Don't Hold Your Breath Until We Have A Playoff Holding your breath waiting for a playoff? Nice knowing ya Dennis Dodd Dec. 31, 2007 By Dennis Dodd CBSSports.com Senior Writer Tell Dennis your opinion! It's 2014. Flying cars clog the airways at rush hour. The first robot president (not counting W) is in office. McDonald's debuts the first Quarter Pounder pill. And USC and Illinois are getting ready to meet in the Rose Bowl. Maybe it's UCLA and Purdue, or Washington and Michigan. The point is, Granddaddy will still be wheezing. If there is a theme going into the 10th round of BCS bowls, it's obvious: Get used to it. For all the speculation about a playoff looming on the horizon, it seems that none of the speculators took contract law. If they had, they'd know that the deal between the Pac-10, Big Ten and Rose Bowl still has six years to run. That's all you need to know about the future of Division I-A postseason football. The three other BCS bowls begin renegotiating a new contract next year. The contracts between Fox and those three other bowls (Fiesta, Orange, Sugar) expire after the 2010 bowls. The Rose Bowl's deal with the Big Ten, Pac-10 and ABC runs through the 2014 game. See a slight conflict there? That means forget a playoff, or a tweak or Myles Brand. Any changes to the current format will have to have the approval of that holy trinity (Rose, Pac-10, Big Ten). And the holy trinity isn't budging anytime soon. The contracts of the four major bowls probably won't line up again until that robot president is in office. Take a gander at this season's Rose Bowl for proof that the current system is set in cement. With a chance to match USC against a higher-rated opponent, the Rose chose Illinois, the lowest-rated at-large team in the history of the BCS (No. 13 in the final standings). That solidified the Pac-10-Big Ten bond that goes back 60 years. That's a bond that existed before the BCS and, as far as the Rose is concerned will exist despite the BCS. Remember, the Rose is the only bowl where the parade is more important than the game. And if the matchup damages the hype for the floats, that's unacceptable. That's why the first BCS championship game in the Rose Bowl (Nebraska-Miami, 2002) went down like a spoiled Pinot Noir to Pasadena traditionalists. That's why the Rose folks don't want to risk what happened in 2003. Oklahoma and Washington State met in the lowest-rated Rose Bowl of the BCS era. That's why you'll never see the Rose "stained" by the likes of Boise State or Hawaii. The bowl apparently has special dispensation from taking a non-BCS team in the double-hosting format. So what makes you think the holy trinity is going to be talked into a playoff or even a modest plus-one? Money? Perhaps only the SEC makes more than the Big Ten. Pac-10 commissioner Tom Hansen said last summer his conference would pull out if a playoff was instituted. It will take a monumental financial crisis for the presidents to inch toward a playoff. One avenue is if the bowls ever lost their tax-exempt status. But the bowls spent huge amounts of time and money on keeping that status. The four BCS bowls have paid a Washington, D.C., lobbying firm $500,000 since January 2003 according to the Orange County Register. The firm is run by former Oklahoma congressman and quarterback J.C. Watts. Is it a racket? Yes, a pretty good one. If you want a playoff, you might have to start lobbying Congress yourself. Those who control the system are way ahead of you. • Where's the crisis at the Fiesta Bowl, which claimed $22 million in assets in 2006? • Where's the crisis in the stands, where I-A attendance has increased in each of the last 11 seasons? • Where's the crisis on television, where the major networks had their best regular-season ratings since 1999? We'll have flying cars before we have a playoff.
its all about $$ <t>and I've taken both contract and constitutional law..<br/> <br/> You do realize that the NCAA itself could institute a playoff at anytime and no one can do a thing about it.<br/> <br/> They can talk about the networks and their deals with the bowls, but those bowls wouldn't mean anything anymore..the network will go where the $$ is.. if consumers want the playoff, and the NCAA takes its ball and decides to play the playoff game, that's where the networks will be..<br/> <br/> But at this time, there is MORE $$ to be had in the bowl/scam system.<br/> <br/> But make no mistake..the NCAA can pull the plug on this sh*t any time they want to..</t>
honestly <t>I think its the $$. With the bowls, more people make more $$. Not just the schools, but towns, advertisers etc..the list is long of people making money or names for themselves off the bowl system.</t>
For years I've been for the PAC10 and Big10 seperating themselves from College Football and playing every year for the Rose Bowl Nat'l Championship. I didn't like it when they decided to join the Bowl Coalition. What's the big deal about the Rose Bowl anyway...Texas owns it!
