ESPN's Brad Edwards projects Boise State as BCS #1

[njx9]

i've been helped lately in that i haven't felt most of the top games were very good matchups (and because CU sucks, if we were any good i'd be hard pressed to not watch). but i just got fed up with it. it's so rare that the top two teams actually play, and it's so much about wringing every last dollar out of the process, instead of trying a process that could make exponentially more money if done properly. instead, we're talking about allowing teams with losing records into bowl games.

*shakes head*

[RealityCheck]

Originally Posted by bhaarat316

get rid of this system then we wouldn't have to argue.

Exactly, we need playoffs.
Makes no sense taking place in a contest you can't win.

[JoeJoeBrown]

Originally Posted by njx9

i've been helped lately in that i haven't felt most of the top games were very good matchups (and because CU sucks, if we were any good i'd be hard pressed to not watch). but i just got fed up with it. it's so rare that the top two teams actually play, and it's so much about wringing every last dollar out of the process, instead of trying a process that could make exponentially more money if done properly. instead, we're talking about allowing teams with losing records into bowl games.

*shakes head*

Just remember that it's who controls the money, just not the magnitude of it. If a third party (say ESPN or Fox, etc...) comes up with a deal that is appealing to the major conference heads and the major schools involved, then we'll see a playoff.

I'm sure the power politics involved are interesting.

[SickwithIt1010]

Originally Posted by LizardState

Relevance, seriously? Utah >>>>>>>>>>>> Boise St.

Youre ******* high.

BSU would mop Utah.

[JoeJoeBrown]

Originally Posted by SickwithIt1010

Youre ******* high.

BSU would mop Utah.

I don't know about mop, but I do think that they'd win 8 times out of 10.

[Smooth Criminal]

Boise is definitely a better team then Utah this year. Not that this has much to do withnthe Utah team that beat Bama.

[b316]

Originally Posted by wonderbredd24

Because?

Why even have any other conference other than the Big Ten, Big XII, SEC, and PAC 10?

Evidently, they should have the big boy championship with those 4 conferences and then another championship with the rest of the FBS.

THIS.

I've been thinking about this for a while. Why not all the non-automatic teams get together and make their own stuff happen. Now the BIG Boys, won't be able to schedule cup cakes, without that super left out conferences asking for huge demands.

Sure they maybe a money problem to start but they gotta be smart and figure things out, make their own "BCS" so to speak. Then when the BCS gets pissed, and tries to stop them from doing it. BAM lawsuit for the new guys, for idk antitrust & monopolization of the championship. Also since the BCS won't have enough teams to fill out its 30 something bowls, they'll give in or some ****.

[b316]

Where the hell is everyone getting this BSU charges 1 million to play them? Only 1 school came out with that and it was Nebraska.

[b316]

Also that VT 'neutral' site wasn't much neutral seeing its on the east coast, pretty damn close to VT. VT controlled the video board, non of the Boise st players were shown in the lineup. Also VT band came out, but not the Boise horse.

[JoeJoeBrown]

Originally Posted by bhaarat316

Where the hell is everyone getting this BSU charges 1 million to play them? Only 1 school came out with that and it was Nebraska.

Over-defensive about nothing much?

[RealityCheck]

The BSU/TCU hate around here is just making me confused.

Teams who win all of their games aren't even allowed to play for the title? So what's the point of competing if you can't win?

[b316]

Originally Posted by JoeJoeBrown

Over-defensive about nothing much?

ahaha, not really.

I'm just saying a few poster are using this argument. That in order to play Boise you need to pay them 1 million, they make it seem that Boise it trying to find a way to co-op out of playing big teams. That they are holding teams at a pirates' ransom. Lets get some facts together, 1 million for most big boys is nothing, compared to the revenue they gain from playing them.

Ohio St. has payed 2 million to Navy for a game, 1 million to CU.

But also that most schools that pay out that much are paying for a win pretty much and not to travel to the other teams site.

Yes, 1 million is a bit much for a potential loss.

[JoeJoeBrown]

Originally Posted by bhaarat316

Yes, 1 million is a bit much for a potential loss.

Yep, that's the crux of it. And as mentioned earlier, they threw out the SOS directly (still there indirectly via polls) so teams are taking the Mack Brown approach to scheduling.

Very disappointing as a CFB fan.

[Smooth Criminal]

Originally Posted by RealityCheck

The BSU/TCU hate around here is just making me confused.

Teams who win all of their games aren't even allowed to play for the title? So what's the point of competing if you can't win?

As long as they're the only undefeated teams left they can. But your right, it is competing, and teams in real conferences are doing more then Boise and TCU this year.

The end of the year is the only time we can judge who should go. We have to wait and see what teams are left undefeated.

