Major BCS changes unlikely

http://onlineathens.com/stories/042908/football_2008042900127.shtml

""I continue to sense a certain comfort level, if you will, with the current status of things with the BCS," BCS coordinator John Swofford said after Monday's session. "I think it's been a pretty stable few years."

Still, the commissioners of the 11 major college football conferences, along with Notre Dame athletic director Kevin White, will have their most detailed discussions to date of the plus-one model, which could use two bowls as semifinals and another as a national title game, with the four participants seeded.

That conversation will take place Wednesday, with SEC commissioner Mike Slive leading it."

if there is a "certain comfort level" then theyre a little out of touch.

this is the one i particularly like----

"Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany said Monday that moving to a plus-one would equate to a playoff, and he sees no support for that option among the league's presidents."

of course he sees no support for a plus one. that would require a big ten team to earn its way into the NC game.

 

It's not perfect, but remember, its better than it used to be.

 

I'm not really sure how. Supposedly it was intended to eliminate split NC scenarios and NC-by-media coronation by having a #1 vs. #2 title game. In that sense the BCS has already failed. A quick review of the "stable last few years:"

2003-04: no need to rehash this.
2004-05: undefeated Auburn left out of title picture entirely
2006-07: Though history vindicated the inclusion of Florida in the NC, by all rights Michigan should have gotten the nod based on all polling prior to the selection. There was a sudden voting reversal after the SECCG b/c voters didn't want a OSU/Mich. rematch, while the computer component was dead even.
2007-08: Doomsday scenario.

Based on 2004 alone the BCS should be considered a failure, since there was--and still is--no mechanism in place for dealing with multiple undefeated teams or a cluster of 1-loss teams atop the Top 5 without leaving at least one deserving team in the cold.

 

agreed. bcs sucks. better than before, but no playoff = sucks. really, the current BCS is simply insufficient.

 

the bcs doesn't bother me as much as it does others, but the presidents talk to us like we are retarded -- how about they come up with better excuses.

basketball teams miss multiple days of school a week, and im pretty sure the pac 10 misses 2.5 because they schedule it to where when they travel they play the two schools from that state. not to mention most bcs schools arent even in school during early january.

so if they would just say we arent changing until there is a significant pay increase i would respect them a little more.

 

why are LSU fans so worried about the BCS? We get the most respect from the selection committee. Both years we deserved it, we got the nod. And both years, there was at least one other team that could have EASILY got in instead of us.

 

As an LSU fan I've got no problem with the end result the two years LSU won it all. But because of the very same system, we could have just as easily been left outside looking in both times (and very nearly did). That's the problem. I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't want any school to be left at the mercy of a popularity contest to crown a champion rather than an actual playoff. Eespecially since there's no legitimate excuse not to have at least the simplest of playoffs (+1)

 

because lsu got lucky. easily could have been on the outside looking in.

because i believe teams (especially college) are works-in-progress. the best team is not the team that was best when the season started (it is weighted that way now) but what team is best at the end of the season

because the bcs puts a really $hitty product out.

 

That still gives me a warm fuzzy, I loved it. Could only have been better if it had happened to Ole Mess, but we all know they'll never win enough games to be in that position anyway.