NCAAF  > General NCAAF  > Death to the BCS: The Definitive Case Against the Bowl Championship Series.
December 13, 2010, 12:11 PM
Haven't read this book yet.

But, I figured it was written for folks like us. Those who sincerely support college football and their own alma mater's as well.

I'll try to post the link below. Probably won't work as a straight link though. You'll have to cut and paste.

http://www.deathtothebcs.com/site/about_the_book/
December 13, 2010  12:32 PM ET

I'm not sure I'll read it but the idea that the BCS financially hurts universities is interesting.

I don't mind the BCS from a football fans point of view but would be willing to try something else if it made sense. Currently, I just don't see how they could get a playoff to work. Plus, a playoff would declare a tournament champion not necessarily find the best team.

December 13, 2010  12:44 PM ET
QUOTE(#1):

I'm not sure I'll read it but the idea that the BCS financially hurts universities is interesting.I don't mind the BCS from a football fans point of view but would be willing to try something else if it made sense. Currently, I just don't see how they could get a playoff to work. Plus, a playoff would declare a tournament champion not necessarily find the best team.

Nice points.

The criticism I have heard of the book is that it doesn't confront the motivations of those that formulated the BCS, and at times is incompletely referenced. Because of that it misses a chance to have a serious discussion on the issues.

From a marketing standpoint it sounds like a sure moneymaker, given the outcry of so many that wish to change college football in a significant way. I am not ready to count myself as one of those.

December 13, 2010  01:27 PM ET

Stewart Mandel also wrote a good book about that stuff@

December 13, 2010  02:00 PM ET

I have read the book. The authors are young and choose an extremely biased approach to adduce their view points.

While some of their content is viable, most remains naive and callow.

December 15, 2010  10:24 AM ET
QUOTE(#4):

I have read the book. The authors are young and choose an extremely biased approach to adduce their view points.While some of their content is viable, most remains naive and callow.

I have heard many reviews on that book that sound just like their comment!

When reporting in the SPORTS JOURNALISM world you can never let personal interest or loyalty to certain teams get in the way!

I bet the guys who wrote the book are from BOISE, IDAHO! ;)

December 15, 2010  11:46 AM ET
QUOTE(#1):

Plus, a playoff would declare a tournament champion not necessarily find the best team.

hmmm, not a common viewpoint. It's still better than the current system. IMO, Wisconsin is playing better than any team in the country and could win. Of course a 6 week layoff might change that.

December 15, 2010  11:56 AM ET
QUOTE(#6):

hmmm, not a common viewpoint.

It is my viewpoint as well and is shared by many that are at least tentative about the idea of advancing toward a playoff. A smaller playoff of six or less teams would be a decent compromise between regular season best and tournament best .

December 15, 2010  12:46 PM ET
QUOTE(#7):

It is my viewpoint as well and is shared by many that are at least tentative about the idea of advancing toward a playoff. A smaller playoff of six or less teams would be a decent compromise between regular season best and tournament best .

So should the NCAA change every other sport to a BCS type system? Are all college athletic playoff systems flawed then? If team A appears to be the weaker team all season, but then beats Team B which appeared stronger is that wrong? It proves that on the field, Team A beat Team B. What more could you want?
If you look at it your way, Auburn didn't look impressive at all the first half of the season so if there was a playoff would they be deserving or not.

December 15, 2010  12:53 PM ET
QUOTE(#8):

If you look at it your way, Auburn didn't look impressive at all the first half of the season so if there was a playoff would they be deserving or not.

Definitely. Undefeated against a very top rate schedule.

Actually, I think most other sports have it wrong by allowing too many teams in the playoffs. Small playoffs are good. Big ones not as good. They are popular but create a tournament champion.

December 15, 2010  01:01 PM ET
QUOTE(#9):

Definitely. Undefeated against a very top rate schedule.

Your spin.
Facts, in the 1st 5 games of the season -
beat a mediocre Clemson team in OT
beat a very mediocre Kentucky team on a last play FG
beat an average Miss St team by a FG
That ain't exactly lighting up the scoreboard and not exactly a top rate schedule

December 15, 2010  01:02 PM ET
QUOTE(#9):

Actually, I think most other sports have it wrong by allowing too many teams in the playoffs. Small playoffs are good. Big ones not as good. They are popular but create a tournament champion.

BREAKING NEWS FLASH - All NCAA and pro sports declared wrong!!!!

December 15, 2010  01:03 PM ET
QUOTE(#10):

Your spin.Facts, in the 1st 5 games of the season

Sorry six games, forgot to throw in the blowouts of Ark St and Lou-Monroe, those really tough top rated opponents

December 15, 2010  01:55 PM ET

There is little question that a playoff is the accepted way to determine a champion, however the method of determining the participants can lend itself to being suspect.

IMO - All and only conference champions should be chosen to participate. Yes this season schools like Stanford and Wisconsin would be left out and teams like Miami of Ohio and FIU would be included, but at least it would be because of known and defined requirements and not the results of a mysterious "beauty contest."

FYI - Auburn's first five games included South Carolina. As well, Miss St is not an average team (their 4 losses came at the hands of Arkansas, Alabama, LSU and Auburn).