[njx9]

Originally Posted by RealityCheck

The BSU/TCU hate around here is just making me confused.

Teams who win all of their games aren't even allowed to play for the title? So what's the point of competing if you can't win?

i think the remaining arguments are that any other undefeated teams will get in first. not that bsu/tcu wouldn't if they were the only two undefeated teams left.

[Shane P. Hallam]

Originally Posted by njx9

strongly disagree. i have not and will continue to not watch a single BCS bowl game until the situation is resolved with a playoff of some kind. they won't get my tv money, and, where i can, i avoid buying products from the sponsors.

does my tiny contribution (or lack thereof) mean ****? of course not. but i refuse to support a product that's almost inarguably inferior for the consumer, no matter how much i may argue about it.

That's fine, and going with what wonderbredd and everyone else is saying, everyone wants a playoff? People have to stop watching the product, and I don't just mean Bowl games, I mean everything. College Football's ratings are the highest ever the last few years. It is because people tune in to the big games each week since the loser is out. Alabama losing to USC wouldn't mean quite as much without it.

For better or worse, until college football DOES lose ratings because of no playoff, there won't be one.

Maybe this message board doesn't make the NCAA money, but this conversation in the media, at work places, at bars, it keeps people interested in college football and watching. THAT makes them money.

[wonderbredd24]

Originally Posted by Shane P. Hallam

That's fine, and going with what wonderbredd and everyone else is saying, everyone wants a playoff? People have to stop watching the product, and I don't just mean Bowl games, I mean everything. College Football's ratings are the highest ever the last few years. It is because people tune in to the big games each week since the loser is out. Alabama losing to USC wouldn't mean quite as much without it.

For better or worse, until college football DOES lose ratings because of no playoff, there won't be one.

Maybe this message board doesn't make the NCAA money, but this conversation in the media, at work places, at bars, it keeps people interested in college football and watching. THAT makes them money.

With a playoff system, people would still watch all of this college football every week and teams would get to settle it on the field.

[Shane P. Hallam]

Originally Posted by wonderbredd24

With a playoff system, people would still watch all of this college football every week and teams would get to settle it on the field.

Would they? I don't watch college basketball regular season, even big time games because, quite frankly, I know those games are going to have a shot at it all. I'll see it in the tournament. Until ratings dip, BCS isn't changing. As a fan, I want a playoff, but this system works for the money.

[njx9]

Originally Posted by Shane P. Hallam

That's fine, and going with what wonderbredd and everyone else is saying, everyone wants a playoff? People have to stop watching the product, and I don't just mean Bowl games, I mean everything.

i don't disagree, but i haven't found anyone yet who will go that far. there's nothing wrong with that, as long as it comes with the understanding that things won't change. for most 'fans', it doesn't really matter.

(in quotes to denote casual fanship only)

Originally Posted by Shane P. Hallam

Would they? I don't watch college basketball regular season, even big time games because, quite frankly, I know those games are going to have a shot at it all. I'll see it in the tournament. Until ratings dip, BCS isn't changing. As a fan, I want a playoff, but this system works for the money.

not quite the best analogy, given the volume of games. if duke loses their first game, it doesn't mean much. in, say, a 4 team football playoff, that one loss could still make a massive difference in a 12 game schedule.

[wonderbredd24]

Originally Posted by Shane P. Hallam

Would they? I don't watch college basketball regular season, even big time games because, quite frankly, I know those games are going to have a shot at it all. I'll see it in the tournament. Until ratings dip, BCS isn't changing. As a fan, I want a playoff, but this system works for the money.

Do you watch less NFL Football because of there being a playoff at the end?

Instead of merely being Double Jeopardy like they are now, Conference Championships would provide the opportunity for legitimate playoff berths.

So last year, the Nebraska-Texas winner would have gone to the playoffs instead of determining whether one or both teams went to BCS Bowls.

Personally, I think playoffs add more importance to more games, not less.

[Shane P. Hallam]

Originally Posted by wonderbredd24

Do you watch less NFL Football because of there being a playoff at the end?

Instead of merely being Double Jeopardy like they are now, Conference Championships would provide the opportunity for legitimate playoff berths.

So last year, the Nebraska-Texas winner would have gone to the playoffs instead of determining whether one or both teams went to BCS Bowls.

Personally, I think playoffs add more importance to more games, not less.

Sure I watch less NFL football because of a playoff. Colts games at the end of the past few years?

All I'm saying is, this system works for the NCAA and the numbers show it, the discussion shows it, and you can't ignore that all this Boise talk would not matter if there was a playoff.

[Smooth Criminal]

The Boise talk wouldn't matter because they'd be in easily.