I think the BCS system is the best thing for college football. One need to merely take a look at this past Sunday in the NFL regular season to realize that the value of the regular season games would be greatly diminished if there was a full-blown 16 or 8 team playoff. I would like to see a new BCS poll at the conclusion of all the bowl games and then have the top two teams play. That way the reg. season still matters and more bowl games matter as well. All of this discussion about who is best right now is pointless. I've never known the BCS to claim to crown the best team RIGHT now. Instead they attempt to crown the champion of the entire season. For the most part they've succeeded, however, this season will be debated for years to come. I don't think teams like Virginia Tech, USC, Georgia, and West Virginia have anything to cry about. Tech lost to BC after beating them silly for 3 1/2 quarters and they got pummeled by LSU. USC lost to 41 point underdog STANFORD and lost to a good Oregon team. Georgia was beaten by South Carolina (who finished 6-6 and didn't even make a bowl game) and Tennessee took them to the woodshed to a tune of 35-14. West Virginia had it all in front of them and lost to a terrible Pitt team and only scored 9 points in the process. If anyone has a beef at this point, it may be Kansas who lost to a very good Missouri team and that was it. I doubt you'll find too many people who believe they're one of the top teams in college football however. The right teams are playing for the championship based upon what happened when considering the entire regular season. Ohio State lost to a better than average Illinois team by a TD and LSU lost to a good UK team in multiple overtimes and an inspired Arkansas team in multiple overtimes. If you want to make a case on who is better right now then that's fine, I would say that Georgia and USC should play for all the marbles. I would also argue that would not be fair to LSU and Ohio St. as well. They had a more complete body of work and the winner of that game should be the champions. It's not perfect but neither is a playoff. Your next argument may be that the winner is decided on the field in a playoff format. Yeah, that's true and so is every other game during the regular and bowl seasons. They're all decided on the field. And on the field USC couldn't beat Stanford, Georgia looked horrible and lost against Tennessee, and West Virginia couldn't take care of business against their arch-rival when it mattered the most. A playoff sounds great and would generate more money than the bowl system, IMO. It would also generate incredible excitement and it would give us a champion who was better that day. I understand that seems fair and that's how all of the other NCAA sports decide their champions. However, if you really want to be fair, play a five game series between teams and see who wins the most. That would really be fair. The best of 5 winner moves on and plays again. We know that this can't be reasonably done in football as it can in the NBA and MLB. However, I think that's more fair. For the sake of wrapping this up and putting an end to the rambling, I don't think we'll ever have a truly fair system. I think the system can certainly be better than it is right now but I think the bowl system should stay in place. Here is my plan for "fixing" college football. 1. Don't even put out a poll of any significance until the first week of second week of October. This way each team has played at least one team from their conference. 2. Use the computers to make up a third of the BCS formula. I would prefer the AP poll make up another third but since they refuse, have the coaches' poll and the new Harris poll combine to make up another third. Finally, you have a committee of independent college football writers from different regions of the country publish a poll that makes up the other third. Have thirty or so members of this committee and rotate the poll process between them so that the committee is made up of ten each year. 3. Use two of the four major bowl games as a playoff style so that 1 plays 4 and 2 plays 3 in the final reg. season BCS poll regardless of conference affiliation. The other two major bowls can pick based upon tradition or whatever other convoluted ideas they have that they think makes the best bowl game. The two bowls would rotate in some manner so that everyone would get a slice of the pie. At the conclusion of the bowl games, all three aforementioned factors are once again used to rank the teams in a BCS poll. Then have 1 play 2 for the championship. Would there still be controversy? Sure there would. I think this is a happy medium between the playoff vs. bowl crowd. Maybe it's the stupidest idea you've ever heard. You tell me.....
Not at all. You obviously have given this a lot of intelligent thought. It makes sense and seems to have a better chance of reaching fruition than a true playoff of 8 to 16 teams. I say "better chance" because it involves minimal tweaking of the current system and does not require any additional games for all but two teams.
One of the good things about college football is that every game is important. If you want to play for the championship you can't lose a game and you'll have to be really lucky if you lose a second game. But with a 16 team playoff, you can take a week or two off and still get a shot. I'm not sure that that's best for college football.
