BCS Goes Back to the Future

By Kyle Lamb on April 27, 2012 at 10:00a
68 Comments
Baghdad Bill HancockBCS Executive Director Bill Hancock 

Unless you’ve been living in a cave or you think Twitter is a Cajun dish, you’ve undoubtedly heard the big news by now: the BCS will recommend a four-team playoff to presidents of NCAA FBS universities.

Eleven conference commissioners met this week in Hollywood, Fla. along with Notre Dame Athletic Director Jack Swarbrick – who inexplicably they continue to let sit at the grown-ups’ table – to discuss the future of the Bowl Championship Series. After days of deliberations, the 12 angry men have confirmed they’ll endorse 2-3 different scenarios to be voted on in July.

This has the feel of an alternate (preferred) ending of a movie released 20 years ago.

In January of 1992, after two consecutive years finishing with split national champions, a bunch of men got together and decided the solution was blatantly obvious. They’d take the top two teams that the members of the esteemed media picked for them subjectively, provided those teams didn’t play in the Big Ten or Pac-10 (as they didn’t want to share their bowl with others) and if the media or coaches wanted, they could vote the winner of the game as the national champion.

D’oh! Why didn’t we think of that sooner?

If you listen to unflappable BCS Executive Director (Baghdad) Bob Bill Hancock, it’s because it was groundbreaking. In a 2009 U.S. News and World Report diary, Hancock defended the BCS for its revolutionary contributions to college football.

“Before the formation of the BCS, the Associated Press's No. 1 and No. 2 teams met in bowl games only eight times in 56 seasons,” he began. “In contrast, since the conferences created the BCS 12 years ago, the top two teams have played every year if you use the BCS measurements and nine times if you go by the AP poll. The BCS is the best format ever devised to match up the nation's top two teams in a bowl game.”

So what he’s saying, with a straight face, is that they created a subjective formula to determine the top two teams, and the system was able to match its top two teams against one another every season without fail according to the formula they used. That’s groundbreaking stuff, really.

I wish there was a warranty for stupidity.

Even in my hormonal, pubescent years, I figured the system for the sham that it was. Now after several variations and adaptations that led us to the BCS as we know it, I want the 20 post-adolescent years of my life back.

When I ponder this news for more than two seconds, without regurgitating, I feel like Jim Carrey in Dumb and Dumber: “we’ve landed on the moon!”

For the past 20 years, college football has been running in place. While professional football popularity has skyrocketed and has arguably become America’s pastime, college football has evolved into the national past-due. This solution of a four-team playoff, or “event” as the BCS cloaks were calling it earlier in the week, is the Kelly’s Blue Book version of trading in a Chevy Bel Air for a Corsica. Give me the freakin’ DeLorean instead.

Calling Marty McFly. Played by Michael J. Fox, McFly was the teenager in the 1985 science-fiction adventure, Back to the Future, that used the DeLorean to travel back in time by 30 years. By mistake, he causes his mother to fall for him and must undo the damage by playing Cupid with her and his future father’s hearts. In this case, I wish we could make certain the parents had never met.

That it took two decades to come up with this antiquated solution is a slam on American ingenuity. In his diary, Hancock used the ‘slippery slope’ argument as one of many to describe playoffs as untenable.

Slive and Delany Mike Slive and Jim Delany should settle differences old-school

“Wherever a line is drawn, the teams on the outside looking in will inevitably start clamoring to enlarge the playoffs,” Hancock noted. “That's exactly what has happened with the NCAA men's basketball tournament, which has grown from eight teams to 65 teams and now is under pressure to expand to 96.”

Of course, Hancock misses the point that there were less than 100 major college basketball teams when the NCAA Tournament began in 1939, and there are now almost 350. The same ratio applied to FBS would yield us a 22-team tournament (FCS now uses 20) so calling for an eight or 16-team format is hardly opening up Pandora’s Box.

Even if it were, forget slippery slopes: give me the whole treacherous mountain.

Officially, the BCS has ruled out any formats above four teams. That means beginning in 2014 we’ll have to enjoy the addition of power windows to our new Corsica. Perhaps in another decade we’ll catch up with technology.

For now, we must savor this as one small step for man and a giant leap for BCS-kind. Like BCS officials, we value the regular season. But how meaningful has the regular season been for Boise State (twice), Utah (twice), Auburn and TCU who all ran up undefeated seasons with no BCS title game appearance to show for it? Remember, it’s also the same system that gave Alabama a rematch with LSU after losing at home during the regular season in a game that made Wisconsin basketball look sexy.

But hey, now we’re just preaching to the choir. Most people already wanted a playoff long ago. BCS…meet moon.

There remain many obstacles before the final details are hashed. Will the four teams be conference champions exclusively or picked at-large? Will those selections be by computer, by poll or by selection committee? Will the games be played on January 1 with the championship a week later, or will it begin a week earlier? Heavyweights Jim Delany and Mike Slive have been engaging in an Old Western saloon showdown in public over whether to play the national semifinals on-campus or as part of the BCS bowl lineup.

This week, Florida AD Jeremy Foley noted the “logistics” issues with playing semifinal games on-campus. He added there’s, “too much at stake.”

One must call into question Foley’s motivation. His school hasn’t played an out-of-state, non-conference game since 1991. Jim Boeheim would be proud. Ironically, that game was against Syracuse.

In fact, in the last 193 games played over 15 seasons for Florida, only 62 have been played outside of the sunshine state. Among those, 58 of them were mandated by the SEC with the other four being bowl games. Only four of their last 15 bowls have been played outside of Florida (New Orleans twice, Atlanta and Phoenix). So when Foley hedges on the idea of playing a game north of the Mason-Dixon, one has to question his real motivation. It seems Florida is perfectly happy living their priviledged existance close to home.

