AP Pulling Out of BCS?

#2
#2
The BCS has never really worked - it gives us 1 and 2 (usually) but devalues the other bowls. Add to that the secret voting by the coaches and you have a flawed system.

While some compromise between bowls and a playoff may be feasible, any time you try to half a$$ something - this is what you get.

I just as soon go back to the old bowl system (with a stipulation that they can't pick teams until some late date in Nov.).
 
#3
#3
The AP said such use was never sanctioned and had reached the point where it threatened to undermine the independence and integrity of the poll.
Click to expand...

Integrity and AP Poll should not be used in the same sentence. That said, I hope this is a big step towards giving the BCS the boot. It might happen!

And even though I am a 'Horns fan and am glad to see them going to Pasadena, I did feel that Cal kinda got screwed. I mean, Mack Brown was petitioning and the voters decided to move Texas ahead of Cal at the last moment for seemingly no reason. And besides, I think a Pac-10/Big Ten matchup for the Rose Bowl is always better.
 
#5
#5
I think that simply taking Michigan and Pitt out would make it a little better. I think that the Hokies deserve to be in the Sugar. They played USC very close until the middle of the fourth. Pitt and Michigan throw things off as well as Utah. If they are going to take conference champs, then every conference needs a championship game or they should scratch it all together.
 
#6
#6
Originally posted by Orangewhiteblood@Dec 22, 2004 12:40 AM
I think that simply taking Michigan and Pitt out would make it a little better. I think that the Hokies deserve to be in the Sugar. They played USC very close until the middle of the fourth. Pitt and Michigan throw things off as well as Utah. If they are going to take conference champs, then every conference needs a championship game or they should scratch it all together.
Click to expand...

This quote reminded me of a post last year that I made at another site regarding ther BCS and the conference championship games, I did soms earching and found it, he we go:

Remember, this was posted LAST YEAR in December...

The major thing that needs to be changed, and everyone here probably agrees about this is, are the conference championships. The Big 12, SEC, and new ACC will all have conference championships, while Big 10, Pac-10, and Big East all do not. This is a problem, because the regular season winner of conferences that do not have championships gets the auto-bid to the BCS bowls, while conference championship teams have to play for the title and the winner goes to the BCS bowls. So here comes my first proposal:

1.) Get rid of the Big East as an automatic bid.

Miami and Virginia Tech are the only two schools that are good enough nationally to be in a BCS bowl, and both are leaving for the ACC. Pittsburgh and West Virginia have now become the class of this conference, and neither team is in the top 20. The Big East is not a major conference anymore with the exodus of their power schools, conferences like the MAC are going to be a better and more competitive conference, and taking away a BCS bowl spot from a deserving team would not be the correct route to take.

that leads into rule 2:

2.) The BCS bowl spot vacated by the Big East will now become an at-large bid:

Currently in the top 10 are 4 teams that did not win their conference this year: Ohio State, Tennessee, Texas, and Georgia. All teams have good followings, travel well, and are on the national scale in terms of prestige and would make the BCS games more competitive. These teams would give the BCS a better showcase than having the Big East or any other conference get that auto-bid by winning their conference.

And here's the BIG rule:

3.) ALL conferences that receive an automatic BCS bowl for their champions MUST have a conference championship game:

The playing field is all level now with every conference getting a championship game to determine which team will get a BCS bowl bid for that conference. The tricky part would be that in order to have a conference championship game, all conference must have 12 teams, which the Pac-10 and Big 10 do not.

So, let's start with the Big 10 and their revision. Now, they call it the Big 10, but there are 11 teams so there only needs to be one more added team to the conference in order for them to start playing a championship game.

That 12th team will be : Pittsburgh Panthers. Pittsburgh have gained a lot of national attention over the past few years and have been on the rise as a power team, this year they are showcased due to sopohmore WR and Heisman hopeful, Larry Fitzgerald. Pittsburgh looks to be on the national scale and with the competition of the Big East, they need to move to a major conference in order for them to gain the National status that they'd like to acquire. Also, putting Pitt in the Big 10 would rival them up with fellow Pennsyvania team, Penn State.

Now, there needs to be 2 seperate divisions, as the Big 10 will seperate them according to the East-West geography.

West division: Illinois, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Purdue, Northwestern and Iowa.

East Division: Indiana, Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Penn State and the newly acquire Pittsburgh.

Only question that I can see about this proposal is, why Pittsburgh and no Notre Dame? Let's be real, first off the Notre Dame power has been erased, as Pitt is the better team nowadays. Also, Notre Dame is not going to join a conference strictly for money reasons. ND has toyed with the Big East and Big 10 for years now about joining, if they were really thinking about that idea then they would've joined already.

