In a fairly quiet story on Weds night, the Mountain West Conference signed an agreement that they would behave and go along with the BCS for at least the next four years.This is significant because if we're ever going to get a better system -- one that isn't a national punchline by the end of an otherwise terrific sport's season -- conferences need to fight the good fight. Even if they're the Mountain West. Fighting for an equitable system by teams and universities is what is needed. Not the rambling and ranting by fans and media types. That does no good. Actual schools need to stand up to this nonsense. And the Moutain West kind of was, but eventually wore down. I at least enjoyed the quote:
"... The Mountain West believes it has no choice at this time but to sign the agreements. If a conference wishes to compete at the highest levels of college football, and the only postseason system in place for that is the BCS, no one conference can afford to drop out and penalize its football programs and student-athletes."
In other words, "we think this royally sucks, but we don't see a victory in sight and we'd rather not punish our student-athletes."
None of the "big time" conferences were interested in fighting it because, hey, they were all somewhat fairly represented. You win a major BCS conference and you're likely in a BCS bowl game and if you're lucky and the stars align just right (and Penn State loses to Iowa), you've got a shot at a national title. That sort of thing.
Oh, and you schools stand to make gobs and gobs of money. Because, as usual, that's what it's all about. Which is what continues to be infuriating about the BCS -- a logical, sound, reasonable, manageable playoff of some kind (really, almost any kind of playoff) would rake in just as large gobs of money, if not more.
But this is college athletics, where common sense never wins out and the silly notion of old traditions do.... at least when they're convenient traditions.
19 comments:
I wonder if the BCS can/will stagger their contracts with conferences to make it nearly impossible for conferences to bolt en masse?
This will take an extremely rich entity buying out the BCS, an act of Congress, or some twisted convolution pitting two 9-3 teams in the championship to change anything.
I support two alternatives...
1) Play the bowls with the traditional conference tie-ins and then have a +1 championship game a week later. This would preserve the bowl traditions (I like to see Big Ten vs Pac 10 every year in the Rose) and excitement of the Rose, Fiesta, Orange, and Sugar Bowls since they would have natl title implications.
2) 4 team playoff using 2 of the 4 major bowls (Rose, Fiesta, Orange, Sugar) and then a championship game a week later. The downside to this is it would interrupt the traditional conference tie-ins to the bowls. The upside is that including the top 4 teams would prevent any controversy. If you are outside the top 4 you have no argument.
This is the same group of fools that can't figure out teams that don't even win their divisions int he conference shouldn't be allowed to play for the national title. Remember Nebraska in 2001? a quick fix should be simple. win your conference title or don't go to the title game.
What do you guys think of Purdue's non-conference basketball schedule?
http://www.hammerandrails.com/2009/7/9/943334/bring-it-on-mens-basketball
Is Nate Minnoy still at Central Michigan?
I firmly believe in a playoff system, but Congress needs to stay out of it. If the BCS doesn't want a playoff system, so be it. Don't watch, if you feel that strongly toward it. Any system is flawed, but that doesn't mean the BCS should ignore the options to make it better, either.
Like other posters have noted, there is a compromise to be reached, but both sides have yet to buy into it fully. I personally like the idea of all conference winners getting a shot within a playoff system for the BCS with lesser-bowls still being populated as filler. You could have huge upsets and make it even more intriguing, (i.e., would Utah have beaten Florida?)
Somewhere in between the current and the abyssmal suggestion of anti-trust law violations by Sen. Hatch is where the solution lies.
A playoff of more than 4 teams is not logistically feasible and would significantly dilute the importance of the regular season.
Conversely, a playoff of fewer than 16 teams simply shifts the existing piles of spinach around on the same plate, and the importance of the regular season truly applies only to the inherent goodness that is college football.
Certain games (rivalry games, for example) will mean something no matter how the postseason is set up. Others won't mean much at all unless there's a stunning upset (say, Notre Dame playing any service academy), and the rest ... well, if you have no chance at playing for a title from day 1, how important are they anyway?
There will eventually be an NCAA playoff in I-A football, many years down the road. It will include all eligible conferences like it does in the other sports, it will take several weeks to play out, and it will crown the team playing best in December and January, not necessarily the best team in I-A football. There is extreme resistance to the idea among the schools who benefit most from the current setup, just like there was when the BCS was first created, and just like there was when the men's basketball tournament went through its changes.
Eventually, some sponsor(s) will provide a bank vault full of money, a network not involved with the big-time games will support it, and the ADs will concede the point, figuring out how to use the extra piles of cash while keeping the sport's "amateur" status intact.
Even the bowls themselves have shown that they're willing to cast away as much tradition as money demands; eventually they too will fall. (It's not unlikely that the lower tiers would remain, similar to the NIT and its cute little soon-to-be-defunct relatives, but clearly you can't mix a real playoff and the existing top-tier bowls as they are.)
"Don't watch, if you feel that strongly toward it." Why don't you take your own advice with the BCS too. Oh wait, that's right Purdue has as much a shot at the BCS as Central Michigan, of course you guys have nothing to watch or root for in the BCS.
