darbypitcher22 wrote: we could play this game all day going through people's schedules about who beat who; the bottom line is you cannot admit that there is a flawed system

I can say that it isn't a perfect system, but that doesn't mean it should be completely scrapped or that it sucks. The "best" team doesn't always win a playoff. Why should a team get to lose three or four games then call itself a champion because they win a couple in a row and happen to win their last game against a team who hadn't been beaten before? That is just as flawed as the current system.

I also find it flawed to act as though all those teams are equal and should be judged exclusively on the number of losses they have. There is a pretty clear distinction in quality and numbers to back it up. Yes, a singular Boise team may be able to win a game against Texas, but that doesn't mean they've accomplished the same things overall or justify rewarding them for being better than other lower tier teams.

enigmaax, I'm not debating that. Top to bottom, the MWC is NOT comparable to any BCS conference. However, I'm saying they are close enough to deserve consideration for an automatic bid. Getting that BCS status would automatically bring the bottom of the league up a notch and would eventually (I'd say within 3-5 years), put the league on an even keel or in some years, a clear notch above the bottom BCS leagues.

As I said, the MWC deserves a bid as much as the Big East, and even ACC deserve to have their automatic bids put in jeopardy. If people at least agree with that, then I don't mind if they are against the MWC getting consideration.

I don't see them just giving out 1 bid; if they're going to give out bids they'll give them out in pairs; who's left that you would also offer a bid to in addition to the Mountain West?

#1 Flordia vs #8 Ohio State

Winner plays

#4 TCU vs #5 Cincinnati

Winner of that bracket^^^^^^ plays winner of

#3 Alabama vs #6 Boise St

vs winner of

#2 Texas vs #7 Georgia Tech


That's real tough. Took 2 minutes.

what seems to make sense to us doesn't to those people

Azubuike24 wrote: enigmaax, I'm not debating that. Top to bottom, the MWC is NOT comparable to any BCS conference. However, I'm saying they are close enough to deserve consideration for an automatic bid. Getting that BCS status would automatically bring the bottom of the league up a notch and would eventually (I'd say within 3-5 years), put the league on an even keel or in some years, a clear notch above the bottom BCS leagues.

As I said, the MWC deserves a bid as much as the Big East, and even ACC deserve to have their automatic bids put in jeopardy. If people at least agree with that, then I don't mind if they are against the MWC getting consideration.

I don't know if I agree with that or not. On one hand, the Big East basically transplanted the better CUSA teams and have managed to stay competitive. They take a lot of heat and when I watch, I just don't get a feeling that it is as good of a conference as the other BCS conferences. But, their results say otherwise in a lot of cases.

The MWC gets a lot of attention because Utah, BYU, and TCU have beaten some good teams and pretty much dominate the conference aside from that. The thing is, those teams are a little over .500 against BCS schools in their best run of four or five years and the rest of the conference is well below that.

The problem is that I really don't think there is any doubt that some of those top teams can hang with other top teams, especially in a one game scenario. It is more a matter of whether or not they deserve the same reward, in my mind, for playing such distinctly different competition over the entire course of a season. The starters are fine, but I just don't see that depth holding up against a week-in, week-out grind that other teams face.

Ultimately, if there's only two teams who are going to play for a title, I don't see how any non-BCS team will ever deserve a shot at that. When it comes to qualifying for the other BCS games, it really doesn't matter because that is about money and virtually nothing else. It'd be difficult to tell a bowl who is paying tens of millions of dollars that they HAVE to take every piddly little team that runs the table. That money won't come in for very long. "We'll take your fifty mil up front, but you have to take a team that will ensure you lose twenty more mil." Not going to work.

Ironman92 wrote: #1 Flordia vs #8 Ohio State

Winner plays

#4 TCU vs #5 Cincinnati

Winner of that bracket^^^^^^ plays winner of

#3 Alabama vs #6 Boise St

vs winner of

#2 Texas vs #7 Georgia Tech


That's real tough. Took 2 minutes.

And tell me how you are going to pay for it.

Why don't you just do it like a regular road game? have the NCAA reimburse you for travel, hotel, meals, etc. like every other sport does when you get to NCAA Tournament time

darbypitcher22 wrote: Why don't you just do it like a regular road game? have the NCAA reimburse you for travel, hotel, meals, etc. like every other sport does when you get to NCAA Tournament time

Where's the money from the NCAA going to come from? I seriously doubt the same money will be there for the Tostitios Quarterfinal game as for the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl. There's no hint of exclusivity or branding when it's "just" a playoff game for that corporate money.

why does there even have to be branding involved? if you want to brand it get corporate partners like the basketball tournament has.

darbypitcher22 wrote: why does there even have to be branding involved? if you want to brand it get corporate partners like the basketball tournament has.

I just don't think it'd work like the basketball tourney and I don't think the money would be nearly the same. There's already a $13 million drop from the BCS bowls to the Capital One bowl (as an example), but with 34 bowls there's more to go around. Now you're talking about 7-15 games and how is that pay structure going to work? You think you can get $17 mil for eight games? The attendance dyanamic will be completely different for a team who has to play three games and I also believe it'd be different for those teams in lower tier bowls even if they kept those.