The battle of Slive and Delany is being won by the SEC statesman…for now. Reports from outlets far and wide have the leader in the clubhouse being a system where the semifinals would be played among rotating BCS bowls with the championship being bid out to various cities.

It’s ironic how this is the leading option. In fact, in Hancock’s 2009 public relations (read: propaganda) tour, his rhetoric directly combats this.

“Second, playoffs burden the fans,” Hancock wrote in a separate USA Today diary. “It's unrealistic to ask thousands of college students and fans to travel to faraway places week after week, to follow their teams through a playoff.”

Yet, Hancock, in response to why now after all these years they’re finally going to a playoff, said, “they’re listening to the fans.”

If that were true, there would be more than four teams; some games would be played at home sites; and you’d be out of a job.

That we’re going to wind up seeing these games played as part of the BCS bowls is unsurprising. In fact, if you’ve read Dan Wetzel’s Death to the BCS book, this just further illustrates the bowl cartel is running the show. They couldn’t defeat public opinion any longer, so the solution was to simply increase the importance of the bowls altogether.

Whether Delany wins the battle over format supremacy or Slive wins, they all win. While the SEC is hoping the system stays in their favor, it’s rigged in favor of all of them. And that’s why we’re 20 years behind the curve and we’ll be running in circles for 20 more.

We can debate the specifics until we're blue in the face. There are merits for both selecting four teams at-large and using only conference champions. One gives us a better chance at the four best teams, while the other is merit-based, would eliminate some of the subjectivity and would create a prima facie playoff during all conference games. Bonus points: the latter would also screw Notre Dame. And whether they play semifinal games on-campus or on a neutral field is a matter of preference.

Unfortunately, these arguments are largely superficial and only reinforce the fallacy of why it's taken us this long to get here. 

It’s so sad that we’re willing to accept mediocrity in a system. A four-team playoff is certainly better than the finger-painting they've been passing off as artwork for two decades, but I feel like a Cubs’ fan thrilled for 81 wins. We should still be outraged that it took us so long to get a “step in the right direction.” That’s a long time for a freakin’ step. This news should be happening in 1992 and not 2012. Instead, we got the Bowl Coalition and all the self-adulation by BCS execs for thinking they’re so clever for instituting it.

Paging Dr. Brown: bring us your DeLorean. We have a love interest to destroy.

68 Comments

Comments

Arizona_Buckeye's picture

It doesn't matter what they come up with - there will still be a million people bitching and moaning about it.  Personally, I'm f@#$ing tired of hearing about it!

People bitched and moaned about coaches and writers being bias when creating the poll rankings, so they came up with the BCS.

People bitched and moaned about it being only configured and calculated using formulas and no human input.  So they added in the human polls to the BCS.

People bitched and moaned about the new BCS so they are now adding in the playoffs.

Before it is even voted on, people are bitching and moaning about it.

Notice any trends people?  I've come to the conclusion that we, as a nation, are becoming nothing more than a bunch of whiny spoiled little brats who are never satisfied with what they have.

The best thing about Pastafarianism? It is not only acceptable, but advisable, to be heavily sauced

Alhan's picture

What started the American Revolution?  A bunch of people bitching and moaning about paying taxes accross the ocean. America was built on bitching and moaning!

"Nom nom nom" - Brady Hoke

hodge's picture

Haha, totally true.  Many people forget that we fought for our independence because we were pissed that in 1763, after a century of not paying taxes, the Crown asked us to start contributing to the war had partially fought in the colonies (French and Indian War, or The Seven Years War).  We were being taxed without representation, yes--but so was every other colony under the Crown.  We had it better than everyone, and then got pissed when Britain starting treating us equally to their other colonies.

Arizona_Buckeye's picture

Glad to see after hundreds of years - we still haven't grown up or evolved!

The best thing about Pastafarianism? It is not only acceptable, but advisable, to be heavily sauced

sharkvsghost's picture

man, you know what's awesome...monarchy.

swing hard in case you hit it.

Buckeyeneer's picture

True statement, . . . if you're the king.

"Because the rules won't let you go for three." - Woody Hayes

THE Ohio State University

sharkvsghost's picture

I didn't add the /sarcasm to the post above...I hope it's implied.

swing hard in case you hit it.

Buckeyeneer's picture

It is. I was just joking too. A monarchy would be awesome if you were king. Damn comment section not getting my emotions across properly!!! (he says while shaking his fists)

"Because the rules won't let you go for three." - Woody Hayes

THE Ohio State University

Arizona_Buckeye's picture

It's good to be the king!

The best thing about Pastafarianism? It is not only acceptable, but advisable, to be heavily sauced

AltaBuck's picture

"it's good to be the King"

 

I have been known on occasion to howl at the moon. - Crash Davis

PWLafferty. TBDBITL. TRow.'s picture

^Arizona here is special, you guys.  Hasn't complained about one thing his entire life.  He's the perfect human being...teach me.

"I'm up there with Chris and Dave Pass, getting ready to broadcast that game, and that band came out of that tunnel, I was wiping tears out of my eyes and all the memories came back." ~Urban Meyer

Arizona_Buckeye's picture

Thanks for noticing

The best thing about Pastafarianism? It is not only acceptable, but advisable, to be heavily sauced

Boxley's picture

 

"It doesn't matter what they come up with - there will still be a million people bitching and moaning about it.  Personally, I'm f@#$ing tired of hearing about it!"

