or would it rather have status quo with the gauranteed money?

(05-04-2009 12:43 PM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  or would it rather have status quo with the gauranteed money?

The Big East and all of the other BCS conferences (and when I refer to the conferences, I'm talking about the leadership as opposed to the fans on the street) don't want anything to do with a playoff in the way most people are proposing (i.e. NCAA Tournament-style with auto bids for all conferences). The only way that I could reasonably see that they would agree to a playoff would be if they could maintain the same financial and access advantages over the non-BCS conferences as they do now (i.e. plus-one model or some form of an 8-team playoff with 6 guaranteed spots for the BCS conferences). Otherwise, if you're actually in charge of one the BCS conferences (and it's very easy for fans to spew out what they think they should do purely from an on-the-field perspective without considering that it's all driven by finances), then you'd be absolutely insane to even consider giving up all of the advantages that they have now.

Plus, it could be argued that the Big East needs the BCS money much more than any of the other conferences. The Big Ten and SEC are still going to rake in huge TV contracts and fill up 100,000-seat stadiums with or without the BCS. However, the guaranteed BCS bowl revenue is the single biggest financial advantage that the Big East has over the MWC, WAC, and other non-BCS conferences (not to mention the recruiting benefits that come with being a BCS school). If the BCS is eradicated as we know it, the Big East will end up closer to the current non-BCS conferences in terms of financial revenue (I'm NOT talking about on-the-field performance) than to the Big Ten, SEC, and Big 12.

Big East fans want a playoff. Our Presidents and other leaders within the Big East doesn't want a playoff.

Everybody wants a playoff except for BCS University Presidents. What else is new?

Can somebody please think up something original? I get real tired of the same sh!t ad infinitum...

It was the ACC and SEC Commisioner that purposed a plus one at last years BCS meeting,and nobody else would support it.

Because the Plus One format is a BS formula, and everyone knows it. The ACC and SEC Commisioners are the last ones I'd entrust the planning of any college football playoff. They're pretty far down on the rest of the nation's list too. Otherwise, somebody might have listened to them. As it was...

I am a fan, and I do not want a playoff. I do not want to just "give away" ANY advantages over non-bcs teams. That is the whole reason for being in the BE and BCS. Level the playing field and it takes away the advantages. If there is a playoff, go to a plus one. I do not want the SB, MAC, WAC, etc. having the same access as the BE. Sorry, that is the way I see it.

You would have a totally different opinion if the circumstances were reversed. I'm for inclusion. I don't think anyone should be excluded. It's like freedom in America. It should be available to all...

It's not like non-BCS schools would win many national championships. But at least they'd have a chance to win...

(05-04-2009 02:57 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  You would have a totally different opinion if the circumstances were reversed. I'm for inclusion. I don't think anyone should be excluded. It's like freedom in America. It should be available to all...

It's not like non-BCS schools would win many national championships. But at least they'd have a chance to win...

Yes, I probably would. But since we're in the BCS, I do not. At least I am being honest.

(05-04-2009 02:57 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  It's not like non-BCS schools would win many national championships. But at least they'd have a chance to win...

Honestly, how is that different from now? Contrary to popular opinion, the non-BCS schools already have access to the national championship. The fact that it's extremely difficult or unlikely for them to get there doesn't mean that they have no access.

The non-BCS programs have access to the BCS National Championship? When did this happen? Did an undefeated Utah team play in the BCS Championship game against a team that lost a game? No. Utah was relegated to the Sugar Bowl. But they STOMPED the team that the mythical national champions, Florida, struggled to beat in the SEC Championship...

Enough said...

I think they are implying its more than extremely difficult, its impossible.
What more can you do than go undefeated? There is access to the money, but not the title, is the arguement now I guess. My first impression is that including everyone will hurt the BE. That it will lessen the separation and the BE already has the smallest gap separating it.

(05-04-2009 04:17 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The non-BCS programs have access to the BCS National Championship? When did this happen? Did an undefeated Utah team play in the BCS Championship game against a team that lost a game? No. Utah was relegated to the Sugar Bowl. But they STOMPED the team that the mythical national champions, Florida, struggled to beat in the SEC Championship...

