stop luncheons and banquets with the players, alumni, sponsors, politicians, etc. The bowl sponsors pay big money so that they can have these events to entertain their clients, bankers, executives, major stock holders, etc. Essentially the whole week is a huge marketing tool for the sponsors. There is only a couple of hours a day available to actually practice and prepare for playing the game, which brings up the other point, the time factor.

Since there is very little time for game prep during bowl week, the team must get their game prep done before Christmas. So essentially the schedule is finish the season the first week of December, take a week for final exams, practice a week, take a few days off during Christmas to visit your family, then travel to the bowl game. I can't really see where you can fit more games in December. The way that the alumni and sponsors use the bowls as a marketing tool, I can't see where they are going pay big money to sponsor a bowl and not get the benefit of holding all of the bowl events which include the players. This is unlike the other college playoffs where the players stay home during the week, practice, then travel to the game the day before the game.

The only way a playoff system could work would be to play the conference championship games during Thanksgiving weekend, then play the first round of playoff games the first week of December (conf champ vs. conf champ)to determine the 4 BCS bowl teams, then play the bowl games, then play an additional game the second week of January between the 4 bowl winners, and finally a championship game the third week of January. This would give the bowl sponsors their bowl week that they pay big money for, but it would make for a long season. I think that the coaches and school administrators would be against it because it would cut short the recruiting season and not give the players more than a few days for the Christmas holidays.

 

[Colonel_Reb]

I think you missed my point SteveB. The BCS wouldn't be in the picture at all. You wouldn't have to change the bowl setup for almost half of the current bowl games and teams. I think you are right in that there could be an extra week for the last game, but this could be done without having to extend it far into January. They are already playing games on January 4, so it could be pushed to the 7'th, and the championship teams would have two weeks to get ready. Money is the reason it hasn't changed, but as soon as those in charge see that it won't affect the money, they won't mind the change that much. Still, I see it coming back to ignorance and laziness. BTW, I never said the system would change soon, and I don't think you have to have played in bowls to know that. I've been to 2, but I don't think it makes any difference in discussing the matter.

 

[SteveB]

Reb, I didn't make the point of playing in a bowl game to mean that you didn't know what you know what you were talking about. I was just saying that there is a lot of things that go on during bowl week that the casual fan doesn't realize, such as non-stop events that the players must attend to satisfy the sponsors. Looking at your plan, it's possible to use the bowl games as playoff games, but that would mean that some teams would not get to play in a bowl game and some teams would play in as many as 4 bowl games. To make it work, the bowl games would have to start as early as the first week of Dec. This means that to satisfy the bowl sponsors, the teams would have to travel and spend each week at a bowl city for the whole month of December, skipping one week of school, one week of final exams, and two or three days of Christmas. The sponsors don't pay the schools millions of dollars to just play the game. They pay them to attend events to help their businesses.

 

[jaxvid]

SteveB, I agree with you completely as that was the point of my earlier post. It is not that a playoff is a bad idea it is just that it is logistically impossible for the reasons you so ably cited.

You so rarely hear the reasons SteveB made in his excellent post and I can't for the life of me figure out why sportwriters would not bring these problems up. They are privy to all this pre-bowl hoopla and should know better. Maybe they just want some more free vacation time in warm weather destinations.

 

[SteveB]

Jaxvid, this is just my opinion, but I don't think that the sportswriters bring it up because they aren't getting any of the money and it doesn't support their idea for a playoff system. The two groups that are against the playoff system are the schools and the sponsors. The schools don't want to risk losing their money and sponsors don't want to risk losing their publicity and exposure.

We have the NCAA playoffs for basketball, but how much money do the schools get to compete? Very little. Sure it is a big event with lots of TV advertisement dollars, but compared to a major bowl game, it's peanuts. When people think of bowl games, they only think of the title sponsor (FedEx, Tostitos, etc), but each bowl may have 20 or more corporate sponsors. The title sponsor gets most of the TV advertisements, but these other sponsors are the ones that pay for all of the events.

 

[White Shogun]

Do any of you guys care that Congress is wasting time even DISCUSSING college football?

Or do you actually think this is something that requires Congressional intervention?

Puh-lease.

 

[Colonel_Reb]

I don't think it needs Congressional discussion at all, just for the NCAA and the bowls to get a clue. Again I say, if I-AA and everyone else in every other major sport can do it, so can I-A.

 

[JD074]

Has anyone seen the "Top Five Reasons You Can't Blame..." ESPN show about the BCS? Pretty interesting. It's fun to challenge people's preconceived notions, and to have your own challenged as well.

I don't think the system needs to be changed, but one simple change would be to have the number one ranked team play number four, and number two play number three, and the two winners play for the championship. That way you have four teams competing for the championship, and only one more game. It would most likely lead to the same result (the number one or two team winning the championship,) but the occasional- if not rare- upset might make it worthwhile. It's not a big deal.

I don't think the season should be extended too much. It's a painful sport, and they're not getting paid. Why should they get more beaten up than they already are?Edited by: JD074