I assume that you noted your own irony in complaing about people complaining.

"...the man who really counts in the world is the doer, not the mere critic-the man who actually does the work, even if roughly and imperfectly, not the man who only talks or writes about how it ought to be done." President T. Roosevelt

Arizona_Buckeye's picture

HA - didn't until you posted that!  I'll stop bitching and moaning about people bitching and moaning!!!

 

The best thing about Pastafarianism? It is not only acceptable, but advisable, to be heavily sauced

buckeye76BHop's picture

"In Memory of Squirrell Master" Dude...do you know what evolving is AR Buck??? That's the whole point of the BSC "changin" to a play off system!  Wow's all I can say about the countless blogs of bs this guy keeps putting out there.  OSU fans should be happy...this will not be that big of a deal to the Bucks...not sure why it is to others.  It's the best thing for the masses and sure they'll be ppl with a problem with it (for instance the 5th team and it's fans that are left out in 2014). AR Buck...that's how the world works...it's not perfect but evolving is all we can do.  I think some crazy guy named Darwin had a theory about it but I think AR Buck is WAY smarter than him...just read all this above & below;-)

"There's nothing that cleanses your soul like getting the hell kicked out of you."

"I love football. I think it is most wonderful game in world and I despise to lose."

Woody Hayes 1913 - 1987 

Bucks's picture

I assure everyone that it is possible to have a difference of opinion and/or viewpoint without pointing out ones own salary, generalizing comments into broader comparisons to fit the point or calling someone's opinion "bullshit." Goes towards all, not just one specific poster.

buckeye76BHop's picture

I believe everyone's entitled to their opinion or differences for that matter.  It's when someone tries to support their opinion(s) with senseless points of reference is what I have a problem with (Salaries, Graduation rates, oh...and hmmm BS with we're not evolving...wow).  It's funny to have comparisons/arguments over salaries when this "Bowl" system that's in place now is ALL about the ole mighty$$$ (and so will the play offs).  Anyways...not to keep this pissing contest going as another here called it...I just really think ppl are missing the point.  I usually like AR-Bucks comments...just not these (that are just due to fear of change not actual damage to the game.  Bowl games are not going away...so why complain!  How can it be more damaged than it is now...meaning there's no real clear Champion declared.  Can anyone actual tell me that Oklahoma St. shouldn't have got a chance to at least play LSU or AL last year after the so-called title game?  If not...Common MAN!).  They were going to progress towards a play off years ago but floundered.  Now with the push of most if not all conference presidents...it's Finally going forward.  I just don't see the reason to whine...we're not Wisconsin are we?  An opinion with good points to back it up is one thing...bitching and whining is another.   

"There's nothing that cleanses your soul like getting the hell kicked out of you."

"I love football. I think it is most wonderful game in world and I despise to lose."

Woody Hayes 1913 - 1987 

sharkvsghost's picture

"Those Sons of Liberty are a bunch of whiny spoiled little brats." - King George III

swing hard in case you hit it.

Todd-Not Boeckmann's picture

I STRONGLY Urge all college football fans to read Dan Wetzel's book, Death to the BCS  I was opposed to a playoff until I read it.  The scandalous levels of corruption in not just the BCS, but the entire bowl system is jaw dropping.  THe story of FIU and their first ever bowl trip will cause you to shake your head.  And don't wave it off by saying that the schools make too much money with the status quo.  That's the biggest lie since Rich Rodriguez told his alma mater they were friends for life.  Based on the book, I will never travel to a bowl again as long as the system exists as it does.

The Big Ten needs to refuse to play unless all preliminary rounds are on campus sites.  Asking fans to make TWO road trips back to back just makes the college game even more of a rich guy's game and less for the average fan.  

On the wall guarding the North Coast from all Weasel invasions.

Run_Fido_Run's picture

The Big Ten needs to refuse to play unless all preliminary rounds are on campus sites. 

I agree, but it sounds like that boat has already sailed. Once the Big Ten agreed to the four team playoff format up front, with the final format decided by majority vote, the campus sites were essentially dead.

buckeye76BHop's picture

Agreed...read it and loved it!  The BCS/BSC is just another way for the upper level to make money and the lower level gets the short end of the stick (not in top 15 you lose out).  Now if a Boise or whomever gets on a streak...they may get in a play off and make some noise.  I see nothing wrong with a play off with the exception of getting rid off all traditions that go along with the Rose Bowl or other bowl games.  

"There's nothing that cleanses your soul like getting the hell kicked out of you."

"I love football. I think it is most wonderful game in world and I despise to lose."

Woody Hayes 1913 - 1987 

hodge's picture

I just don't get why the semis can't be played at home fields...and the losers get to go to a BCS game.  You lose one bowl location, and save the embarassment of not having people show up to watch Boise State and Oregon duke it out in a National Semifinal match in New Orleans (which is roughly 2200 and 2750 miles from their home stadiums).

Run_Fido_Run's picture

"Can't' be" because the SEC and Texas don't want it and they were able to impose their wills.

beserkr29's picture

I'm with Kyle.  There needs to be a much larger playoff pool than 4.  It should be at least 8, preferably 16.  20 seems too big to me.  But 16 would be nice.  There really is no excuse for it.  You have teams out of the playoffs play in the normal bowl system, those in play at home sites in the 1st and 2nd round for the higher ranked teams, then neutral sites for the Final Four and title game.  Infrastructure is in place, you can tinker with matchups in traditional sites as teams make it further (Pac-12/B1G in the Rose Bowl for a semi, etc).  It allows for reduced travel expenditures (though the NCAA is fine with it for the basketball championship, Hancock), AND rewards teams that do well during the regular season.  This needs to be expanded quickly.  But I will enjoy the plus one.  For now

btalbert25's picture

I always liked the idea of 12, and set it up kind of like baseball does.  I'm not talking round robin, but have the top 4 teams host a regional.  The lower seeds in that region play a game, then the top seed gets a bye and plays the winner.  The winner of that region advances to a "Final Four"  Granted attendance may be low if Stanford and LSU were playing a game in the shoe for the right to play Ohio State but it's doubtful.  They could sell the tickets kind of like they do for basketball where if you buy a ticket for the regional you get both games.

