The more that I think about what I believe to be the lack of progress towards changing the current way the NCAA names its FBS (Div-1A) football champion, the more depressed I feel. It is a daunting task to get a group of people to change the way they do things when they have had success at doing it their way. I don’t understand why only the SEC and ACC commissioners are vying for a change. I wonder if there is something else there.
What is the ultimate goal of the commissioners of the BCS conferences? Is it to make the most money for their respective conferences? Is it to try to widen the fan-base for NCAA football? Is it to try to excel and achieve to become the paragon of athletics for the NCAA? I can’t speak to the motives of these people, but it seems very evident that they are in no hurry to appease a very disgruntled fan-base. Why is that?
It doesn’t seem to make any business sense to not try to please your customers. That is unless your customers have no choice but to go to you for the product. That seems to be the case here, doesn’t it? Why should they care if we are happy? What can we do to change the way things are run? We are going to still show up for games. We are still going to buy the gear. There is really no reason for them to be concerned with us. Right? That fact makes me depressed.
Where is the congressional committee for us here? Is this not an election year? Can we write our representative on the hill in DC and let them know how displeased we are with the monopoly that the NCAA has on our souls in autumn? No. I know that I won't do that on my own. It sucks being depressed.
Want more college football talk? Check out my out-of-conference game schedule grades for all the teams in all the BCS conferences. ACC, Big East, Big XII, Big 10, Pac-10, and SEC.
I would like to think that there are more than the SEC and ACC that want change in this system... I'm sure the Mountain West, WAC, Conference USA, MAC, and Sun Belt Conferences would join in a move to shake up this situation. Where is the Big 12 and Big East in this, with the Big Ten and Pac-10? I thought they were looking for change as well... No?
My answer is to leave the two conferences so enthralled with the Rose Bowl to do just that, the Rose Bowl, while the rest go ahead and hold a National Championship Tournament. When and if a team from those other two conferences makes a claim to be the national champion they would be wrong and nail them for it... The bowls affiliated with these playoff conferences would get the choice games as the tournament comes down to the big game and forget the Rose Bowl... Even when those two conferences finally come around (and you know they will), leave the damned Rose Bowl out of the equation or at least give them a minor role in the process as a thank you for continually throwing a wrench in this process.
Yeah, what I read was that only the SEC and ACC were looking to change anything. None of the other conferences would even entertain the notion of change. There was a quote from one of the commissioner saying "If it ain't broke, then don't fix it." I wanted to punch something when I read that.
I just don't understand why there is no desire for change. If they can't agree on the changes, then that is a different thing. But these guys are not entertaining the notion of change. Ugh! Despair and anguish are roommates in my head.
But you answer your own question with the "...make the most money...". Hell, they've sold all the bowl names to coporate sponsors. Hell, even private schools have sold their names...to sell branded condoms...(made in USA...size small).
I miss the Pac 8. I miss the Rose Bowl on New Year's Day (okay, it's because Cal hasn't made it in a while), and I miss the Rose Parade (the exit off of the 210 when drving with a hangover...)
Dangerous, I appreciate the money factor, but I am starting to believe there is something else there. Doesn't March Madness do well in the money department. Even the College World Series gets its two weeks of fame on ESPN. They make money either way. I don't get it.
I think the problem IS money olds... The money the bowls would lose. The tournament would be a gold mine and the bowls would be out if they didn't play ball... They all look at Division II when they inaugurated their tournament, they did away with a couple of bowls to get it done. The big bowls are scared to death that their fingers will be removed from the college football pie...
Ironically the NCAA was created to stop the creep of professionalism and money into college sports. Somewhere along the line they got dyslexia. Their answer was to create two more soul sucking bowl games. Aren't too many Bowl games enough? When does the Bowl glut stop? Do we need a Viagra Bowl or a Depends Bowl? Soon High School teams will be playing JuCo's in Bowl games...
Thanks, Ed. I laugh, but there is a twinge of something inside me that thinks you are correct about the high school/JUCO games. The bowls are so watered down you have games like Mizzou and Arkansas last year. What a ####-fest that was.
I don't understand where the bowls would lose money? All they have to do is become part of the tournament, if the tournament was that big. What I envision is a very small little deal that would involve the BCS bowls and maybe a couple others.
I think it was foolish for the SEC and ACC to suggest something they should have known would not fly. The PAC-10 and Big 10 stated they would veto any seeded tournament.
