Ot: ***petition To End Bcs***

[irishgo8]

Thought u might think it is interesting - i did not create this - i found it on blue and gold
http://www.petitiononline.com/ENDBCS/

 

[Rip Rap]

While I do support ending the BCS, I will not support playoffs.

 

[irishgo8]

While I do support ending the BCS, I will not support playoffs.

I dont intend on being rude but could u explain y

 

[Rip Rap]

I dont intend on being rude but could u explain y

It was discussed in this thread:

http://www.irishenvy.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1236&page=1&pp=10

 

[Vince Young]

Irishgo8, name a playoff system, any playoff system, and I'll show you why it would be no better than the BCS. Plus-1 Game. 4 teams. 8 teams. 16 teams. Whatever. Pick yer poison.

As for those who continue to argue that college football sticks with the BCS all because of money...

"The NCAA has nothing to do with the I-A football postseason. This is the core reason we are stuck with the BCS – BCS conference commissioners are loathe to yield any power. Thus no matter how much money a playoff would make – estimates are twice what the BCS generates – we are stuck with what we have."

-Dan Wetzel
http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/news?slug=dw-mailbag011205&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

Oh yes... a playoff would make twice as much money as the BCS, but they keep the BCS in place because "it's all about the money." Sure. I'll buy that.

 

[Guest]

I've always liked the idea off playing a playoff system, I think it would help college football a great deal in tv ratings.
My idea on it , is have the top 7 teams in the country go at it, with the first ranked team getting a bye, and involve the games sponsor's in the games....

 

[Vince Young]

Seems like an odd system, but okay, I'll bite. Top 7. Now... how do you define "top 7"? Polls? Selection committee? Conference champions?

 

[Aerosmith777]

A playoff is the only way to decide who the outright winner is. You can use the BCS, but only for seeding purposes of the top 8 (in the system I'd like to see). This would work b/c a 9th ranked team is not likely to win 3 games in a row against the top 8, so you might hear griping, but at least its by teams w/o legitamite title considerations, just like it is on selection day for the basketball tournmanent. I mean, yeah there's a chance, but there's also a chance that the 117th ranked team could win 3 games against the top 8, at some point you just have to cut it off. The point is, where do you cut it off? The system the way we have it now basically cuts it off at the top 2. I (& a lot of other people aparently) think that's a bad system, b/c a lot of years there are 2-3 teams on top of the top 2 who could potentially win it all in a title game. I mean, when you have 3 undefeateds in the BCS, plus 2 more in the non-BCS, what legitimate way is there to decide who the best team is in one game? So finally, will there be griping? Of course, there will always be griping no matter what happens, the point is how much do you want to the system to allow for legitamite complaints that undermine the integrity of deciding who the champion is?

And once again, its not about which system would make more money, its about who gets the money. The BCS w/ the way it is, it virtually ensures that bowl money stays in the pockets of the big-time BCS programs. A non-BCS school like Utah virtually has to answer 3 riddles and cross a snake pit in order to get into a BCS game, and I would be shocked if we see that happen again within the next decade (assuming the BCS lasts that long).

 

[irishgo8]

u were asking what type of Playoff system i was in favor of - well for now to succor in the University Presidents an additional game would meet our needs temparily (this year would have been Auburn vs. Ok last year LSU vs USC) but in the end a 8 game playoff would be the best just my thought on this one - in the letter i posted above it explains the type of playoff they want

 

[Vince Young]

You can use the existing BCS formula to set the seeds for an 8-team tournament, but let's look at this year's matchups. Here's the seeds: #1 USC, #2 Oklahoma, #3 Auburn, #4 Texas, #5 Utah, #6 Virginia Tech, #7 Michigan, #8 Pittsburgh.

To get to the title game USC would have to beat a 7-4 Pittsburgh team and then either Texas or Utah, while Auburn would have to beat a tough Virginia Tech and an even tougher Oklahoma. Why? Because USC got seeded #1 and Auburn got seeded #3, so USC gets an easier road than Auburn.

