2012 BCS National Championship Game on ESPN HD - LSU vs. Alabama! - Page 3

You hit the nail on the head. The way the BCS is setup is not for the fans, its not setup for the teams, its setup to make the most money for the BCS and ESPN. Also pay TV subscriptions have decreased for the first time in history in 2011 thanks to prices rising to over $100 a month and when the economy is bad and people are hurting for money. Then for the BCS to start charging this price for games that have been on free broadcast TV for the last 40 years just shows their greed. People are showing their disgust with it and not watching.

I went to Buffalo Wild Wings Monday Night to watch the BCS National championship and the place was packed. There wasn't an empty table anywhere.

And zero championships.

Titles are issued bureaucratically by committee. Championships are earned.

Although, I'd guess Alabama would have earned a championship this year if they were given the opportunity with a playoff.

There are 11 BCS conferences. Just take each conference champ (if the conference doesn't have a championship game then they determine how that is decided) and add 1 wildcard which is either an independent (Notre Dame, BYU, Army or Navy) or the most deserving non champ which this year would have been Alabama. Seed them 1-12 and give the top 4 byes. Play the games, use the major bowl sites, have a real champion. The scraps can keep playing in the other bowl games.

It wouldn’t be any different than it is now; people would complain about who deserves the byes. If you are good enough to be a top 4 team, then you should be good enough to compete in every game just like everyone else. The numbers that work - top 8 or 16.

This is terrible for several reasons. This year, the #4 team before the bowls was Stanford (ranked higher than Oregon!) so they'd be out. Boise State was ranked #7, but they'd be out too. Arkansas was ranked #6, below LSU and Alabama, so they'd be out. All of those teams could beat the champions of the other conferences.

Now, while this isn't inherently bad in year #1, and the top excuse will be "then too bad, those teams should have won their conferences, and let the little guys get their shot!", what you're going to end up with is massive conference re-alignment as big schools attempt to join conferences where they will be guaranteed to finish a season undefeated and conference champion. LSU and Alabama wouldn't want to be in the same conference anymore. The goal will shift from being the best team to simply being the team that didn't lose to anybody.

My idea is to create 4 16-team super-conferences, and subdivide them into divisions of 4 teams each. Make each division earn their title, have the North/South winners play each other week 12, have the East/West winners play week 12, have the winners of those play in the conference title game, and now you only have 4 conference champions. Seed your 8-team playoff from those winners and at large invitees.

Call this the new Division 1. 64 teams instead of 120. Send the rest of the teams to the minors. Most of those smaller schools don't care to win a national title anyway.

completely disagree about his idea being terrible. i think it's a really good idea. no system is perfect but it would be so much better than what we have now. there will always be stacked conferences....and that's a fluid situation. the sec west division won't be as tough as it now every year. i like the idea of having to win your conference to get in. it's clear cut. no excuses. you win your conference and you move on. you don't, then you can play in a minor bowl.

in theory i actually like your super-conference idea and have one similar to it. it would have 3 super-conferences with the the winners of each of those conferences making the final 4 and have all the other conferences playoff for the 4th spot. that way, the smaller market programs would still have a shot. but as it stands, the super-conference idea just isn't practical. it's akin to all the planets lining up. only God can make that happen.

It's not a sport if your winner is decided by computers and fat guys writing about games.

No, it's not a championship if your titles are decided by same, has nothing to do with whether it's a sport.

I think the best we're going to get out of the new BCS is a +1 system, which while better than what we have now is still a half-measure. There will be plenty of years where you can make an argument for someone other than the top 4 teams.

And then you still have the other problem with the BCS, which is that the teams picked either come from crap conferences (hello, Big East!) or because their fans will travel. Or because of guaranteed payouts, above or below the table.

+1 won't solve anything, just make it a bit less crappy. Same with a 4 team playoff - it won't solve the primary problem.

