Lets play Devil's Advocate...Make a case FOR the BCS

Home ▸ Archive ▸ College Sports ▸ Lets play Devil's Advocate...Make a case FOR the BCS
SportsAndLady's avatar

SportsAndLady

Senior Member

35,632 posts
Apr 14, 2010 3:46 PM
Is there anyone out there who actually like the BCS system? And don't want a playoff?

Tell me why the BCS is better than a playoff.

Go!
Apr 14, 2010 3:46pm
krazie45's avatar

krazie45

Senior Member

1,055 posts
Apr 14, 2010 3:52 PM
(crickets)...


uh......MORE MONEY!!! :)
Apr 14, 2010 3:52pm
Quint's avatar

Quint

Captain

737 posts
Apr 14, 2010 3:57 PM
I like it. . . as a Buckeye fan, the BCS system has been very good to us.
Apr 14, 2010 3:57pm
SportsAndLady's avatar

SportsAndLady

Senior Member

35,632 posts
Apr 14, 2010 3:57 PM
krazie45 wrote: (crickets)...


uh......MORE MONEY!!! :)
Haha, well yeah...that's pretty obvious.

The reason why I am starting this thread, is because I am part of a debate in one of my classes where I am debating for the BCS system..I thought it would suck but i've actually found some pretty interesting stuff so far. I wanted to see what you guys would say (other than money!).
Apr 14, 2010 3:57pm
stroups's avatar

stroups

Senior Member

3,223 posts
Apr 14, 2010 4:14 PM
I guess you could say it puts less stress on the athletes by not having to play more games so they could focus on becoming better students. lol
Apr 14, 2010 4:14pm
darbypitcher22's avatar

darbypitcher22

Senior Member

8,000 posts
Apr 14, 2010 4:30 PM
Money
Apr 14, 2010 4:30pm
B

Big Gain

Senior Member

2,073 posts
Apr 14, 2010 4:33 PM
VERY simple answer to a VERY simple question. The vast majority of college coaches, AD's and college Presidents prefer the BCS system. The amount of money made by ALL Div1 schools from theh BCS system has grown every year. Would you change your financial system without proof you would make more money and the amount would grow even more every year?

Who ever said us, the fans, should have any say in this matter??? I can't think of one single reason why we should.

If you want a playoff system, again a VERY simple answer to a VERY simple proposition. DO NOT buy tickets to the games and DO NOT watch the games on TV.
Apr 14, 2010 4:33pm
B

Big Gain

Senior Member

2,073 posts
Apr 14, 2010 4:36 PM
stroups wrote: I guess you could say it puts less stress on the athletes by not having to play more games so they could focus on becoming better students. lol

Close but no cigar. There is a faction of Div1 players who have said if they were made to play more post games they wanted a piece of the action.
Apr 14, 2010 4:36pm
jordo212000's avatar

jordo212000

Senior Member

10,664 posts
Apr 14, 2010 4:51 PM
Obviously, about the only reason for doing the BCS is that the BCS affiliated conferences rake in the money and have done so by colluding together to keep the Mountain Wests and other smaller conferences out of the fold.

You can't argue about the student athlete anymore either, because college basketball is adding more and more games which effectively shoots holes in that argument.
Apr 14, 2010 4:51pm
S

slide22

Senior Member

330 posts
Apr 14, 2010 5:03 PM
I like it.

College Football is not like basketball where there are 12-15 teams who have a realistic shot(or deserve to,) win the National Championship. In CFB there are usually 3,4, or 5 teams who have a legitimate claim as the best team in the country, and some years it is less than that.
Apr 14, 2010 5:03pm
Little Danny's avatar

Little Danny

Senior Member

4,288 posts
Apr 14, 2010 5:43 PM
I think college football enjoys the current system because the debate about who the true #1 team is brings a lot of interest to the sport. In other words, the debate about whether Alabama, Texas, or whomever is #1 brings a lot of attention and fan interest to the sport all year long. If there were a playoff, people would not be so interested in those matchups up at the beginning of the season. The current system makes each and every week relevant and important.
Apr 14, 2010 5:43pm
B

Big Gain

Senior Member

2,073 posts
Apr 14, 2010 5:54 PM
jordo212000 wrote: Obviously, about the only reason for doing the BCS is that the BCS affiliated conferences rake in the money and have done so by colluding together to keep the Mountain Wests and other smaller conferences out of the fold.