I know there's logistical issues to work out, but that's not what I'm concerned with.  I'm j ust thinking in a perfect world what format would I like to see?  Well, I'd like to see this format. 

Arizona_Buckeye's picture

Why don't we put it at 96 teams - that way everybody would be involved and nobody could say it wasn't fair

The best thing about Pastafarianism? It is not only acceptable, but advisable, to be heavily sauced

buckeye76BHop's picture

There will not be more than 4 teams to begin with (and they're NOT trying to get rid of bowl games)!  Even though IMO they should get rid of bowl games for 6-6 or 6-7 teams that start on Dec. 21st or w/e.  Then there could be a longer play off scheme put in place;-)  WOW!  I bet AR Buck will have about 500 blogs about how it's bad bad bad.  But watching teams like OSU and FL last year was GREAT right!??  Or better the Beef O' Brady Bowl...give me a break.  As long as the main bowls aren't affected than who really cares???

"There's nothing that cleanses your soul like getting the hell kicked out of you."

"I love football. I think it is most wonderful game in world and I despise to lose."

Woody Hayes 1913 - 1987 

Run_Fido_Run's picture

My priorities are to promote the interests of Ohio State first, the other Big Ten members second, our partners third (is the P12 really a partner?). Well down the list would be ensuring that Boise State and/or casual cfb fans perceive that the championship system for FBS looks like the system used in FCS or division 2 or NCAA bball, or whatever.

At the very, very bottom of my list would be the priority of ensuring that 3 SEC teams get to play in the cfb semifinals - with the semifinal round played in Atlanta and New Orleans, and the championship game played in Dallas, Texas.

Call me an old-fashioned bitch & moaner.      

UFest57's picture

Are really to the point in our lives that someone has to explain to  the plot of BACK TO THE FUTURE!? Wow, I feel old.  In terms of playoffs, I think a 6 team format, with #1/#2 getting a first round bye would be great to see.

btalbert25's picture

I've always found it laughable that the first defense for not having a playoff is, well what about the 5th team or the 9th team or the 17th team?  They'll still complain like the 3rd team does?  As if that's a valid reason to not have a 4, 8, or 16 team playoff.  No doubt people will complain, but does anyone really think it matters what they think? 

College basketball's tournament didn't expand because of teams whining and complaining, it expanded because they saw the opportunity to make a lot of money, and only allowing 8 teams killed any chance of making that money.  Also, as it was pointed out in the article, basketball has over 350 teams.

Arizona_Buckeye's picture

What I find laughable is all of this talk about adding 2, 4, 6, 8, <enter random number here> without one iota of discussion of the impacts to the people that are actually playing the game!  In case you forgot, these are kids that aren't getting paid, and are also trying to actually go to class and earn a degree.  Not once have I seen how adding an addition month or so of practice, travel, and game time that will consume just about every waking hour of their lives.  Let alone expose them to the potential that they could sustain a season/career ending injury, just to satisfy the screaming masses of people constantly bitching and moaning about it, along with the people who profit from it handsomely.

The best thing about Pastafarianism? It is not only acceptable, but advisable, to be heavily sauced

btalbert25's picture

For me the notion of student athlete at the major college level is a joke anyway.  That ship sailed a long time ago. Sure you get some amazing students who balance both football and basketball as well as make great marks, but the Aaron Crafts and Craig Krenzels of the world are the exception not the rule. 

cplunk's picture

What about the notion of a future millionaire whose risk of never making his millions goes up with each additional college game he plays?

Arizona_Buckeye's picture

Disagree - that's a stereotype you use to conveniently ignore and flippantly brush aside the issue.  The vast majority of student athletes on the field never ever have even the remotest chance of ever being considered at the next level and are attempting to get a degree.  Many struggle under the weight of the current system's consumption of their available hours and others actually fail and leave the college.  Not saying it is entirely the fault of football, but it certainly adds a tremendous amount of stress to the situation not felt by non student athletes.  The addition of a month or more to what is already a strain would absolutely impact those kid's effort to secure a degree. 

The best thing about Pastafarianism? It is not only acceptable, but advisable, to be heavily sauced

thorvath22's picture

High School and FCS level Football players seem to be fine with a playoff setting.

Arizona_Buckeye's picture

Seriously?!?!? That's your argument?  You're going to equate the rigors of big time college football and academics to high school?  Wow, that's completely in two different worlds in both arenas.

The best thing about Pastafarianism? It is not only acceptable, but advisable, to be heavily sauced

buckeye76BHop's picture

AR-Buck...I'm sorry man but you should probably stop bitching!  You're not making any sense besides you really don't like a play off system.  Great...we got your point.  One thing...can you tell me how the BCS/BSC have done anything good for college football (besides revenue?)...you put graduate rates and this and that and the other...but you're really not making sense.  Actually the play offs have worked for HS and done GREAT for the NFL for YEARS! Can you explain that AR BUCK???? I bet with something else that will not make sense...my bets on that.

"There's nothing that cleanses your soul like getting the hell kicked out of you."

