FanNation - The Republic of Sport

WB:
The FN article states "Under his proposal, a conference would qualify for one of the BCS bowls only by meeting two criteria: playing at least 20 regular-season games in a two-year period against teams from the six major BCS conferences; and winning at least 40 percent of those games.".

I think his proposal is for the whole conference to play 20 reg season games in a two year period, not just one team.

My concern is that non-BCS conferences would "cherry-pick" easy games. They would schedule the lowest teams in the BCS conferences to win 40% of them (last year, Washington, Washington State, etc. would not have given anyone much trouble).

Oh conference, ok even still the MWC would have a tough time scheduling 20 conference games against Big Six teams over a two year period. I am going to have to do some more homework on the matter.

The 20 games - I suspect they plan to average this already.

The 40% was the level e had to drop to allow all of the current members plus his little conerence.

Maybe the majors might like this - play for nominal pay or we won't give you the games.

Yes, he is a self promoting clown - if anyone had followed the reasons against a playoff they would know this resolved none, exasperated most. Even if someone doesn't, who outside the MWC benefits from this proposal? None of the other 5 qualify, but a slot gets filled, and it certainly doesn't favor the majors or the BCS bowls.

There is only 1 format the reps of the programs have ever said they might consider. The link below will take you to a Mandel article which describes the format and reason against.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/stewart_mandel/04/30/bcs.mee ting/index.html

I just don't see under the current plan ever getting a national championship playoff system.. where's the cut off point?? 4.. 8.. whats the best number for a playoff system?? There will always be this argument until some kind of radical idea is brought up that might work.. I don't think this is it though

QUOTE(#4):

Originally posted 05:43 PM ET  06.20 by Wildfan

I just don't see under the current plan ever getting a national championship playoff system.. where's the cut off point?? 4.. 8.. whats the best number for a playoff system?? There will always be this argument until some kind of radical idea is brought up that might work.. I don't think this is it though

The Mandel article above does show a 4 team playoff would be acceptable to those with a vote.

They won't explore further because they believe it will lead to a larger playoff structure which would have a negative impact on overall revenue.

The irony is proposals from clowns like this, sportswriters screaming for large playoff formats, fans blogging and writing messages for 8, 16, even 32 team playoffs reinforces this belief the format would grow past 4 teams...

...the proponents are indeed the biggest hurdle!

If they were smart enough to realize the next most liely step from 2 is 4 (not 16, not 32) and conolidated on a 4 team format, they would be very close to getting their wish. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot...

I don't think they should consider a playoff until they evaluate the teams that are currently in Division I and push the bottom 25-45 back into Division II.

For me personally I don't think there will ever be a perfect system for declaring a national champ whether it be the current format or a playoff. There already is debate about who should be playing for the championship in the bowl format, and there will be heated debate about how many teams to put in a playoff, and how to determine the teams that are picked for a playoff. So long as humans have a vote there will always be bias in the voting, and computers can be manipulated to favor whatever the creator of the program chooses it to favor.

QUOTE(#7):

Originally posted 08:32 PM ET  06.22 by wildbill21475

For me personally I don't think there will ever be a perfect system for declaring a national champ whether it be the current format or a playoff. There already is debate about who should be playing for the championship in the bowl format, and there will be heated debate about how many teams to put in a playoff, and how to determine the teams that are picked for a playoff. So long as humans have a vote there will always be bias in the voting, and computers can be manipulated to favor whatever the creator of the program chooses it to favor.

Wildbill nails it.. until you can get the human element out of the voting this debate will rage on

QUOTE(#8):

Originally posted 01:20 PM ET  06.27 by Wildfan

Wildbill nails it.. until you can get the human element out of the voting this debate will rage on

Taking the human element out of it only solves half the scenario since the computer programs that make up the computer vote of the BCS can be programmed to kick out polls in the manner that the programmer chooses.

Ok so those small schools are 3-1 in BCS games. Utah won twice, Boise once, and only Hawaii lost. But to the BCS club its all crap and luck.

While I do think there is a difference top to bottom in say the SEC, Big 12 and the MWC, that gap is definately shrinking. The top of the MWC has proved over and over again that the can not only play with the media favorites, they can beat them.

What is truly shameful is the fact that a group of University presidents/ESPN and ABC can get together and decide to exclude the remaining football playing NCAA schools from relevant games and the money to fund their programs. Where is the fairness in that?