Enough said...

Just because you're undefeated doesn't mean that you're automatically the best team or should be in the national championship game. I'll put it down in simple terms: if I had to bet my life savings on it, I would have taken both Florida and Oklahoma over Utah. Would you honestly have taken Utah over Florida or Oklahoma? If a pollster isn't able to say that he would bet his life savings on Utah over Florida or Oklahoma (and I highly doubt many, if any of them, would have said that), then he can't claim that Utah was one of the top two teams in the country last year. Maybe Utah was a top four team, but that doesn't mean it was a top two team. When a non-BCS team gets to the point where the general public would bet their life savings that it's one of the top two teams in the country, then it will get into the national championship game. The fact that this hasn't happened yet doesn't mean that the non-BCS schools don't have access - it means that the pollsters didn't believe that a non-BCS school has been one of the top two teams in the country up to this point, and honestly, I believe that those pollsters have been correct.

(05-04-2009 04:33 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-04-2009 04:17 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The non-BCS programs have access to the BCS National Championship? When did this happen? Did an undefeated Utah team play in the BCS Championship game against a team that lost a game? No. Utah was relegated to the Sugar Bowl. But they STOMPED the team that the mythical national champions, Florida, struggled to beat in the SEC Championship...

Enough said...

Just because you're undefeated doesn't mean that you're automatically the best team or should be in the national championship game. I'll put it down in simple terms: if I had to bet my life savings on it, I would have taken both Florida and Oklahoma over Utah. Would you honestly have taken Utah over Florida or Oklahoma? If a pollster isn't able to say that he would bet his life savings on Utah over Florida or Oklahoma (and I highly doubt many, if any of them, would have said that), then he can't claim that Utah was one of the top two teams in the country last year. Maybe Utah was a top four team, but that doesn't mean it was a top two team. When a non-BCS team gets to the point where the general public would bet their life savings that it's one of the top two teams in the country, then it will get into the national championship game. The fact that this hasn't happened yet doesn't mean that the non-BCS schools don't have access - it means that the pollsters didn't believe that a non-BCS school has been one of the top two teams in the country up to this point, and honestly, I believe that those pollsters have been correct.

THATS WHY YOU NEED A PLAYOFF. Solve it on the field, not in the minds of pollsters and computers

None of those pollsters would have bet that Utah could beat Alabama either - and they'd have lost...

(05-04-2009 04:33 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-04-2009 04:17 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The non-BCS programs have access to the BCS National Championship? When did this happen? Did an undefeated Utah team play in the BCS Championship game against a team that lost a game? No. Utah was relegated to the Sugar Bowl. But they STOMPED the team that the mythical national champions, Florida, struggled to beat in the SEC Championship...

Enough said...

Just because you're undefeated doesn't mean that you're automatically the best team or should be in the national championship game. I'll put it down in simple terms: if I had to bet my life savings on it, I would have taken both Florida and Oklahoma over Utah. Would you honestly have taken Utah over Florida or Oklahoma? If a pollster isn't able to say that he would bet his life savings on Utah over Florida or Oklahoma (and I highly doubt many, if any of them, would have said that), then he can't claim that Utah was one of the top two teams in the country last year. Maybe Utah was a top four team, but that doesn't mean it was a top two team. When a non-BCS team gets to the point where the general public would bet their life savings that it's one of the top two teams in the country, then it will get into the national championship game. The fact that this hasn't happened yet doesn't mean that the non-BCS schools don't have access - it means that the pollsters didn't believe that a non-BCS school has been one of the top two teams in the country up to this point, and honestly, I believe that those pollsters have been correct.

Noone is ever going to know. That's the problem.

(05-04-2009 04:36 PM)PGPirate Wrote:  

(05-04-2009 04:33 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-04-2009 04:17 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The non-BCS programs have access to the BCS National Championship? When did this happen? Did an undefeated Utah team play in the BCS Championship game against a team that lost a game? No. Utah was relegated to the Sugar Bowl. But they STOMPED the team that the mythical national champions, Florida, struggled to beat in the SEC Championship...