The result? The same Auburn fans who are screaming that they were "left out" this year would be screaming about the lower seed screwing them over, and they'd be making all the same arguments: we're undefeated, we dominated everyone we played, we won a tougher conference, blah, blah, blah. Even if Auburn got to the title game and lost outright to USC, we'd still hear Tigers fans whining all through the offseason... as well as all the same sportswriters and ESPN hosts who think Auburn should've been #1 or #2 this year. "Would Auburn have been so tired in the title game if their first round opponent had been Pittsburgh instead of Virginia Tech? The Tigers got screwed this year by a bunch of computers."

All a playoff does is re-shape the argument. Well, that, plus destroying decades of tradition and greatly weakening the importance of every single regular season game. In the end, you get a longer season, more chances for unpaid student-athletes to get a career-ending injury, and a diminished regular season, all just to get the exact same results we had this year: USC winning the title and Auburn whining to anyone who will listen.

How, exactly, can this be called "progress"?

 

[Irish Envy]

You can use the existing BCS formula to set the seeds for an 8-team tournament, but let's look at this year's matchups. Here's the seeds: #1 USC, #2 Oklahoma, #3 Auburn, #4 Texas, #5 Utah, #6 Virginia Tech, #7 Michigan, #8 Pittsburgh.

To get to the title game USC would have to beat a 7-4 Pittsburgh team and then either Texas or Utah, while Auburn would have to beat a tough Virginia Tech and an even tougher Oklahoma. Why? Because USC got seeded #1 and Auburn got seeded #3, so USC gets an easier road than Auburn.

The result? The same Auburn fans who are screaming that they were "left out" this year would be screaming about the lower seed screwing them over, and they'd be making all the same arguments: we're undefeated, we dominated everyone we played, we won a tougher conference, blah, blah, blah. Even if Auburn got to the title game and lost outright to USC, we'd still hear Tigers fans whining all through the offseason... as well as all the same sportswriters and ESPN hosts who think Auburn should've been #1 or #2 this year. "Would Auburn have been so tired in the title game if their first round opponent had been Pittsburgh instead of Virginia Tech? The Tigers got screwed this year by a bunch of computers."

All a playoff does is re-shape the argument. Well, that, plus destroying decades of tradition and greatly weakening the importance of every single regular season game. In the end, you get a longer season, more chances for unpaid student-athletes to get a career-ending injury, and a diminished regular season, all just to get the exact same results we had this year: USC winning the title and Auburn whining to anyone who will listen.

How, exactly, can this be called "progress"?

I don't, eeer won't, buy that for a minute or a dollar. There is a big difference in between having and not having the opportunity.

In order to be the National Chamion, you have to take on and defeat all comers. You'd have to beat every team you faced regardless of the seeding you are given. This is what makes the NCAA basketball tourney so great.

I think the complaint, or at least the complaint I've always seen is that teams are simply not given the opportunity. Also, just my opinion, but I think you'd have to have a 16 team playoff, or maybe a setup similar to the NFL to get the separation of teams and/or byes for the top teams.

I think the BCS can be beneficial if used in conjunction with another tool to decide a true National Championship.

 

[Aerosmith777]

I don't, eeer won't, buy that for a minute or a dollar. There is a big difference in between having and not having the opportunity.

In order to be the National Chamion, you have to take on and defeat all comers. You'd have to beat every team you faced regardless of the seeding you are given. This is what makes the NCAA basketball tourney so great.

I think the complaint, or at least the complaint I've always seen is that teams are simply not given the opportunity. Also, just my opinion, but I think you'd have to have a 16 team playoff, or maybe a setup similar to the NFL to get the separation of teams and/or byes for the top teams.

I think the BCS can be beneficial if used in conjunction with another tool to decide a true National Championship.

EXACTLY!!! I just don't see how you can say that there's no difference between having a shot and having no shot at all, that its only a "reshaping" of the arguement. If that's true, why don't they have one national title game in basketball? B/c the NCAA knows that there is a HUGE, COLOSSAL, UNMISTAKEABLE difference between hearing gripes about seeding and hearing them about team's getting no chance to prove themselves. Would Auburn's road to the title be more difficult than USC's this year were there a playoff? Yes, but at least Auburn would HAVE a road to the title. That's a HUGE difference between not having one at all, no matter how difficult it would be. Maybe they would still complain, but it wouldn't matter, the playoff isn't for the teams, its for the fans. Its so the fans know who the true number 1 is, so the teams can gripe all they want, the fact will remain that in the fan's eyes, they had their shot and if they're the best, they'll prove it on the field, no matter where they have to play. Just like it is in basketball.