What they should have suggested was a "classic bowl" setup with the Top 4-5 bowls in agreement with who goes to where. The Rose Bowl gets PAC-10 and Big 10, the SEC champion goes to the Sugar Bowl against an at large team (this could be selected as it is now).
After the bowls, the Top 2 teams are determined and a game is held 1-2 weeks later, just like the championship is currently held. The only difference would be that there would be some guaranteed tough competition for the top few teams. The pollsters would still be involved if they wanted to prevent a rematch (or a rematch of a rematch, such as USC beating OSU in Rose Bowl after losing in the regular season).
The specifics for determining the Top 2 teams could vary from year to year as it does now.
OS, just to play Devils Advocate, answer this for me and maybe you will see how the Bowls feel they will lose money.
Each Bowl team has a fan base book rooms, travel to the Bowl City, spend money on various expenses as well as souveniers, and then the game itself. How many boosters or fans can afford to attend multiple Bowl games in different area's of the country in a 30-45 day span to generate attendance and concessions sales? What network would want to show a Bowl game with the at game attendance around 50% (arbitrary number as an example)?
We know the large pay outs come from the network TV contracts, Bowl sponsers and Air Time sales for advertising, so Bowl games are mostly set up with the fans in mind, who will show up, who will watch, etc. So with that in mind, how could they not fear losing money or more appropriately, not earning as much as they are acustomed to?
Why is it depressing?It's not like you don't get to see good ballgames.A playoff isn't gonna stop blowout wins by one team or another,you're still gonna have them.Even in a playoffs championship game their are gonna be blowouts.You still won't have any more of a definitive champ than you do now.The best team doesn't always win in ANY format.All of that is neither here nor there though,the big question is why do you care.As a fan you get nothing for it,maybe some bragging rights,but you're teams odds of winning a NC won't change and they won't play more games,they'll just shave 'em off the regular season.I'm not against a playoff I just don't see why it would make enough difference to justify all the fuss.
Oh and by the way the ACC and SEC commishes aren't endorsing a plus one or a playoff either they just wanted to talk about it.The Big 12,Big10 and Pac10 commishes were just the ones who came out and said "no".
Don't let what we don't have ruin what we do have.
I think the ACC and SEC should pull out of the BCS, and make their own National Champsionhip Playoff Series. Let's mnake money for the SEC and ACC, not the NCAA or the BCS
McPally, I had never thought of that before. That is a very good point. I have to say that. I know that it would be hard for me to organize and coordinate my family and job in order to make any game. Good point.
MegaBuck, I undersand what you are saying here and I do agree to a certain point. First of all, the way I understood the AP article I read was that the SEC and ACC commissioners acutally came forward with a rough draft of a format for a Plus-1. It was not even considered for discussion. Why? Secondly, A definitive champ is not the goal here for me. What is important are the best possible matchups and avoiding USC/Ill or GA/Hawaii. You cannot tell me that there was any doubt of the outcome of either of those games. If there is a plus-1, maybe the BCS match-ups are taken a little more seriously. Maybe not. Who knows? But I don't see how a plus-1 can ruin what we have now.
Maybe its time we found some new conference commissioners. Or maybe we should boycott the BCS games. If the conference commissioners don't want to listen to the fans, then we need to start screaming.
You take the 11 conference champions & 5 wild cards. Use the bowls for the playoff games, then rotate the championship game. Oh yes, the independents will have to join a conference in order to qualify.
RG, I apprciate what you are saying, but(speaking for myself)a boycott is out of the question. It would be nice, but right now things are not quite that bad in my opinion. Thanks for the comment.
We just all read where the commitee met and decided that a playoff was not in the cards right now. What we did not hear is the reasons why! We as fans are under the impression that the BCS commitee is there to please us but it becomes ever so apparent that these meetings are just to flaunt the fact that they do not care what the fans want or think about things. If it was voted on by all of the fans in CFB I would not be suprised to see a 90% approval for a 16 game playoff that would not effect the current bowl games. Most teams that play in bowls these days are not playing for a top 10 finish for the year but its just a trip for the team and money for the schools represented. A playoff would certainly distingiush the men from the boys and that is exactly why the playoffs are put on hold once again. The parties against a playoff must know that their teams would not stand a chance of being in the playoffs or going very far in them. It is ashamed that these parties are holding back the progress of the greatest sport in America!
Last edited by ChampSooners on May 2nd at 8:39 PM.