Enough said...

Just because you're undefeated doesn't mean that you're automatically the best team or should be in the national championship game. I'll put it down in simple terms: if I had to bet my life savings on it, I would have taken both Florida and Oklahoma over Utah. Would you honestly have taken Utah over Florida or Oklahoma? If a pollster isn't able to say that he would bet his life savings on Utah over Florida or Oklahoma (and I highly doubt many, if any of them, would have said that), then he can't claim that Utah was one of the top two teams in the country last year. Maybe Utah was a top four team, but that doesn't mean it was a top two team. When a non-BCS team gets to the point where the general public would bet their life savings that it's one of the top two teams in the country, then it will get into the national championship game. The fact that this hasn't happened yet doesn't mean that the non-BCS schools don't have access - it means that the pollsters didn't believe that a non-BCS school has been one of the top two teams in the country up to this point, and honestly, I believe that those pollsters have been correct.

THATS WHY YOU NEED A PLAYOFF. Solve it on the field, not in the minds of pollsters and computers

I've stated before that I'm in favor of an 8-team playoff of some form (I favor using the traditional tie-ins to the 4 BCS bowls), but not an NCAA Tournament-style open access playoff. I don't think that all of the non-BCS conferences deserve automatic bids - a system that would grant an auto bid to the Sun Belt but lock out teams that were in the top 10 all year would be more unfair than anything else.

That being said, I just completely disagree with anyone that thinks simply because a non-BCS team goes undefeated that it's some type of automatic validation that it's one of the top 2 teams in the country. Maybe if there's an 8-team playoff, then it would be an injustice to leave it out of that field of 8 - I'm fine with that. However, in the BCS system that we have now, where we're trying to pare it down to the top two teams, an undefeated season in the MWC or WAC doesn't automatically mean that it's a better season over the 1-loss SEC or Big 12 champ (or from any other BCS conference).

(05-04-2009 04:54 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-04-2009 04:36 PM)PGPirate Wrote:  

(05-04-2009 04:33 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-04-2009 04:17 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The non-BCS programs have access to the BCS National Championship? When did this happen? Did an undefeated Utah team play in the BCS Championship game against a team that lost a game? No. Utah was relegated to the Sugar Bowl. But they STOMPED the team that the mythical national champions, Florida, struggled to beat in the SEC Championship...

Enough said...

Just because you're undefeated doesn't mean that you're automatically the best team or should be in the national championship game. I'll put it down in simple terms: if I had to bet my life savings on it, I would have taken both Florida and Oklahoma over Utah. Would you honestly have taken Utah over Florida or Oklahoma? If a pollster isn't able to say that he would bet his life savings on Utah over Florida or Oklahoma (and I highly doubt many, if any of them, would have said that), then he can't claim that Utah was one of the top two teams in the country last year. Maybe Utah was a top four team, but that doesn't mean it was a top two team. When a non-BCS team gets to the point where the general public would bet their life savings that it's one of the top two teams in the country, then it will get into the national championship game. The fact that this hasn't happened yet doesn't mean that the non-BCS schools don't have access - it means that the pollsters didn't believe that a non-BCS school has been one of the top two teams in the country up to this point, and honestly, I believe that those pollsters have been correct.

THATS WHY YOU NEED A PLAYOFF. Solve it on the field, not in the minds of pollsters and computers

I've stated before that I'm in favor of an 8-team playoff of some form (I favor using the traditional tie-ins to the 4 BCS bowls), but not an NCAA Tournament-style open access playoff. I don't think that all of the non-BCS conferences deserve automatic bids - a system that would grant an auto bid to the Sun Belt but lock out teams that were in the top 10 all year would be more unfair than anything else.

That being said, I just completely disagree with anyone that thinks simply because a non-BCS team goes undefeated that it's some type of automatic validation that it's one of the top 2 teams in the country. Maybe if there's an 8-team playoff, then it would be an injustice to leave it out of that field of 8 - I'm fine with that. However, in the BCS system that we have now, where we're trying to pare it down to the top two teams, an undefeated season in the MWC or WAC doesn't automatically mean that it's a better season over the 1-loss SEC or Big 12 champ (or from any other BCS conference).