You can't argue about the student athlete anymore either, because college basketball is adding more and more games which effectively shoots holes in that argument.
NO NO NO....the BCS money is shared among ALL conferences AND ALL independents, even if no one from your conference makes it to a BCS Bowl AND if NO independents make it to a BCS BOWL
Apr 14, 2010 5:54pm
CinciX12's avatar

CinciX12

Senior Member

2,874 posts
Apr 14, 2010 5:57 PM
It lets us now what we are getting ahead of time. We don't have to sit through a Butler-MSU Final Four type performance.
Apr 14, 2010 5:57pm
jordo212000's avatar

jordo212000

Senior Member

10,664 posts
Apr 14, 2010 5:58 PM
slide22 wrote: In CFB there are usually 3,4, or 5 teams who have a legitimate claim as the best team in the country, and some years it is less than that.
that is my main issue. Often there are more than two teams with a legit beef, but there is no way to determine who "should" be playing. The reasoning is often subjective and usually is the team that will get the best ratings
Apr 14, 2010 5:58pm
Scarlet_Buckeye's avatar

Scarlet_Buckeye

Senior Member

5,264 posts
Apr 14, 2010 6:03 PM
Because it actually has it right? The regular season is actually meaningful? The teams that have won it are TYPICALLY the best teams their respective years. For instance, could you imagine if Butler would have won the NCAA Men's championship this year? The chances of having a fraudulent team like that winning with the current BCS system are slim.
Apr 14, 2010 6:03pm
jordo212000's avatar

jordo212000

Senior Member

10,664 posts
Apr 14, 2010 6:06 PM
Big Gain wrote:
NO NO NO....the BCS money is shared among ALL conferences AND ALL independents, even if no one from your conference makes it to a BCS Bowl AND if NO independents make it to a BCS BOWL
Please. The money isn't even close to being equally distributed. The BCS conferences get $18 million for getting one team in, and $4.5 million for each additional team.

The mid-majors get $18 million, but that money is divided among the 5 non-BCS affiliated conferences. (or $3.6 million per conference).
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/04/sports/ncaafootball/04score.html
Apr 14, 2010 6:06pm
jordo212000's avatar

jordo212000

Senior Member

10,664 posts
Apr 14, 2010 6:08 PM
Scarlet_Buckeye wrote: Because it actually has it right? The regular season is actually meaningful? The teams that have won it are TYPICALLY the best teams their respective years. For instance, could you imagine if Butler would have won the NCAA Men's championship this year? The chances of having a fraudulent team like that winning with the current BCS system are slim.
Haha how was Butler fraudulent? They were ranked near the top 10 all season, and they were a 3 pointer away from beating Duke (who nobody is claiming to be a fraud).

Can you imagine the BCS national championship including a team like Butler? I can't, and it's a shame.
Apr 14, 2010 6:08pm
Little Danny's avatar

Little Danny

Senior Member

4,288 posts
Apr 14, 2010 6:13 PM
Scarlet_Buckeye wrote: Because it actually has it right? The regular season is actually meaningful? The teams that have won it are TYPICALLY the best teams their respective years. For instance, could you imagine if Butler would have won the NCAA Men's championship this year? The chances of having a fraudulent team like that winning with the current BCS system are slim.
Whose to say that Butler was not legitimately the second best team in the country this year even without the tournament? I mean, they only lost five games all year if I recall.

In college football there are years where it is not so clear who the best team is. Last year, Florida was 12-1 and lost to the eventual champ, Alabama. IMHO, Florida was the second best team last year, over Texas, but I understand why they did not go to the CG as they lost to Bama head to head. But, what if the second best lost a game during the season to another team(possibly due to injury/fluke/ whatever) but won out after the fact. Isn't it bothersome that you know that team could wipe the floor of one or both teams in the CG?
Apr 14, 2010 6:13pm
C

cview

Senior Member

351 posts
Apr 14, 2010 6:48 PM
In most years there is at least some form of argument about at least one of the participants (if not both). I think if there were a four team playoff, the same gripes that are currently made by the other 'deserving' teams about being a participant in the title game will be made by the 5th or 6th or 7th teams. If it were an eight team playoff, you'd have the 9th or 10th or 11th teams pissed about being left out. Also, if you're doing an eight team playoff where each BCS conference champion gets in, then the teams should play a round robin conference schedule which would all but eliminate OOC games. For example, each SEC school would have 11 games. If they didn't, you might have a situation where Florida has to play both Alabama and LSU from the SECW but Georgia gets Mississippi State and Ole Miss.