 

[NDLyght37]

All I'm going to say is this: If it works for D-1AA, and it works for every other D-1 sport...then why can't the big boys put their egos aside and set up a playoff system?

 

[Vince Young]

In order to be the National Chamion, you have to take on and defeat all comers. You'd have to beat every team you faced regardless of the seeding you are given. This is what makes the NCAA basketball tourney so great.

Yes, but in the NCAA basketball tourney, the difference between a 1-seed and a 3-seed is marginal at best: instead of playing 16-18 Hofstra, you play 19-15 McNeese State instead. In an 8-team football playoff this year, the difference between a 1-seed versus a 3-seed is playing Pittsburgh or playing Virginia Tech. That makes a difference, and you can't tell me that Auburn fans wouldn't complain. And you can't tell me that the jackasses on ESPN wouldn't complain either.

I just will not buy into the idea that a playoff is a magical cure-all solution. I also will not buy into the idea that the BCS is broken. The top 2 teams played for the title this year, and if Auburn wanted to be taken more seriously, well, maybe they shouldn't have scheduled Louisiana Monroe, Louisiana Tech and The Citadel (Division I-AA) for their non-conference games.

I also don't believe the system failed last year either. If USC wanted to be taken seriously, they should've beaten unranked Cal. And the only reason we had a split title was because the sportswriters saw a chance to invent a controversy by voting for USC and then writing about themselves in the third person.

 

[Drunk Mick]

I don't, eeer won't, buy that for a minute or a dollar. There is a big difference in between having and not having the opportunity.

In order to be the National Chamion, you have to take on and defeat all comers. You'd have to beat every team you faced regardless of the seeding you are given. This is what makes the NCAA basketball tourney so great.

I think the complaint, or at least the complaint I've always seen is that teams are simply not given the opportunity. Also, just my opinion, but I think you'd have to have a 16 team playoff, or maybe a setup similar to the NFL to get the separation of teams and/or byes for the top teams.

I think the BCS can be beneficial if used in conjunction with another tool to decide a true National Championship.

Teams not having an opportunity is exactly the problem. Just to name a few this year: Texas, Utah and Auburn all should have had the opportunity to play for a NC and in a 16 team playoff would have. Also, 16 teams would include everyone with a realistic shot at the title.

I'm tired of teams being voted the best. Let's have them play for it. It's true that this year USC probably would have beat everyone anyway but who knows? Upsets do happen.

I didn't know there was anyone left (except conference commissioners) that opposed a playoff.

 

[Drunk Mick]

The top 2 teams played for the title this year, and if Auburn wanted to be taken more seriously, well, maybe they shouldn't have scheduled Louisiana Monroe, Louisiana Tech and The Citadel (Division I-AA) for their non-conference games.

Your logic makes no sense. The BCS got lucky Auburn scheduled those opponents so they could have something that bailed them out.

What if Auburn would have scheduled 3 descent teams for their OOC games? Then what? Oklahoma would have gotten screwed??? How does that cure anything?

 

[Rip Rap]

I didn't know there was anyone left (except conference commissioners) that opposed a playoff.

Lots of us still oppose playoffs, but I don't think the conference commissioners do. The university presidents, bowl commissioners, many of the coaches, lots of the players' families, those who favor the game's tradition, and everybody who ever graduated and could care less about college football are the ones who oppose the playoffs. And that's a lot of people. That's why there isn't going to be a playoff.

 

[BigIrish]

Yes, but in the NCAA basketball tourney, the difference between a 1-seed and a 3-seed is marginal at best: instead of playing 16-18 Hofstra, you play 19-15 McNeese State instead. In an 8-team football playoff this year, the difference between a 1-seed versus a 3-seed is playing Pittsburgh or playing Virginia Tech. That makes a difference, and you can't tell me that Auburn fans wouldn't complain. And you can't tell me that the jackasses on ESPN wouldn't complain either.

