General discussion


Can Tech Save The BCS?

By Erik Eckel Contributor ·
Here we are, just days away from one of the year's big events, and I'm not talking turkey.

No, I'm talking football rivalries: Michigan v. Ohio State, Texas v. Texas A&M, Georgia v. Georgia Tech, USC v. UCLA, Virginia v. Virginia Tech., etc.

The next couple weeks are key for USC, Texas, Miami, Penn State and LSU students, alumnus and fans. NCAA bowl invitations are about to hit the mail, but as usual, trouble's in the air.

Current BCS formulas have USC and Texas first and second, followed by Miami, Penn State, LSU and Virginia Tech (in that order). The AP, however, has LSU ranked in front of Penn State and Notre Dame sixth, even though unranked Michigan State, and USC for that matter, defeated the Fighting Irish.

Is there some way the often maligned computer rankings that help compose the BCS formula can be improved to help eliminate BCS bowl issues, or is a playoff the only hope?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

16 teams

by CharlieSpencer In reply to It's still subjective

Take the team with the best record (NOT the winner of the conference championship game) from each conference with more than 10 schools. Take the team with the best record from the non-conference schools. Add the 2A division champion! Fill the remaining slots with any remaining conference championship game winners not already entered, then with the teams with the best won-loss record not already entered.

Collapse -

I gotta disagree again

by M_a_r_k In reply to 16 teams

How many teams would this involve? Sounds like a dozen or more. An 8-team playoff is already three weeks. 9 or more teams will be at least four weeks.

Since when is best record a sure-fire determinant of best teams? Look at NFL and baseball. Wild card teams frequently get to the champeenship game/series and occasionally win the whole ball of wax. If you place a big emphasis on won-loss records, you're going to create incentive for teams to load up on patsies in non-conference games and teams in competitive conferences like the SEC will be at a disadvantage.

Collapse -

M_a_r_k, what's your suggestion?

by CharlieSpencer In reply to I gotta disagree again

Or would you just leave it as is?

Collapse -

My suggestion

by M_a_r_k In reply to M_a_r_k, what's your sugg ...

Have a playoff with teams with conference winners from eight of the "strongest" conferences. Or maybe six conferences plus two at-large teams. Champions of SEC, Big 12, Big 10, Pac-10, Big East, ACC and two other teams. Playoffs begin the weekend after Thanksgiving. That should crown a champion by Christmas. You can still have the New Years bowl games. The lower divisions have playoffs. So why can't the major colleges?

Collapse -

New Math...All or nothing...

by jknaeble In reply to I gotta disagree again

For any kid that grows up loving a team before they find out that it does not belong to one of the WEALTHY conferences, any system that does not allow each of the 117 Division 1A teams the opportunity to claim the national title is discriminary. The BCS in itself is an elitist group that says that they make more they should be the only ones with a national champion. Doing the math, an 8 team playoff would last three weeks. A 16 would last four weeks. I don't know what the previous person had in mind, but I would want to see all 12 conferences send their champion and reward 4 other at large teams having strong schedules/seasons with an opportunity. I would also suggest an NIT type tournament for those that do not make the play-offs. There is nothing wrong with an additional 16 teams battling it out to see who is Number 17 in the nation. I recognize that this still limits the number of teams that get post season opportunities...but that is just it not?

Collapse -

Good point

by M_a_r_k In reply to New Math...All or nothing ...

Yep, you're right. Limiting a playoff only to the "top" few conferences isn't fair. Though it is logical. How often in the last 40 years has a team from the Mountain West or Ivy League had a team good enough to be even discussed as a national champ contender? That's why I think my idea of taking teams from the six top conferences plus two wild-card teams might work.

Collapse -

Yes, but the schools won't sign on.

by deepsand In reply to New Math...All or nothing ...

The schools have been particularly resistant to any changes which increase the number of games such that the time period required exceeds that of the present.

Collapse -

The SEC is competitive?

by deepsand In reply to I gotta disagree again

Although I concur with your point, it must be noted that conferences which have divisions & a conference championship game, such as the SEC, can and do stack the odds with regards to ensuring that the desired team has the best chance of being the conference champ.

The Big Ten is a far more balanced conference than is the SEC; but, lacking a divisional system, is less likely to have a conference champ that will have a win-loss record equal to those who win the championship of one with divisions.

Collapse -


by deepsand In reply to 16 teams

Why the team with the best record among conferences with more than 10 schools? Sounds arbitrary to me.

And, are you aware that there are presently but 2 independent 1-A schools? Under your plan, either Temple or Air Force get an automatic playoff berth!

Why include teams other than 1-A? With over 140 1-A teams to chose from, there is no need to include those that can't cut it in 1-A.

Collapse -

Yes and no.

by deepsand In reply to It's still subjective

Yes, the current problems re. selection of the participating schools would not be vanquished by a playoff system.

No, the schools DO MIND; they don't want the extra games. This they have steadfastly resisted for quite some time.

Related Discussions

Related Forums