You might could take a week or two off but you would still have to be ranked in the top 8 or 16 and/or win your conference.
nah <t>the BCS marginalizes more than one-half of all Division 1 conferences. This season has shown that the regular season means jack. Momentum and how you finish means jack. Its all about preservation of the BCS that has now, somehow, become bigger than the game or schools itself..<br/> <br/> The BCS is nothing more than ice dancing with a big jazz hands finish.</t>
I think Georgia proved that more than half of Div I-A conferences deserve to be marginalized. I know you can say that Boise St. won last season and that Utah won prior to that. Let's take a look at those two wins. I give Boise State credit. They shocked a traditional national powerhouse. They did it by playing like they had nothing to lose while pulling out every trick they could think of. They also benefited from playing a team that felt like they had already lost a lot. That being said, a win is a win. They did what they had to do and in doing so went down in college football history as one of the best feel good stories ever. Utah, on the other hand, beat one of the worst BCS teams in history. Yes, they still won a big game but they beat Pitt, a team that won the Big East in a year the Big East was in flux from defections to the ACC. Still, they won and I give them credit. These are two exceptions to the rule. This year, the BCS pitted the upstart against a team that was in the national title discussion and the upstart got their doors blown off. There is a great deal of parity in college football now, more so than at any other time in college football history perhaps, but when the chips are down the little guys still just aren't quite up to par with the big boys in most cases. All of that being said, if you want to let the little guys have a shot under my plan for tweaking the system, this is what you do: Instead of taking only the top 4 teams at the end of the regular season and having them play in two big bowl games, take the top 8 teams, match 1 vs. 8, 2 vs 7, and so on and then after those games are played, pit #1 vs #2. That way if an undefeated team from a mid-major conference gets to the #8 spot, they can play the #1 team in the nation and prove they deserve a shot at the title. I think most voters would then vote them into the top 2 so they could get that shot. Like I said before, it wouldn't be perfect but it's the best compromise I can think of.
Those are all very good thoughts Aquila, probably to good and reasonable to be adopted but none the less very good thoughts.
while <t>I agree with some of your thoughts, I gotta call bull.<br/> <br/> First of all, did you watch that entire Boise/OU game? Boise dominated play. Boise led and carried the day and then melted down with stupid turnovers that included a pick 6. It was OU that 'pulled a miracle' to take the lead... Boise just had one more 'miracle' than OU did.<br/> <br/> I've said this in another forum. The 'trick plays' Boise pulled in their last 2 series are really a shame because its forever jaded what really happened in that bowl game.<br/> <br/> Don't look now but one of those 'marginal' D1 conferences is 4-1 in bowl games.<br/> <br/> Also, a good many of those 'deserving' power conferences are playing in title games and major bowls now because their schedules are bouyed by the point value of playing Division I conference foes... Either those teams are worthy of Division 1 or they are not.<br/> <br/> Part of what marginalizes those programs is the system itself. That cannot be denied. A huge problem in recruiting at that program is that they have little to no future. You can win it all, even against the big boys, only to be told 'sorry, you're a second class citizen' at the end of the road.<br/> <br/> Fans of the majors are pinning their hats to Georgia's win over Hawaii, but ignoring the physical arse beating that Fresno State put on Georgia Tech.</t>
I've never felt that the trick plays by Boise State was a shame Corey. First they were really entertaining second they showcased a team that had the nerve and ability to let it all hang out to win. One of the most entertaining bowl games ever.
I'm not trying to marginalize what Boise St. did to Oklahoma. That was never my intention. Like I said, let them get in the top 8 of this proposed format and then they would have a chance to prove themselves. Boise St. had a chance to prove themselves and they did. I still don't think you would find too many people to say that Boise was a better team than Florida last year. I know, I know, they should have played on the field. You can make that case all you want but IMO it doesn't really matter. For the sake of brevity, I won't get into what I think the NCAA should do to realign the conferences but that's another story for another day. Your case for Fresno beating Georgia Tech is irrelevant in this discussion. It surprised me, yes, but it has nothing to do with the national title picture. I don't think many people were realy high on GT this year.
no <r>it shows that the margin between the 'majors' and those who shall be marginalized isn't that great in some respects. this is certainly a 'rich get richer' situation.<br/> <br/> The majors of the major conferences have the world by the tail. The minor players in the major conferences DO have the chance to move up and play for it all, but only because of their 'major' conference affiliation. <br/> <br/> I'd just as soon see a 16 team deal, but we can go with 8 for starters. As for conferences, make them 10 team leagues, round robin play <E></E></r>