"I love football. I think it is most wonderful game in world and I despise to lose."

Woody Hayes 1913 - 1987 

thorvath22's picture

Yes, yes I am, All levels of sport since forever have decided a champion via a playoff just fine,

College Football is the ONLY sport to have never had an NCAA Championship, so tell me...why is College Football the only exception? Big time College Basketball does fine with it, as does all other College sports, why is College Football the ONLY exception to this rule?

Ill answer that for you....its because of MONEY and because it is already balls deep in the system now...the NCAA needs to grow a pair and say no thanks BCS, we will take it from here just like we do all other sports.

Quit treating these players like theyre babies, they know the demands of a student athlete, they can either do it or not do it.

I also think College should be entirely optional in Football and Basketball just like it is in Baseball, that way people can quit making excuses about these kids risking their bodies in regards to their future, I would rather to point at the door and anyone that is not playing because they want to can move on.

Arizona_Buckeye's picture

The NCAA average for 2010 graduation rates for the BCS ranked teams:

1. Stanford 86%
2. Miami, Fla. 81%
3. Iowa 79%
4. Virginia Tech 79%
5. TCU 71%
6. Missouri 71%
7. Nebraska 68%
8. Alabama 67%
9. LSU 67%

NCAA Bowl Subdivision average 67%

10. Nevada 66%
11. Boise State 65%
12. Wisconsin 65%
13. Florida State 64%
14. Mississippi State 64%
15. Baylor 64%
16. Auburn 63%
17. Ohio State 63%
18. Utah 62%
19. Oklahoma State 59%
20. South Carolina 57%
21. Michigan State 55%
22. Arkansas 55%
23. Oregon 54%
24. Arizona 48%
25. Oklahoma 44%

 

There are way more people graduating then you give credit for who will be quite negatively impacted by this playoff system.

The best thing about Pastafarianism? It is not only acceptable, but advisable, to be heavily sauced

Arizona_Buckeye's picture

Here is a great link to the graduation rates of the teams that made it to bowl games last year:

http://www.tidesport.org/RGRC/2011/2011_FBS_Bowl_Study%5BFINAL%5D.pdf

The ship has only sailed in your imagination!

The best thing about Pastafarianism? It is not only acceptable, but advisable, to be heavily sauced

btalbert25's picture

Graduation rates prove nothing, just proves that the kids went to their communications classes.

Arizona_Buckeye's picture

Yes, please continue to replace actual facts with your stereotypical blanket accusations and assumptions so you can continue on your merry way of thinking!  Appreciate the viewpoint because I realize that it is no longer worth my time trying to respond any further.  By the way, I have a degree in communications and a six figure salary!  I'd fax you my W2 but you'd no doubt brush that aside as photoshopped. 

The best thing about Pastafarianism? It is not only acceptable, but advisable, to be heavily sauced

btalbert25's picture

Sorry you are so offended by someone who doesn't agree with you.  You are clearly right all the football players are using the great opportunity they are given, or at least the eye popping 60 percent are.  Congratulations on your 6 figures, but c'mon you gotta laugh when they show some of the majors these guys have.  Sorry to have ruined your day, but I have been in classes that football and basketball players "earned" good marks in, and I also saw those same players hand in tests with little more than their names on them.  Since they graduated though, clearly I'm wrong.

hodge's picture

I graduated with an OSU communications degree.  And I'll be the first to admit--it wasn't that hard, especially when you compare it to my girlfriend who's majoring in Astronautical Engineering.  I also had Dallas Lauderdale and Keith Wells in a few classes (Wells was in psych--nice guy).

Arizona_Buckeye's picture

Not offended by somebody who has a different opinion at all - what I am saying that in the face of facts, you continue to stereotype an entire population of student athletes based on your very limited exposure to a few incidents.  I've seen regular students cheat as well but I only call the person actually cheating a cheater.  I do not condemn the entire student body with a blanket accusation that every single college student is a cheater.  That is what you are doing and that is what I am calling bullshit!  I went to school with some athletes as well and I was thoroughly in awe of how hard they worked both on the field and in the classroom.  Your blanket stereotype of the ignorant athlete getting a fluff degree by cheating is offensive to those athletes and because it is not true by any stretch of the imagination. 

Do I assume that all of the student athletes got their degree by attending all of the classes and doing their own work - no, however, I am not lumping every single one of them into the Andy Katzenmeyer category either!

The best thing about Pastafarianism? It is not only acceptable, but advisable, to be heavily sauced

btalbert25's picture

For what it's worth I never said ALL ATHLETES DON'T GRADUATE.  Do I think more of the student athletes in BCS football schools are on the Andy Katzenmoyer side of things than the Mike Doss side?  ABSOLUTELY.  That doesn't mean that ALL athletes are idiots, just means that school and class, at the BCS level is not the main reason they are attending the university, whether they go to the pros or go on to graduate.  It doesn't mean they care about or go to class all that often. 

I do believe that you have a lot of guys at various schools who try to put effort into their work, there are good student athletes.  I believe there are more who are there for the perks like Andy Katzenmoyer, then you have the rest who are in the middle.  Though, again, I still believe the middle still trend lower.  60+ percent of players in bowl games graduating isn't really that compelling that they really care about the education when many just merely need to show up.

So, yes, I do continue to believe, despite the stats you provided, that overall big time BCS athletes, especially those who would be playing the games, don't care all that much about academics.  Walk ons and the 3rd or 4th stringers count toward those percentages and yes I suppose it will impact them, but I really don't think Braxton is going to sweat missing a few classes prepping for another playoff game. 