Ok, so we have the Big 10 figured out, the harder task would be the Pac-10, which needs two teams to join instead of only one.

My two proposed teams are: Fresno State Bulldogs and Boise State Broncos. Fresno makes sense due to loacation, being from California where most of the Pac-10 teams are from. Fresno got a lot of attention 2 years ago with QB David Carr, and joining a major conference could push the Bulldogs further up the national scale. Boise State is now nationally ranked in the top 25 and would be beneficial to join a major conference now to gain the respect that this team deserves. With these two new teams added the Pac-10, the divisions will be seperated by North and South divisions.

North division: Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, and newly acquired Boise State.

South division: USC, UCLA, Arizona, Arizona State, California, andnewly acquired Fresno State.

These division seperation work out well, keeping rivalries like Wash-WSU, oregon-OSU, USC-UCLA together along with having a big conference championship. The team selections work out for the better, as UNLV is the only other team that I can think of that could join the Pac-10 and I'm much happier seeing Boise and Fresno in this conference instead.

Hypothetically speaking, had this gone down this year, the Big 10 would've had Michigan as the East representitive vs. the West rep. Purdue, and the Pac-10 would've had South rep. USC vs. West rep. Washington State, and to me those look like two very good match-ups to add to championship Saturday.

So that is my proposal and what should be done to make the playing level more fair, and hopefully help ou the current BCS format.
 
#7
#7
That would give Michigan and USC automatic bowl bids anyways. It sounds like a good plan, but will not be carried out. I don't think people would mind the addition of Fresno State or Boise State to the Pac-10; Although the Bulldogs would probably be the new knockaround team.
 
#8
#8
Just a few things about this news.

Go back to the old bowl system: NO WAY! What I remember were bad matchups, no clear national championship game, and the 'other' bowls were still just 'other' bowls.

With the AP out, will there even be a BCS next year? I hope there is some form of BCS, because it is the precursor to an actual playoff. Some people don't like the automatic qualifiers for the BCS.... however, I think to win a spot in the BCS on the field is much more impressive than some selection committee just choosing. Pittsburgh should be complemented on who they beat on the field and how they finished the season to squeeze into the BCS. Teams should know the format and rules by which the teams are selected at the beginning of the season.... to leave it up to some subjective selection committee would be crazy. That is why the computers were added to create a balance between the actual results (computers) AND the poll voters perceptions (AP and Coaches).

One thing that everybody needs to realize is that the BCS is set up to match the best 2 teams in the NCAA IA (regardless of ranking in the human polls). The other 3 BCS bowls are just to make more money. The fact that Cal is 'out' and Texas is 'in' means nothing to me. The bigger question is who is playing in the 1 championship game. Basically its a 1-game playoff.... and I personally think it will eventually expand into a normal playoff system. Especially with more seasons like this one, with 5 undefeated teams.

There are currently 28 bowls.... and almost not enough teams to qualify. If there is anything that has made some people think that bowls are 'meaningless'.... they should point to the glutton of bowls that have been added so that a bunch of 6-5 teams get to play in the postseason.
 
#9
#9
The only games that have lost their luster are the major bowls that in the past would have helped determine the Nat'l champ. Instead of having 3 or 4 teams in 2 or 3 different games that could win it all, we now are guaranteed #1 vs. #2 which is what everybody wanted in the first place.

Remember the good ole days when they'd play the Sugar, Rose, Cotton, Orange and Fiesta Bowls all on Jan 1st and then you had to wait until the next Monday to see how everyone voted before crowning a champion?
 
#10
#10
Originally posted by milohimself@Dec 22, 2004 3:18 AM
That would give Michigan and USC automatic bowl bids anyways. It sounds like a good plan, but will not be carried out. I don't think people would mind the addition of Fresno State or Boise State to the Pac-10; Although the Bulldogs would probably be the new knockaround team.
Click to expand...

1.) They'd have to win their conference championship

2.) SO? They earned it by winning their conference, plus USC happens to be #1 overall.
 
#11
#11
I am just sick of it all. I think that the NCAA needs a format like the NFL playoffs. I know it couldn't be the same formula, but it could be done.
 
#12
#12
Same here. I suppose the AP Poll could still be used as something similar to the power rankings, because people will want to know that kind of stuff. But as far as "determining the best two teams" goes, you can't really argue too much with a bracket.
 
#15
#15
Every college football level under Div 1-A all the way down to the NAIA divisions have working playoff systems.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top