8 would be the absolute minimum for a playoff that would most likely avoid controversy and finally give college football some respectability. 16 or more would be ideal. Arguing about #16, #17 or #18 isn't that big a deal when your only goal is to determine the National Champion.

... the other problem with only sending the best 8 teams is that there will be many years where no team outside the SEC gets a postseason game.

BCS championship ratings decline may spur welcome changes

The commissioners from the 11 FBS conferences met Tuesday with BCS officials, including executive director and nicest guy in the world Bill Hancock (that's not sarcasm; Hancock actually is the nicest guy in the world).

The first order of business, of course, was for the commissioners to figure out which teams are in their conferences now, which will be in their conference by the time they have to make a decision on any changes to the BCS format, and which teams will be in their conferences by the time any changes will be implemented. That probably took most of the morning. PowerPoint presentation? Hand puppets?

Once that was out of the way, the big surprise came when a four-team playoff was once again proposed (it had been brought up in 2008 and shot down by the Big Ten, Pac-10, Big East, Big 12 and Notre Dame). This time, it wasn't nixed by anyone, and not just because those conferences no longer exist in their previous forms.

Four years ago, five of us didn't want to have the conversation, said Jim Delany, former Big Ten leader and now head of the Notorious B1G. Now we all want to have the conversation.

You really think LSU or Alabama would leave the SEC and its big TV contract for the Sunbelt just so they could be "guaranteed" a conference championship?

Another thread in need of a title change. How 'bout: "Everything that's wrong with the BCS - post here".

nope...

but i do think that if either of them could get their own network (like texas), they'd be willing to tick off their conference brethren enough to destroy the sec (like texas with the big 12)...

how about just eliminate "traditional" conferences entirely? take the 32 teams that matter*, create 4 divisions of 8 teams each. you play your division, and one game against each other division (chosen by position of finish the previous year). that leaves 1 (or 2, if you want to go to a 12 game regular season) spots on the schedule for paycheck games.

4 division winners get into the playoffs. everyone else is free to go to the "your sponsor name here" bowls.

if you are gonna blow it up, might as well blow it up completely... take the humans and computers out of the equation entirely... the above essentially gives a 32 team playoff, played out across rhe regular season...

the best of all worlds... the regular season matters, people who can't live without a playoff get their playoff, and the subjectiveness/biases of the polls disappear...

* and there really are only 32 (if that many) that matter...

I agree essentially with what ccotenj says above. Yes, If the $$$ is right, they'll leave the SEC for a guaranteed spot in the annual playoff. Especially if the annual playoff is where the money will be.

They like the SEC now because the arrangement works: They play some of the best teams in the country, get paid handsomely to do it, and as a result their SOS and national notoriety is enough to get them into the BCS title game (in this year, it was good enough to get TWO of them in the title game!). Recruiting goes up because they play the best teams, are on TV every weekend, and athletes want to be on the biggest stage. Currently, the best athletes want to go to the schools that have the best shot at being in a BCS bowl every year.

Please, stick your neck out and name those 32 teams. Get ready for the aftermath....

^^^

i'm brave... i'm thinking about it, list to come in a bit....

Rivals message board has come up with several such lists. Usually they include 64 teams, though.

So how come that hasn't happened with basketball?

The really good players don't want to play for a team in the Sunbelt, they want to play in the SEC and all the other big conferences that are on TV every week, not just in the tournament.

You answered your question right there. Those conferences are on TV every week, so that's where the players want to be.

If Texas or Alabama or anyone else want to go the Notre Dame route and get a guaranteed national broadcast every week, you can bet your bottom dollar they'll take the money and the airtime. As of right now, the Sunbelt isn't getting very much airtime.

^^^

i think it's obvious from the recent conference jumping that basketball is irrelevant on an individual school/conference basis... the money is in football... otherwise, the big east would not have been eviscerated...

the march money grab stands on it's own... and for the big boys, conference affiliation really means nothing in terms of that.... heck, most of them would make even more money if they didn't have to share tournament payouts with the bottom feeders of their respective conferences...