It is teams like Purdue, with an outside shot at the title and a minuscule shot at a BCS bowl that consistently cry for the possibility of an upset. WHY in the world would a team like Florida, or USC who are clearly among the elite, agree to play more games to set themselves up for potential upsets. Upsets happen, but why should we encourage it, especially if it is exactly what they mean. A weaker team defeating a stronger team? How does that give us a true national champion? It just creates compelling television. And it would be fans like Purdue who knows nothing about the chance to play for a national title to want that.
Right on, Anon! So fans of Utah and Boise State can shut their pie holes because their teams didn't have a shot at a championship at all. Tell the Mountain West to go home since they can never produce a contender anyway. Bunch of cry babies.
zlionsfan,
Stick to the NFL. Thanks.
What makes college football special is the tradition of the bowls and the excitement of the regular season which is really one big playoff.
Are the Lions still in the NFL?
Keep all 6 major conferences with their usual tie-ins, let one minor conference team into one of those bowls and then let the next best team into another one of the major bowls and have a 8 team, 3-week playoff that would make a stupid amount of money.
Lots of great points, save for the anonymous 'tard who thinks it's only fans of teams like Purdue who feel a playoff is necessary.
I think the major point here is that there are many solutions, any one of which are better than the limp finish to the college football season we currently see.
\putting on flak jacket
\Kevlar helmett
\checks bomb shelter supplies
Okay, the BCS is not the worst thing in the world. Most of you I imagine have been to one or more bowl games. We're fans, otherwise we wouldn't be on this blog. You know how awesome it is to roll into Pasadena with your "We are Family" t-shirts or San Antonio with annoying K-State fans everywhere. We love our bowl games because we have the opportunity to have that experience as fans and to get the hell out of MI, WI, IN, OH in January.
First, as Matt pointed out....logistics. Things that makes college football special: the bands, the fans, and the tailgating.
It's simply not feasible during the school year to ship a 200+ member marching band across the country on 1 week's notice.
It's also not feasible for most fans to head to Pasadena one week and then turn around and go to Miami the next (right after Christmas vacation mind you), both from a financial viewpoint, a vacation time viewpoint, or a travel arrangement viewpoint.
So let's say that Utah gets invited to a 4 team tourney. Do you really think there is a large enough fanbase to send 30,000 people to two bowls games a week apart? I don't and I don't think Purdue could pull that off either. So what you'd be stuck with is an ambivalent atmosphere with corporate sponsors and a small number of fans and few students.
A playoff works for people whose only consideration is getting home from work in time to catch the pre-game blather on ESPN. Any comparison to the NFL is silly since no one is favor of using home stadiums. A college playoff only benefits the TV viewership who has no immediate interest in the teams involved and those who can't live in a world without an undisputed champion. I have an immediate interest in Purdue and I can live in a world with the AP and coaches naming different champs that will be forgotten in 5 years anyway.
Well said Chris. Thank you for being the voice of reason.
I would also like to add that those in favor of a playoff have probably never been a bowl game to support their team.
I would rather have the traditional conference bowl tie-ins (Big Ten vs Pac 10 in the Rose) and nothing else vs the system we have now.
Yeah, nobody follows their teams through the NCAA tourneys. Bands never make the trips. None of them travel all over the country for a 65 team field...
Oh, wait, right. They do all that. And it's a gobs-of-money success.
Hey, I'm not denying the rose bowl or alamo bowl are fun. Esp when we've got 4 losses already. But what if we went 11-1 one year and didn't get a sniff at the title? Or 13-0 like Utah? Traditions are nice but I'd rather have a clear national champ.
One thing you overlook with the analogy to the NCAA Tournament is the fact that one ticket is good for more than one game. In fact, your ticket might be good for more than one game with YOUR team participating.
I know all basketball to football comparisons will end up most likely as apples and oranges, but it bears mentioning.
yeah who is the idiot who said only teams like Purdue want a playoff.
With your own reasoning, a playoff hurts Purdue because with a playoff, they don't go to any bowl game.
Boise St & Utah are getting big bowl games, but not being considered for a title at all.
i think one extra game at the end of the season could work it out most times.
(this year Utah vs Florida).
Of course you also have the ridiculousness of Texas - OU thing last year...
酒店打工酒店兼差酒店上班酒店小姐酒店經紀酒店打工酒店兼差酒店工作酒店上班酒店小姐酒店經紀酒店打工酒店兼差酒店工作酒店上班酒店打工酒店兼差酒店工作酒店上班酒店小姐酒店經紀酒店打工酒店兼差酒店工作酒店上班酒店小姐酒店經紀酒店打工酒店兼差酒店工作酒店上班酒店小姐酒店經紀酒店打工酒店兼差酒店打工酒店上班酒店經紀酒店小姐酒店打工酒店兼差酒店工作酒店經紀酒店打工酒店兼差酒店工作酒店上班酒店小姐酒店經紀酒店打工酒店兼差酒店工作酒店上班酒店小姐 酒店經紀 酒店經紀 酒店經紀酒店 酒店酒店
Post a Comment