Bcs
 

How many of yall buy into the ranking method of the BCS? Is there a better way of determining a REAL college football champion? Keep in mind all of the money generated from the last method(polls, and the bowl system).

I think...
 

the country should be divided regionally, and new Conferences set up accordingly. The Big East(Could be renamed the NAC(Northeast Athletic Conference), ACC, SEC, BIG 10(could be renamed the NCC-North Coast Conference), THE SAC- which would compose of the universities located in the middle-southern region of the country,MAC,SWC,WAC, PAC. Due to the size of these conferences, they would have divisions. Divisional championships could be played in minor bowl games. Conferences championships could be played in the middle-level bowl games. Regional finals could be played in the top four bowls, with The Championship being played in the bowl that puts up the highest pay.

Rankings would be done using the following criteria: 1. Strength of Schedule, 2. Won-Lost record, 3. Points Allowed(by the defense), 4.Margin of victory vs. ranked teams.

Any thoughts on this?

Original Ape, what's up Frat! My idea is similar to yours and its been one that I've kicked around for a while.

Convert to a playoff format with the top 32 teams. Seeding and rankings would be determined by a BCS-type poll. Each game would be like a bowl game. For example, the first round games would be sponsored by the minor bowls (since the payout is smaller) and the semifinal and final games would be sponsored by the BCS bowls (Rose, Fiesta, etc.).This way, there are no co-champions, no arguments over who deserves to play in the championship game...and no whining from teams who are still undefeated after the regular season but did not get the chance to play in the championship game because of their conference. Also, since each game is worth a certain amount of money, the administration and board of directors are happy. Hell, the farther your team goes, the more money they make.

Keep in mind, this can also make very attracting matchups between teams who usually don't meet(Michigan vs. Texas, Notre Dame vs. Florida, Nebraska vs Oregon, etc.).

The only problem I see with this format would be greed and time. Anytime so much money is at stake, bad intentions can arise. A solution would be to reduce the amount of money each bowl would payout. Therefore, if you make it to the Championship game you would still make more money than the current BCS format, but not TOO much more money.

As far as the time issue goes, I think there is about a one month gap between the first and last bowl games. Under my proposed format, the most games any one team can play is four. Four games in four weeks isn't bad. However, because football is so physical the athletes may not be able to hold up. In any event, a 14/15 game season would be good preparation for those who make it to the NFL. If that doesn't fly, then reduce the number of teams from 32 to 16. Three games in four weeks shouldn't be hard to accomplish.

OA,

I've read your plan and I agree with you. The system as it is, Stinks! If we did it your way, it would force top teams to play each other to determine who the bonafide champ really is.

National Championship Game
 

OA,

Well it's official, MIAMI vs. NEBRASKA in the Rose Bowl. I think that Oregan is getting D#CKED!!! They are Ranked #2 in every poll and 4th in the BCS. That sucks!! Colorado is ranked before them and they are 10-2 whereas Oregan is 11-1. They need to rethink this BCS thing.

I thought you knew...
 

i been sayin' that for a grip now bruh! If ANYBODY'S gettin' shafted, it's Colorado. How can you justify havin' Nebraska over them? And then they beat Texas? Oregon is good; but the Pac-10 was not as good as thought earlier, and they had alot of close wins. I STILL think Colorado should be playin' yo boys.

The BCS is truly a piece of work because it seems like eight computer geeks are controlling the action in college football. :rolleyes:

How Nebraska gets in, particularly after getting pounded by Colorado, is beyond me.

Colorado would be a more logical matchup with Miami, Florida, in the Rose Bowl.

Nebraska did'nt even win their Conference!! How can they have an option for a national champiopnship? The PAC-10 isn't a sorry conference either!! Stanford #9, Washington, Washington State, Oregon State and USC all ranked in the top 25

first part, yeah; second, I don't know.
 

I feel ya on the Nebraska point; but the pac-10 WAS overrated. Washington had a down year-according to their standards. Oregon won; but the majority of their games were not won decisively. Washington St., Oregon St., and the rest were about average. You know what happened to UCLA. USC has been down for years. So I can't see all of the pac-10 teams deserving the rankings they received. Stanford was impressive though.

Good plan!
 

Shadrach,

You got a good one too! I like that one!