Todd-Not Boeckmann's picture

deleted due to deciding NOT to get involved in this whizzing match on who's paycheck is bigger

On the wall guarding the North Coast from all Weasel invasions.

buckeye76BHop's picture

It's so hard not to Todd bc the points being made for keeping the BCS Championship the way it is by most here and elsewhere makes NO sense.  All major bowl games will be kept intact from what I'm hearing (meaning the Pac 12 and B1G will still have the Rose Bowl. If that were to change I'd be upset as well as everyone else but I'd seriously doubt it will happen).  They'll still have the meaningless 6-6 Beef O' Brady or Gator bowls (if that's what really want to see).  Not to mention the kids will be off for winter break while these games are played and the National Title game is already played damn near the second week in January any ways.  So they're will be no adverse effects concerning grades (or seriously graduation rates) from having play offs.  Now if they decide to extend it to 8 or more...then they may have a point.  At this point...I see no reason to bitch...but hey...that's just me.  

"There's nothing that cleanses your soul like getting the hell kicked out of you."

"I love football. I think it is most wonderful game in world and I despise to lose."

Woody Hayes 1913 - 1987 

sharkvsghost's picture

This is the power move Jim Delany and Larry Scott need to make:

First-round games on campus sites in the 4-team format, or else the following...

1) We go to the NCAA with our own playoff solution that would yield an NCAA championship for football (it's important to remember that no such thing exists at the FBS level)

   1a) This would likely be, at the least, and 8-team format with teams selected by committee

2) We take the Rose Bowl with us and establish it as the NCAA championship game

   2a) To retain B1G/PAC-12 traditions with Pasadena we either,

    2ai)Play an early season game in the Rose Bowl featuring last season's conference champs or,

    2aii)Play an exhibition bowl (which we've already been doing forever) the week before the title game between the highest ranked (or conf. champ) B1G and PAC-12 teams not still alive in the NCAA playoff

I understand that the SEC is the premier conference in FBS football, but it is a two horse conference at best and one of those horses is baseball (i love baseball, but no one outside the south/southwest really cares about it at the ncaa level).  By contrast, the B1G and PAC-12 carry a lot of weight in the NCAA.  They each excel across several sports, each have great academic reputaitons, each have powerful alumni bases, and each generate a lot of money for the NCAA.  Given this, there's no reason to let the SEC presidents/AD's hold hostage this opportunity for real reform.

swing hard in case you hit it.

btalbert25's picture

Weren't the presidents of 11 conferences and Notre Dame involved in all of this?  You would think Notre Dame, and the Big East would be in Delany's camp.  Not sure what the other conferences are, but I'd be willing to bet the MAC was one of them.  I tend to agree with Fido where he said on another post that maybe the PAC12 wouldn't mind keeping the BCS sites semi final sites since they have 2 of the BCS sites in their backyard. 

Is it really so simple as the SEC is getting everything they want?  I don't think so.  Fact of the matter is the SEC, ACC, Big 12, and Sunbelt(if they were invited) would prefer to have t hings in their backyard.  Why would conferences that have sites near their school want to just agree with Delaney and think it's a great idea to play in the Midwest? 

The Big 10 can try to force the issue, but at the end of the day they want the money that everyone else is after too.  They aren't going to just leave it behind because they aren't getting their way.

Run_Fido_Run's picture

I agree, in spirit, with Shark's "power move" above, but again I'm guessing - along with you - that Larry Scott cut Delany's legs from under him.

I also agree with you that the ACC, Big 12, Sunbelt are along for the ride with the SEC; however, the SEC and Texas are the ringleaders. Yes, the Big Ten is (and will be) outvoted. That's why, in theory, they shouldn't have pre-agreed to a four team playoff until their primary demand was met (either home-sites or guaranteed midwestern access), but without Larry Scott . . . 

sharkvsghost's picture

"Why would conferences that have sites near their school want to just agree with Delaney and think it's a great idea to play in the Midwest?"

Playing in the Midwest isn't a foregone conclusion in the home-site semi-final arrangement...you'd still have to finish 1 or 2 to win that right.  It's kind of irritating how everyone hears home playoff games and automatically assumes Camp Randall in December.  That wouldn't always be the case (in fact, at the rate things are going re: the level of play between conferences, that would seldom be the case).

Of course it's understandable that conferences with bowls in their region are going to protect the status quo, but are we just to cede that to the SEC/Sun Belt/Texas/half the PAC-12/whoever it serves best?  If those entities have the right to dig their heels in to protect their interests, why should Delaney dig his heels in on forcing change?  It's not about semi-final games being played in the Midwest - it's about the potential for semi-final games to be played in the Midwest, the Northwest, the Northeast, anywhere.

I don't think asking teams to earn home playoff games as opposed to having them handed to them by way of inertia is unreasonable.

 

swing hard in case you hit it.

btalbert25's picture

Thing is, if Delaney signed on for the 4 team playoff, with details to be hammered out later then he has lost his strongest bargaining position.  The fact that he has agreed, and now majority will probably rule on the actual format, means that he's stuck with what happens if the majority doesn't agree with him.  He could of resisted and not agreed to the 4 team playoff and walked away from the table. 

I do find it hard to figure out why Texas wouldn't fight for a home site semifinal though.  They have a great stadium, in a great city, that certainly would give them a huge homefield advantage.