December 15, 2010  02:18 PM ET
QUOTE(#10):

Your spin.Facts, in the 1st 5 games of the season - beat a mediocre Clemson team in OTbeat a very mediocre Kentucky team on a last play FGbeat an average Miss St team by a FGThat ain't exactly lighting up the scoreboard and not exactly a top rate schedule

First five games of the season they were just another undefeated against what would be an average schedule. But when did you or anyone start deciding a schedule began and ended with the first five games? Talk about spin.

December 15, 2010  02:31 PM ET
QUOTE(#8):

So should the NCAA change every other sport to a BCS type system? Are all college athletic playoff systems flawed then?

This is a ridiculous statement. Not all of collegiate sports have a generic playoff system. Baseball and basketball jump to mind. But what these two have in common with football is they have gimmicks to differentiate them from other sports. Both the College World Series and March Madness are unique sporting events born of marketing just like the BCS.

What makes us think that emulating one of them will make college football any better? The obvious answer is they simulate a ???playoff.??? Let???s look at basketball. This year, 68 teams will qualify for March Madness. Approximately 52 of these teams don???t have a prayer of advancing past the first weekend. But it???s the first weekend that makes college basketball so exciting. We all love watching to see which one or 2 of those 52 teams will have their prayers answered. It wouldn???t be near as exciting if we just started with the Sweet 16. And the few times that the winner wasn???t a 1-4 seed, not many people would argue that they were the best team in the country even though they were the tournament champion. But that???s okay because the entire season is about the tournament.

Do we want the entire college football season to be about the tournament? Do we want a 4 game preseason that???s basically irrelevant followed by what in actuality is an 8 game season? College football already has a tournament and it starts week 1. The BCS has worked at matching the consensus top 2 teams all but 2 years. (And in one of those 2 years, IMO no one really deserved it.) What we want from college football is to know who the best team is and the BCS does this and has gotten better at doing it the longer it???s been around.

December 15, 2010  02:32 PM ET

sorry for the ???'s and the wordiness but it had to come out.

December 15, 2010  02:40 PM ET
QUOTE(#10):

Your spin.Facts, in the 1st 5 games of the season - beat a mediocre Clemson team in OTbeat a very mediocre Kentucky team on a last play FGbeat an average Miss St team by a FGThat ain't exactly lighting up the scoreboard and not exactly a top rate schedule

Don't think anyone can really argue that Auburn played the toughest schedule this year or at least as tough as anyone else regardless of their out of conference schedule. Remember, they were 6-0 against the final BCS top 25 and arguably, this is the deepest the SEC has ever been. They have 6 teams with the opportunity to win at least 9 games this year and 5 of those have already won or have the opportunity to win 10 games.

December 15, 2010  02:48 PM ET
QUOTE(#17):

Don't think anyone can really argue that Auburn played the toughest schedule this year or at least as tough as anyone else regardless of their out of conference schedule. Remember, they were 6-0 against the final BCS top 25 and arguably, this is the deepest the SEC has ever been. They have 6 teams with the opportunity to win at least 9 games this year and 5 of those have already won or have the opportunity to win 10 games.

I was amazed, but probably shouldn't have been given the nature of college football boards, that someone would think I was trying to spin facts into Auburn having a strong schedule.

December 15, 2010  03:21 PM ET

I am with JP to the extent that I think more than 6 or 8 teams would be a bit silly. Simply take the 6 or 8 highest ranked CC's and have at it.

Where Ladybird has it wrong IMHO is "consensus". Most CFB fans did not think that UF was the best team in 08 or that LSU was the best team in 07, but because these two teams were forced to play what were manifestly not the best competition they are now enshrined as a MNC or BCS "title-holder". Last year most fans might agree that Bama was the best but BSU has every bit as valid argument to claim that they were the nation's best team-no one beat them from August to January.... So 3 of the past 3 years I would strongly argue against the idea that the BCS "does this and has gotten better".

 
December 15, 2010  03:23 PM ET
QUOTE(#9):

"Definitely. Undefeated against a very top rate schedule."
"...that someone would think I was trying to spin facts into Auburn having a strong schedule."

Your comments. How would anyone possible think that you are saying Auburn had a strong schedule. The first half of the season, which BTW, is what I commented on - Auburn was one of many undefeated teams that played , quite frankly, a god awful schedule.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/team/schedule/_/id/2/auburn-tigers

There's a link. look at it, then tell me how great Auburn appeared the first half of the season. And the rankings are what they were I believe when they played, not ending which I'm pretty sure you said that only the ending rankings should matter.

Comment

Remember to keep your posts clean. Profanity will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.


Truth & Rumors

MOST POPULAR

  1. 1
    Woodson's next job
    Views
    5200
    Comments
    1102
  2. 2
    'Melo wants to be wooed (like, Howard wooed)
    Views
    979
    Comments
    687
  3. 3
    Lee on the Yankees' radar (Burnett, too)
    Views
    12117
    Comments
    532
  4. 4
    Farrell defends Fenway's 'sleep room'
    Views
    1092
    Comments
    385
  5. 5
    Rangers pegged as unsportsmanlike divers
    Views
    3183
    Comments
    277

SI.com

SI Photos