I just don't think it is as simple as, "okay, let's have a playoff" when there is so much success and reliance on the finances.

I think you'd have to restructure your finances, there would obviously have to be a scale involved, you earn more money the further you go along. Keep in mind not all of that money goes directly to one school; its split amongst the league and its member schools so everybody gets a slice of that $17 million, and when it comes to TCU or Boise that would mean the Rices, Idahos, Utah States, and others

"restructure your finances"

The whole thing is that the system works for this purpose. Who, in any power capacity relating to finances would purposely chance screwing that up?

someone who cares more about having a fair and equitable system.

Unfortunately Myles Brand passed away, so we won't see anybody stepping forward to make these changes.

Fair and equitable for whom? That almost sounds communist.

This whole debate is about "including" lower tier schools and equalizing some fantasy championship opportunity for them. There is no motivation for a school whose athletic budget depends on the big dollar drawing power that it has, even if only by being in a major conference and taking lumps, to give that money up to...say, Idaho. Invest and get a return. There are plusses and minuses both ways.

If you play it.....they will sponser


can't convince me sponsers wouldn't jump on that

Ironman92 wrote: If you play it.....they will sponser


can't convince me sponsers wouldn't jump on that

Not to the extent that is available now.

Of course not the extent it is now, but you can certainly find somebody who would sponsor those games.

What I meant by fair and equitable is a team can go undefeated and still not play for the title. Not even get a sniff. To me that's not fair. What more are you supposed to do?

What is there 25 or 26 bowl games.....how much money is that total???

With the #1-#8 format I had that would only be 7 games......BCS Championship, Orange, Fiesta, Sugar and Rose....throw in the Cotton and Capital One Bowl and those 7 game sponsors could be replaced to those playoff games....and the other 15 or so cruddy bowls.....keep them and let #9-# whatever play in them.

Can anyone honestly say the championship of the playoff format wouldn't be bigger than the BCS champion???

Thats a ton of games; and the money varies.

My question is, when is Florida going to win a legitimate title game? In 2006, they had Boise undefeated, in 2008, Utah was undefeated. What a a joke school. ZERO legitimate titles in their entire history and we're ready to crown Tebow as the greatest ever? If Tebow played in a conference that wasn't rigged to shit, he'd be another average QB that the SEC has produced.

Was the '95/'96 whenever that was legit?

darbypitcher22 wrote: Was the '95/'96 whenever that was legit?

Hell no, it's Florida. What a classless program.

LOL....

AS much as you hate the Ole Ball Coach the arrogant bastard sure did win a lot of games and so does Meyer

enigmaax wrote: azu - The MWC is 5-9 against BCS conference schools this season. Two of those wins were against teams with a winning record. That is why going unbeaten in that conference isn't the same as going unbeaten in a BCS conference. There are still losses to bad BCS teams like Colorado and UCLA. The problem with their argument is they want to isolate a win here and there and ask, how many times do we have to do this? Well, the answer might start with, more than 30-40% of the time from top to bottom.

Compare the records of BCS schools vs. non-BCS schools and it isn't hard to draw the line of competitive balance.

Yeah but the problem with that is, you're not trying to make a case for a whole conference to get into a bowl game; you're looking at one team (in this case TCU) and what they've done THIS YEAR. Just because Air force can't get it done OOC against a bigger school doesn't make TCU's wins any less relevant. My biggest pet peeve of the BCS is they love the name game; if you've got the big name, if they can find a way to worm you in and make more $, they'll do it.

And my second issue with your statement: So what makes Baylor get to be in a BCS conference, when winning 40% of their games each year would be considered a solid year most years?

That's the thing that gets me. I'm sorry but the last 10 years or so, Boise State and TCU have been consistently better than the bottom half of most major conferences; if a team from one of those conferences has one good year (Illinois Rose Bowl appearance in '07 for example), they get the benefit of the doubt and get a BCS game or if they go undefeated, a really strong case to play for a NC. However, if a a school like TCU, who wins 9 or more games basically every year, has an undefeated season, they still don't get in. Lets say next year, by some miracle, a team like Mississippi State runs the table; 13-0. They'll be in the NC game. The reality of the situation is, they havent had a history of winning more than 30-40% of their games against BCS schools either, esp. this decade, but simply by affiliation alone, they'll get the bid over a school without such an affiliation, who averages 9+ wins a season over the last decade. How is that any different than what you're saying about the MWC teams, and lets be honest, about TCU this year? Neither team has a dominating record over other BCS teams the past several years (actually, TCU's is pretty good) but for argument's sake, neither team has been that dominant over other BCS schools, yet if Team A (perennial SEC doormat Miss. State) has one undefeated season, they'll likely be in the NC game, where as team B, with the same relative winning percentage over BCS teams in recent years goes undefeated and they say 'sorry, no chance in hell'. Thats FUBAR if you ask me.