Also, in most cases a team controls their own destiny. Only once has a major conference team gone unbeaten and not been crowned the National Champion. (Auburn, 2004) Every other team with beef had a chance to take care of business on the field and remove any doubt.
Apr 14, 2010 6:48pm
ohiotiger33's avatar

ohiotiger33

Senior Member

1,500 posts
Apr 14, 2010 6:49 PM
Here is my logic:

The BCS Sucks/Blows.

I like getting sucked/blown.

I like the BCS.


Good enough for me!
Apr 14, 2010 6:49pm
jordo212000's avatar

jordo212000

Senior Member

10,664 posts
Apr 14, 2010 6:54 PM
cview wrote: In most years there is at least some form of argument about at least one of the participants (if not both). I think if there were a four team playoff, the same gripes that are currently made by the other 'deserving' teams by the 5th or 6th or 7th teams. If it were an eight team playoff, you'd have the 9th or 10th or 11th teams pissed about being left out.
That's not a very good justification for the BCS.
Apr 14, 2010 6:54pm
C

cview

Senior Member

351 posts
Apr 14, 2010 7:04 PM
jordo212000 wrote:
cview wrote: In most years there is at least some form of argument about at least one of the participants (if not both). I think if there were a four team playoff, the same gripes that are currently made by the other 'deserving' teams by the 5th or 6th or 7th teams. If it were an eight team playoff, you'd have the 9th or 10th or 11th teams pissed about being left out.
That's not a very good justification for the BCS.
I'm just saying that there is always going to have to be some way to select the teams. So when two teams have very similar bodies of work the same arguments and debates that rage on about who should be #2 or #3 will now become who should be #4 or #5 or #8 or #9. I'm not saying it's a good justification at all, but if we're playing devils advocate then I don't think it is a terrible argument.
Apr 14, 2010 7:04pm
jpake1's avatar

jpake1

Senior Member

2,389 posts
Apr 14, 2010 7:55 PM
The BCS rapes college football of a great playoff. Now, there you have it. A rape case for the court system.
Apr 14, 2010 7:55pm
B

Big Gain

Senior Member

2,073 posts
Apr 14, 2010 8:20 PM
jordo212000 wrote:
Big Gain wrote:
NO NO NO....the BCS money is shared among ALL conferences AND ALL independents, even if no one from your conference makes it to a BCS Bowl AND if NO independents make it to a BCS BOWL
Please. The money isn't even close to being equally distributed. The BCS conferences get $18 million for getting one team in, and $4.5 million for each additional team.

The mid-majors get $18 million, but that money is divided among the 5 non-BCS affiliated conferences. (or $3.6 million per conference).
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/04/sports/ncaafootball/04score.html
Thank You. Who the hell said the money is equally distributed??? However, there IS equity the way it's distributed. Like I said, even if your conference did not have a school in a BCS Bowl game they get money. Even if an independent school doesn't play in a BCS Bowl game they get money.

This year the Mountain West got 9.8 million, the WAC got 7.8 million, Conference USA got 2.8 million, the Mid Am got 2.1 million and the Sunbelt got 1.5 million. The service academies get 100K every year. ND gets 3 million every year, even if they don't play in a BCS Bowl game. The reason the Big Conferences get the big payout is it costs them MILLIONS to take 150 players, coaches and support staff and a 200+ member band and equipment to and from and accommodations. Think about it.
Apr 14, 2010 8:20pm
lhslep134's avatar

lhslep134

why so serious?

9,774 posts
Apr 15, 2010 10:54 AM
Well it was an improvement over the old system. With the flukey exception of the LSU/USC split, there can't be a split BCS national champion like there were many split champions in the old system.

I also think it puts WAYYY more pressure on the regular season. If there was an 8 team playoff, and OSU was number 1, what's stopping them from resting players against Michigan. YES it's Michigan, but I wouldn't be surprised to see some of the banged up players sitting for extended periods of time late in the season. Currently, however, players do whatever they can to play because of how important each game is.


Not to mention the $$$$, and the logistics NIGHTMARES of a playoff system.

How can you expect a ton of fans to make travel arrangements when they find out where they're playing the week of?! At least now fans have about a month to make travel arrangements.
Apr 15, 2010 10:54am