🏈 someone please explain this new BCS crap...

jdpas29

Verified Member
Member
http://espn.go.com/college-football...ndling-national-championship-game-sources-say

i read the article twice and methinks it's a bit confusing.

i'm gathering that the BCS is considering adding one game to the end of all the bowls... a national championship game between #1 and #2. in my mind this is almost like a plus-one except it isn't dependent on who played in what bowl game. instead it would depend on the rankings once the four big bowls had been played. it would be conceivable that a team in the third or fourth big bowl ranked #6 with a record of 10-2 before they played the game could whoop up on their opponent and end the season magically at #2 and push out a team that was in the #3 spot prior to the bowls with a record of 11-1 and won a nailbiter over their opponent.

if this is the type scenario they're proposing, i'm going to begin vomiting.

why not just bring in 3 more top tier bowls into the BCS making a total of 7 bowls and make an 8 team playoff. each game can be named a bowl. who cares. you still get some money although the matchups might not be exactly what you want.
 
Sounds like the same thing we have now but with more bowl options and the BCS will include the small conferences in a championship possibility rather than just the present 6 BCS conferences.
 
Theres a chance this could either drive a playoff to get to the #1 v #2, or kill it entirely. If someone (NCAA, Coaches Associations, new group) championed the determination of the #1 and #2 teams, it could lead to a playoff. If conference buy-ins to bowl games start up in full force, it could hamper that. Either way, if it does go through, how are all the teams that raced to join a "big 6" conference feel knowing the only reason the did it was to get a shot at the autoqualify (yes.. and money).
 
I don't understand why they don't just let the top two basketball teams, as determined by schedule and ranking and so forth, just play for the championship. They don't make any money off the tourney. They take time away from school. There's way too much complaining on who gets in.

Just play the top two teams in a one game winner take all. The NFL should consider it as well. High school too. It works. The NCAA BCS is proof.
 
I don't understand why they don't just let the top two basketball teams, as determined by schedule and ranking and so forth, just play for the championship. They don't make any money off the tourney. They take time away from school. There's way too much complaining on who gets in.

Just play the top two teams in a one game winner take all. The NFL should consider it as well. High school too. It works. The NCAA BCS is proof.

Might want to check out the thread about the financial records that were accidentally released concerning the NCAA. Don't make money? I think differently!!
 
Did I read in there someplace that they are considering no automatic qualifying teams? That could be good, keep those Big East bottom feeders out. The whole thing needs to be revamped, surely with all of the $ involved, they can work something out to their benefit :lance:
 
Back
Top Bottom