But there will always be bubble teams to talk about in a playoff. Even if we went to an 8 team playoff, sure we'd know the first few teams in, but no one would really clinch anything because 1 or 2 losses in college football is enough to keep you out of the playoffs. Not like we'd have a situation like we do with the Colts as you mentioned. Add to it that many teams play their biggest rivals in their last game.

Look at it this year. We'd have OSU, MSU, Oklahoma, Nebraska, LSU, Auburn, TCU, Boise, and Oregon all undefeated at this point and Bama at 1 loss. That's not even including potential for Utah and Nevada to run the table. There'd be plenty to talk about even if a playoff let 8 teams in.

Only problem would be auto bids. Most likely all the current BCS conferences would get an auto bid, which means potential for clinching early possible.

Point of all that is, I don't think adding a playoff would make the regular season much less important. Every game would still be huge because 1 loss could be enough to drop you out of the playoffs.

Also might make teams schedule better ooc games because losing one of those wouldn't be a season killer if you still won your conference.

[njx9]

Originally Posted by Shane P. Hallam

Sure I watch less NFL football because of a playoff. Colts games at the end of the past few years?

All I'm saying is, this system works for the NCAA and the numbers show it, the discussion shows it, and you can't ignore that all this Boise talk would not matter if there was a playoff.

i agree. it would've been really smart to have ignored alabama/sc, because you just *knew* alabama would be in the small, 4 team playoff. i'm sure you'd have made sure to miss that game. until you missed it this year, and realized you missed one of the more important games of the season. then, you'd realize that a 12 game schedule means every single game actually makes a difference and that this bizarre analogy you *continue* to push doesn't actually make any sense at all.

edited to add: the alabama example is actually a funny one, given that it's completely counter to your entire argument. i will likely not watch them play again for the rest of the year, because they've been eliminated from any realistic shot at playing for the title. if there were a playoff, that wouldn't be the case.

you might as well have compared college football to major league baseball.

further, why does "this boise talk" matter now? who cares? no one is going to watch more BSU games than they would have otherwise. you're not going to watch more OSU games than you otherwise would have. there's no money being driven, and there's no traffic being driven by any of this. just potential anger at the BCS when BSU gets screwed out of the NCG by a one loss team, or by the fans of some BCS school who will pitch a fit about SOS when BSU makes it in ahead of their team.

so no. you're literally wrong on every single count, imho. the system only works for the NCAA because they have *never* tried a different one. that doesn't mean it's a good system, and it doesn't come close to meaning that it's the best system.

[Shane P. Hallam]

Originally Posted by njx9

i agree. it would've been really smart to have ignored alabama/sc, because you just *knew* alabama would be in the small, 4 team playoff. i'm sure you'd have made sure to miss that game. until you missed it this year, and realized you missed one of the more important games of the season. then, you'd realize that a 12 game schedule means every single game actually makes a difference and that this bizarre analogy you *continue* to push doesn't actually make any sense at all.

edited to add: the alabama example is actually a funny one, given that it's completely counter to your entire argument. i will likely not watch them play again for the rest of the year, because they've been eliminated from any realistic shot at playing for the title. if there were a playoff, that wouldn't be the case.

you might as well have compared college football to major league baseball.

further, why does "this boise talk" matter now? who cares? no one is going to watch more BSU games than they would have otherwise. you're not going to watch more OSU games than you otherwise would have. there's no money being driven, and there's no traffic being driven by any of this. just potential anger at the BCS when BSU gets screwed out of the NCG by a one loss team, or by the fans of some BCS school who will pitch a fit about SOS when BSU makes it in ahead of their team.

so no. you're literally wrong on every single count, imho. the system only works for the NCAA because they have *never* tried a different one. that doesn't mean it's a good system, and it doesn't come close to meaning that it's the best system.

This isn't about me though, I will watch no matter what. The conversation is for the casual fan. For the fan who watches SportsCenter or listens to ESPN Radio and hears this talk and debate and becomes intrigued. Those are the viewers they are getting once again. The anger of the BCS still makes people tune in, whether it is wanting it to crash and burn, etc.

It's not the best system, a playoff would be, I'm just saying why it works for the NCAA and why it keeps college football relevant. There would never be a 4 team playoff (unless you count a Plus One system as such). All the major conferences would require auto-bids, then to include the Boise States, etc, you'd want some at large teams as well of course. It would be expanded, Alabama would still be in, the loss would not loom as large. I don't think the difference would be huge or make college football irrelevant, as long as the system works for the NCAA and BCS in terms of money, it will stay. As long as the money comes in, they WON'T try anything new.

[b316]

Yeah So if Utha runs the table, and beats TCU. How high do you think they can go? Say if BSU is still undefeated, and OSU get 1 loss.