I just will not buy into the idea that a playoff is a magical cure-all solution. I also will not buy into the idea that the BCS is broken. The top 2 teams played for the title this year, and if Auburn wanted to be taken more seriously, well, maybe they shouldn't have scheduled Louisiana Monroe, Louisiana Tech and The Citadel (Division I-AA) for their non-conference games.

I also don't believe the system failed last year either. If USC wanted to be taken seriously, they should've beaten unranked Cal. And the only reason we had a split title was because the sportswriters saw a chance to invent a controversy by voting for USC and then writing about themselves in the third person.

you're right in the sense that someone will complain. but nobody's suggesting that a playoff is a magic fix, or that it suddenly makes it completely fair for everyone. but you can't deny the fact that with a playoff this year, auburn would have had a better chance to win the championship. as would texas, utah, and the rest of the BCS teams that weren't coached by Pete Carroll or Bob Stoops.

i'll also agree that auburn should be ashamed of their schedule this year.

your logic kinda falls apart, though, with the sports writer conspiracy. controversy is just what happens when you tell sportswriters, coaches, and a handful of computers to pick a national champ at the end of the season.

i also don't get the whole "ruins the tradition" argument. that just doesn't make sense. i don't remember sitting around the TV as a kid with my brothers and my father and thinking, "boy, i hope u-m loses this week so ND can jump up a notch in the computer rankings." i don't remember keeping my fingers crossed that a computer algorithm would determine my team to be the national champ.

and to say that university presidents, player families, etc., don't want a playoff is assuming a lot - especially considering the current movement to expand the season to 12 games. not to mention the desire among more conferences to add a conference championship game. that's 13 games. plus a bowl game. that's 14 games. no, i don't buy the notion that parents and presidents don't want a playoff, but if that's the case, it certainly has nothing to do with the length of the season.

frankly, i'd rather see it go back to a single poll with a voted champ instead of having to sit through another BCS-rigged bowl season.

 

[Guest]

I think a playoff system would be great for college football. It would get alot of people interested. I could see people having office pools, like they do for the ncaa basketball. the way its set up now if you lose one game your season is pretty much over.

Look at USC in 2002 when they went 10-2, many people felt they were really the best team in the country that year, a playoff system could of proved that.

 

[Irish Envy]

Lots of us still oppose playoffs, but I don't think the conference commissioners do. The university presidents, bowl commissioners, many of the coaches, lots of the players' families, those who favor the game's tradition, and everybody who ever graduated and could care less about college football are the ones who oppose the playoffs. And that's a lot of people. That's why there isn't going to be a playoff.

Tradition was squashed when the Rose Bowl wasn't the Pac 10 champ vs the Big 10 champ. It just doesn't feel right any other way, so I think tradition was lost when the BCS came into play.

 

[irishgo8]

Tradition was squashed when the Rose Bowl wasn't the Pac 10 champ vs the Big 10 champ. It just doesn't feel right any other way, so I think tradition was lost when the BCS came into play.

I agree with that and i dont think that people would mind breaking the tradition of teams who should have at least a path to the NC get left out. But u cant get rid of the bowl system. I would be against that if that came about because the bowls have so much tradition and are so fun to watch - i would like the bowl system and then the playoffs or vise versa but i would like to keep both - do u all think that this should be done?

 

[Rip Rap]

Tradition was squashed when the Rose Bowl wasn't the Pac 10 champ vs the Big 10 champ. It just doesn't feel right any other way, so I think tradition was lost when the BCS came into play.

Yup. Get rid of the BCS. And no playoffs. Pac10 vs. Big10 in the Rose Bowl, ND vs. (fill in Texas school here) in the Cotton Bowl. Let those southern schools do whatever they used to do.

Also: ND will still bolt ahead of almost anybody in the AP poll if undefeated, so any purported bias against us by anyone except Disney (ESPN) is bogus. For every POS like Ivan Maisel there are two Beano Cooks on the staff of major newspapers in the northeast and midwest. Further, I trust The Sporting News and Sports Illustrated to be generally even-handed, even if the television commentators are skewering the facts (print is still a step-up from the idiotic blogging and 24 hour commentary of ESPN).