Thats why I think an 11 + 5 is the best method. Using the Week 15 (Dec 7) AP Poll, the 16 in would be:

1. UF (SEC Auto)
2. OK (Big12 Auto)
3. Texas (At-large 1)
4. Alabama (At-large 2)
5. USC (PAC10 Auto)
6. Penn St (Big10 Auto)
7. Utah (MWC Auto)
8. TX Tech (At-Large 3)
9. Boise St (WAC Auto)
10. Ohio St (At-Large 4)
11. TCU (At-Large 5)
12. Cincy (BE Auto)
_____
Buffalo (MAC Auto)
ECU (CUSA Auto)
Va Tech (ACC Auto)
Troy (Sun Belt Auto)



Plus you always get pissed off people who are just out (i.e. #13 OK St). But that happens in the basketball tourny and baseball tourny. In this example, OK St should have not been the fourth highest in the Big 12.

How is this not fair?!

(05-04-2009 04:54 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-04-2009 04:36 PM)PGPirate Wrote:  

(05-04-2009 04:33 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-04-2009 04:17 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The non-BCS programs have access to the BCS National Championship? When did this happen? Did an undefeated Utah team play in the BCS Championship game against a team that lost a game? No. Utah was relegated to the Sugar Bowl. But they STOMPED the team that the mythical national champions, Florida, struggled to beat in the SEC Championship...

Enough said...

Just because you're undefeated doesn't mean that you're automatically the best team or should be in the national championship game. I'll put it down in simple terms: if I had to bet my life savings on it, I would have taken both Florida and Oklahoma over Utah. Would you honestly have taken Utah over Florida or Oklahoma? If a pollster isn't able to say that he would bet his life savings on Utah over Florida or Oklahoma (and I highly doubt many, if any of them, would have said that), then he can't claim that Utah was one of the top two teams in the country last year. Maybe Utah was a top four team, but that doesn't mean it was a top two team. When a non-BCS team gets to the point where the general public would bet their life savings that it's one of the top two teams in the country, then it will get into the national championship game. The fact that this hasn't happened yet doesn't mean that the non-BCS schools don't have access - it means that the pollsters didn't believe that a non-BCS school has been one of the top two teams in the country up to this point, and honestly, I believe that those pollsters have been correct.

THATS WHY YOU NEED A PLAYOFF. Solve it on the field, not in the minds of pollsters and computers

I've stated before that I'm in favor of an 8-team playoff of some form (I favor using the traditional tie-ins to the 4 BCS bowls), but not an NCAA Tournament-style open access playoff. I don't think that all of the non-BCS conferences deserve automatic bids - a system that would grant an auto bid to the Sun Belt but lock out teams that were in the top 10 all year would be more unfair than anything else.

That being said, I just completely disagree with anyone that thinks simply because a non-BCS team goes undefeated that it's some type of automatic validation that it's one of the top 2 teams in the country. Maybe if there's an 8-team playoff, then it would be an injustice to leave it out of that field of 8 - I'm fine with that. However, in the BCS system that we have now, where we're trying to pare it down to the top two teams, an undefeated season in the MWC or WAC doesn't automatically mean that it's a better season over the 1-loss SEC or Big 12 champ (or from any other BCS conference).

Right....and that's the point of having the 8 team playoff...to settle it on the field. mono on mono. Let's all watch as that 1-loss SEC team rolls through the undefeated MWC or WAC team. Things would just work themselves out.

I don't think you'll get the BCS conferences to sign off on a playoff unless their champions are automatically entered into the playoff - regardless of their final record. Even if many consider the BE not be part of the 'power conferences' per se, none of the other 5 are going to agree - especially under the situation where there are only 8 teams since the chances of a conference champ being at a rank of 9 or lower is greater. The 'Power Brokers' are going to want guaranteed automatic entry - even if their champion is 9-4 after winning a conference championship game.