The BCS is totally B.S. We all know that, just not sure how to improve it. $$$ over the better team, just ask Va. Tech. Frank Beammer said history has to account for something. Not sure about that. Should you have to win your conference championship to be able to play in the National Championship? Here is 1 opinion. That's all it is... an opinion. With all the shuffling going on today with schools leaving one conference for another, lets take a look at 4 Super-Conferences. Divide into 4 conferences. How ever you want to do it. (north, south, east, west.) Does not matter. 16 teams per. (some conferences already have 12-14 teams) Divide that into 2 divisions. Games with mostly be played with the conference. No more playing Betty Crocker and Little Debbie. Win your division, play for conference championship. Now your down to 4 teams. All conference champions. 4 teams have a playoff for the National Championship Game.This starts the Bowl season Cut out the early season cake walks and still keep total games played to the same number that is being played today. Think about it. It's better than what goes on today. Division champs who lose the conference championship play in the next higher bowls.
You can't cut out over half of the nations football teams just because you don't like the BCS, lol. I'm all for an 8 team playoff, and keep the current BCS system in tact for the most part...except, get rid of automatic bids and go solely on BCS 1-8 teams. The 4 BCS bowls are the play in games, then the winners square off in a semi finals, in which the 2 remaining teams go on to the Natty C. No Bowl revenue lost, and 2 intermediate bowls added. Nothing is perfect, but I think most can agree, if you don't play your way into at least the top 8, you aren't the Natty C that year. And it cuts out the griping by Ok St, Arkansas, and others who feel they got shafted.
Well, thats not true. If Arkansas were playing KSU in a BCS game, there is revenue lost. They just aren't as big of a draw, nationally. I want a playoff as much as anyone, but the BCS and the conferences have to be find a way to do it without reducing their pockets. If they had figured that out, we would already have a playoff system in place.
There are so many bowl teams that wouldn't make the super 64 conference scheme it wouldn't be funny. And I agree conferences need to pad their pockets, easy, produce teams that are good enough to make the top 8!
Playoff for the top 8 teams????? Same problem, #6-10 will have the same argument (schedule, rankings,human vote, etc.)that #3-5 have now. Super conferences, that's 64 teams. Aside from a few upsets (JMU/Va Tech), does #65 thru whatever really compete in football. Basketball, baseball, softball, swimming and on & on & on, several schools play under one thing in football and under an other in other sports. By no means is anything perfect, but until some sort of playoff formula is in place. The debate continues. And the answer will always be that the BCS is "BOGUS"
So wait, are you suggesting a 64 team playoff? lmao If you are wanting big conferences with say 2 representatives each playing in for the Natty C, well you basically already have that with the current BCS system except only the top 2 play for it. Allow all 8-12 BCS qualifiers into a small playoff and you will have your champ. Football isn't like basketball, cinderellas don't exist. The best team wins 99% of the time and fluke wins won't make it into the tourney in the first place. Only legit contenders, and all have equal chance to prove themselves. Heck this system would allow 2-3 loss teams to play for the NC which is almost a joke. Any more, and you have the NFL in which regular season means NOTHING so long as you secure a top 10 seed.
A 4 team seeded plus one is the only system that makes sense to me. Herbie suggested it last night. 1 vs 4, 2 vs 3 and the winners square off for the Natty C. It's about all we can hope for. Of course I think the BCS has gotten it right the last several years. The winner would not have changed in any system, IMO, over the last 5 years