I understand that homesites don't guarranttee a midewestern winter home game, but I can also understand why teams in Alabama, Georgia, Lousiana, Arkansas etc want to play at a location that lies with in their conference.  If you maintained the BCS sites you have an easy trip for many of t he fans to get to The Super Dome or the Orange bowl.  If they move to a model where they let regional sites bid on a home game in SEC, Big 12, and ACC country you have Reliant Stadium, Jerry's World, the Super Dome, the Georgia Dome, Jacksonville, Tampa, and the Orange bowl.  Texas and Oklahoma could potentially stay very close to home and between all those sites, there's likely to be a game in SEC, Sun Belt, Big 12, and ACC country.  Why would any of those conference or the PAC 12 want to mess with that?  They have an advantage already.  They don't have to worry about potentially playing anywhere else.

There are more conference than just the SEC who like this idea, the SEC is just the most powerful, so of course Slive is going to be the voice of it all.  He carries the most clout of anyone involved with those other conferences.

I would love home site semi-finals, but it ain't going to happen.  Too many people have it too good already.  The best chance of getting a game in B1G country is if they go through a bidding process for regional sites and Lucas of Ford Field get picked.

sharkvsghost's picture

I would also never presume to know what these commissioners have said to each other in the meetings. It just seems to me like the SEC and the BCS cartel are driving the bus on this one, and it doesn't have to be that way.  It shouldn't be that.

swing hard in case you hit it.

Buckeyeneer's picture

Two things I loved about this article. I always felt when Bill Hancock spoke that he was full of crap, that Baghdad Bill comment had me rolling. That and anytime you can through in a Dumb and Dumber reference, you've got a winner.

"Because the rules won't let you go for three." - Woody Hayes

THE Ohio State University

CowCat's picture

Just because the BCS system is corrupt does not mean a playoff system is good.  The opposite of A is "Not A", it isn't B.

People laud the NCAAB tournament, but in reality most of the games are just filler -- Sure, you get some exciting upsets, but rarely do dark horse teams win out. 

One could argue that this year's tournament could have been an 8 team tournament, provided they did a better job picking the 8 teams.   I don't think it was a surprise that TOSU, Syracuse, Kentucky, Kansas, Florida and Louisville were there this year.

Football is an injury-prone sport, and the majority of college players will never see a dime for playing.   Adding more games is not a solution. 

I think the solution lies in the structure of the conferences themselves.  If we only had four super-conferences, conference championships would not be needed.

I think we'll learn a lot by observing Utah in the Pac 12, Missouri in the SEC, etc.

 

"We get paid to score touchdowns, not kick field goals"
-- Urban Meyer

Todd-Not Boeckmann's picture

If the only two possible outcomes are A or B, then in essence B IS the opposite of A.   Settling a championship on the field is ALWAYS better than settling it in the ballot box.  Just ask the OHSAA.

On the wall guarding the North Coast from all Weasel invasions.

nickma71's picture

OSU will never be in a playoff if they are not undefeated. The 4 team set up (you made your beds now lie in it) is meant to keep OSU and USC away from the action. Believe it.

hodge's picture

Disagree.  This whole system is meant to make money.  And OSU does that better than just about anybody else.  If this whole wacked idea of playing semifinals in bowl locations come to fruition, you can bet that people will be clamoring for Ohio State.  We travel better than anyone, and the bowls know this--which is one of the reasons we've been BCS darlings for at large berths.  And trust me, they're going to need us to not embarass their new system when people fail to show up to less "sexy" matchups.

chitown buckeye's picture

OSU will never be in the BCS National Championship Game unless they are undefeated. Believe it! Whats your point? OSU going undefeated in the current system doesnt guarentee them a spot in the NC game.

This is a step in the right direction. Not perfect but better than we have had to put up with in the past! You want to define a champion...play it our on the field with as many teams as you can! The bowls are more corrupt then anyone can imagine. Bowls may be the greatest con ever put into motion!

"I'm having a heart attack!"

thorvath22's picture

"For the past 20 years, college football has been running in place. While professional football popularity has skyrocketed and has arguably become America’s pastime, college football has evolved into the national past-due."

The College Footbal market has done nothing but boom in the past 20 years...flawed system or not College Football is more popular now than it has ever been and definitely competes with the NFL when it comes to ratings and will continue to grow even bigger.

"This week, Florida AD Jeremy Foley noted the “logistics” issues with playing semifinal games on-campus. He added there’s, “too much at stake.”

One must call into question Foley’s motivation. His school hasn’t played an out-of-state, non-conference game since 1991. Jim Boeheim would be proud. Ironically, that game was against Syracuse."

This not irony, this is a coincidence.

Other than that, great read!

buckeye76BHop's picture

Great article along with the others on here about the "proposed" Play off format.  The main reason this is a good thing is because ALL sports (besides may be curling or some other sports no one cares about) use a play off system.  Sure there will be people that don't agree with it or find some things to "bitch" about.  But do you all want to keep seeing BCS or should I say BSC championship games with rematches of SEC teams or SEC teams every single year involved with the championship game (or what about the imbarrasments of our beloved in back to back years)?  This system will be just as $ hungry as well as greed driven just like the ole BSC.  I'd say get on board ppl...bc Delaney's going to make it happen for the B1G.  This we can be sure of...

NO SYSTEM WILL EVER BE PERFECT...this is the BEST thing for college football as long as the Rose Bowl is not changed.  That should be what everyone's worried about if you're an OSU fan...this senseless complaining reminds me of a bunch of women "bitching" about what they can't change anyways...   

"There's nothing that cleanses your soul like getting the hell kicked out of you."

"I love football. I think it is most wonderful game in world and I despise to lose."

Woody Hayes 1913 - 1987 

Run_Fido_Run's picture

I don't get your point. Hypothetically, or readin between the lines (since we're not able to observe the meetings firsthand) . . .