Great article, and this year is another year full of dissappointment for me as far as the BCS goes. I'm so sick of the greediness of the conference and bowl commishes that stand in the way of any kind of positive change. And the sad thing is that the NCAA just approved 34 bowl games for this year. That's 68 teams playing in a bowl, which is more than half of all of D-1A football. And yet they refuse to insitute a playoff on the basis that it will ruin the regular season. What a joke! They are already ruining the season by continually making these pointless bowl games so that any school can go 6-6 and get a huge payday. The thing that really annoys me is that if these commishes ran a pro sport, they would be out of business because a pro commish has to keep both his players and fans happy, and yet the college commishes have to do neither and they flaunt it at us because they know it and obviously like the power they have.
And I honestly don't think the Big Ten and Pac-10 commishes care about how good their teams are, they care more about their contract with the Rose Bowl and the possible loss of money from that contract if a playoff is implemented. Remember, it's all in the money for these guys, and I doubt the other conference commishes would act much differently if they were in the same place that the Big Ten and Pac-10 are right now. I am in no way defending the Big Ten or Pac-10 as I'm sick of their BS as well, but that's just the way it is.
And I think an 8-team playoff with 6 major conference champs and 2 at large bids would be the best. Conference champs would be determined by a formula that takes their OOC SOS into account so that if team A goes undefeated but plays an easy schedule, team B who played a tough schedule and lost 1 or 2 games to tough opponents can still win the conference. That would eliminate pretty much all the cupcake games and would make for a much better playoff due to all the teams playing some decent competition (think OSU the last 2 years here) throughout the season. It would also make the regular season more interesting with some of the usual underdogs being able to challenge for their conference's title based on a really hard OOC schedule.
Imagine the Big Ten right now. OSU has been dominant for the past few years, but admittedly has not played a tough in-conference sched and only a couple of good OOC games in 05 and 06 against Texas. Someone like Wisky, who may play a much tougher OOC sched and lose one game there and maybe a game against a good Michigan team or something, could still finish ahead of an undeafeated OSU team in the conference standings due to their tough sched and losses to good opponents (as long as they are reasonably close games). That would make for a mad scramble to play the toughest sched possible and make conference races that much more interesting.
Last edited by Browns_and_Buckeyes_fan on May 3rd at 9:13 AM.
oldskewler...I didn't mean to imply that a +1 system would ruin CFB,I meant that all the complaining will ruin the current bowls.It's like everyone turned from fanatics to addicts,always chasing a better high and never enjoying satisfaction.THAT is what I think the commishes are most worried about.
Also,he11 yeah I thought UH and ILL had a shot.
Did you not see how insane last season was?
Did you think BSU had a shot against OU in '06?
Kansas "proving it"
WVU winning inspite of RR leaving
UM sending Carr out with a "W"
Ore. showing they could win w/o DD
These are all great moments from last bowl season but it seems all you ever read about is how crappy the bowls are.
I'm sure every bowl committee does their best to choose the best matchups to provide the best entertainment.It's in their own best interest,right?
A look into the future...
top 4 teams in order...OSU,LSU,UGA,and USC
OSU beats USC then gets beat in the +1 game...all we'll here is how it shoulda been LSU and UGA playing in the +1 game and if OSU were to win it would be because LSU and UGA beat eachother up.
Tell me I'm wrong....
Mega, your point is taken. I will agree that there were some classic games last year, but I don't see the harm with a plus-one. I don't think it is a bad thing. Will it solve any major issues? Not every year, but it would be hard to argue the legitamacy of the winning team. Impossible to aruge? Never. Thanks for commenting.
I still believe the SEC and ACC should pull out of the BCS and form their own Championship Series. Think of the money these two conferences could raise.
free polls
I like the match-ups and the years of bad-blood between rivals in college football. I enjoy a good game no matter the national implications. Give me a 3OT game between a couple of Sun Belt teams over a 40 point blowout between a couple top 25 teams anytime. I consider myself to be a fan of the game. I will be as respectful to visitors on my blog as they are to me. Go Huskers! Go Navy! Go Jags! Go Cubbies!
The more that I think about what I believe to be the lack of progress towards changing the current way the NCAA names its FBS (Div-1A) football champion, the more depressed I feel. It is a daunting task to get a group of people to change the way they do things when they have had success at doing it their way. I don’t understand why only the SEC and ACC commissioners are vying for a change. I wonder if there is something else there. 
It doesn’t seem to make any business sense to not try to please your customers. That is unless your customers have no choice but to go to you for the product. That seems to be the case here, doesn’t it? Why should they care if we are happy? What can we do to change the way things are run? We are going to still show up for games. We are still going to buy the gear. There is really no reason for them to be concerned with us. Right? That fact makes me depressed. 