One side - eSECpn, Texas, and allied schools/conferences - has completely dug in its heels, refusing to accept any alternatives to major bowls/semifinals played in their backyards.

The other side - Big Ten, P12 (how reliable were they to begin with?) others? - capitulates. Fans of the capitulating side point out that "we capitulated," and you respond, "stop bitching."

Even if a four team playoff is a good idea, in general principle, if the specific format used to implement that general concept is percieved to be contrary to the interests of "our side" and our side capitulates that might not be a good thing for our side, right? Assuming that our side is rational, them capitulating means that we forfeited a loss (gave up our interests) after coming under fire (figuratively) - i.e., we agreed to the other side's terms in accepting our surrender. Hmmm, sounds like I'm bitching again.         

Arizona_Buckeye's picture

Since it is REALLY obvious that I am in the extreme minority of folks that believe that strapping a playoff system on top of the current system is worthless, causes more problems than it solves, and will not obtain the ultimate goal of crowning a national champion I propose the following:

Scrap the current infrastructure entirely and realign everybody into 6 super conferences for Div 1 and <insert # here> for Div 2 teams.  They will be aligned strictly geographically so no more TCU in the Big East.  The Divisions would be East Coast, Mid West, and West Coast.  Each would have a North and South conference.  Each team would need to play 6 inter conference games, 3 teams from the other conference within their division.  They would have 3 OOC games to schedule as they feel fit.  Each conference would have a championship game and those six teams, plus two from Div 2 would play in the National Championship playoff.

If we're insistent on a playoff, then scraping the entire infrastructure and building it from scratch is the only thing that makes sense.  If we keep it as it stands, making only minor adjustments and gluing a playoff system on top of it - we're only creating another version of the BCS, and everything else that preceded it.

The best thing about Pastafarianism? It is not only acceptable, but advisable, to be heavily sauced

Todd-Not Boeckmann's picture

except in the real world, you can't just scrap something unless there is already something in place as its replacement.  Otherwise there is a period of anarchy.  So super conferences may be where we are headed, but you won't get the presidents to start a do-over.  That would be irresponsible.

 

16 team team playoff.  9 conference champions and 7 at large teams.  All but the final played at the home field of the higher seeded team.  THATs the ONLY way a playoff works with more than 2 teams.  Otherwise, the schools would be hard pressed to sell tickets.  Football players would still miss one heck of a lot less class than basketball players.  Particularly if the games were played in December when most schools are out.  Only 8 out of 120 schools would see their schedule bigger than it is now.

 

Bowls can become the NIT for schools not in the playoffs

On the wall guarding the North Coast from all Weasel invasions.

buckeye76BHop's picture

Don't like that 16 team thing IMO...too many games and that could adversely effect kids and academics.  If they go more than 6 bc of all the complaining by the Boise St's and other teams who finish 5th in the new systyem.  Then 6 would be as many as I'd like to see...otherwise you start to talk about four or five extended weeks to the season with no break and then a championship right after the semi-finals...not sure too many coaches/Univ. presidents will like that idea.  Fans would...just not sure of the others involved including players I would think (16 game season is a lot).  

"There's nothing that cleanses your soul like getting the hell kicked out of you."

"I love football. I think it is most wonderful game in world and I despise to lose."

Woody Hayes 1913 - 1987 

TheHumbleBuckeye's picture

"Most fans want a playoff"

Uh huh. "Most fans" are casual fans. The fans that are traveling and actually driving the product are not casual fans. In my experience, these fans do not want a full-fledged playoff. I have nothing to back this up except myself and my own experience, because I was once pro-playoff. And then I came to understand why I loved college football so much: every game matters. The atmosphere surrounding gameday at almost any major college trumps anything the NFL can offer. The atmosphere will be scaled back should be go to an 8-16 team playoff. Just imagine Texas 2005 (greatest buildup for a regular season non-conference game I have ever seen). Imagine thinking "Oh well, we lost. We'll get another shot in the playoffs" as opposed to the absolute agony most of us felt. But for all that agony, the thrill of winning those big games is amplified so much more when we win (like the next year in Austin when Texas was ranked #2). Remember the atmosphere in the Shoe for USC 2009? I've never seen anything like it. The fans knew that despite being only the second game of the year, this was a game with national championship implications. In the second freaking week of the season. In what other sport can you have that? None. The very thing that has made college football so intense every week - the need for near-perfection from week 1 to week 12 - is the very thing you're looking to destroy. If you want to tweak a few things, fine. But I don't want a system where a 3-4 loss team gets hot and/or lucky at the right time after sleepwalking a few times earlier in the season and wins a national title. In other sports, teams are rewarded for being hot at the right time (does anyone really think the 2007 Giants were better than the Pats?). In CFB, they're rewarded for perfection; for being the best team the ENTIRE year. Which is why ratings have been through the roof! You have so many fans watching so many other games they wouldn't ordinarily watch in hopes that some other team slips up (How many times have you watched Pitt-WVU since 2007? Be honest). I just can't believe many of you don't realize this. Yes, the casual fan wants a playoff. But the diehards - the ones who travel to bowls and road games and who watch Boise St vs. Nevada late on a Friday night instead of going out in hopes that the Wolfpack can pull off an upset and open the door for their team - do not want a playoff.

Kyle Lamb's picture

Show me a single survey that more fans have said they don't want a playoff. Almost any survey you can find shows between 66-80% as wanting a playoff. 

I linked a Gallup poll from 2007. Another Marist survey I didn't link had the same results. An ESPN Nation Poll last year had 80% of America wanting a playoff (out of 400,000 votes). 

You'd be hard-pressed to find any survey that even "casual" fans don't want one.