BCS Won't Consider Football Playoff System

naervod

My current user title
Joined
Oct 13, 2002
Messages
5,327
Location
San Francisco
NEW ORLEANS - Despite the likelihood of a split national championship, BCS coordinator Mike Tranghese said Saturday a playoff system for college football won't even be discussed among proposed changes for next season.

"We're engaged in almost weekly discussions on the next BCS model, but a playoff is not one of the items we're discussing," he told The Associated Press. "And it won't be when we sit down four months from now."

Tranghese runs the Big East Conference and serves as the Bowl Championship Series chief as part of an annual rotation among the six major conference commissioners.

"The university presidents in charge of the system have told us not to go down that road," he said. "We asked about being able to look into it, simply to give them some idea of its monetary value. They just said, 'No.'"

Calls for a playoff have been mounting as Oklahoma and LSU prepare to play Sunday at the Sugar Bowl with the BCS national championship on the line and winner assured the No. 1 spot in the ESPN/USA Today coaches poll.

On Friday, Southern California beat Michigan in the Rose Bowl and almost certainly locked up the No. 1 spot in The Associated Press poll of writers and broadcasters, most likely resulting in the first co-national champions since 1997.

USC had been No. l in both polls heading into the postseason. But Oklahoma topped the BCS rankings and the Trojans were nudged out of a spot in the Sugar Bowl because the BCS computers awarded LSU the No. 2 spot based on a strength of schedule component.

Tranghese told USA Today on Friday he would like to see the polls — the so-called human element in the BCS formula — play a larger role in determining which teams play for the BCS championship. But he made clear a day later he was speaking for himself and not the organization he heads.

"I didn't present that as a BCS solution. What I said was I was a proponent of the human element from the beginning."

The BCS formula, designed to match the top two teams at the end of each season, uses the two polls, seven computer rankings, strength of schedule, losses and a bonus-point system for quality wins.

Tranghese said it was developed and fine-tuned several times since 1998 to expand the decision-making process beyond a "very small core of people." This is the first time since in the six seasons that the No. 1 team in both polls has not been included in the BCS title game.

"One thing we've learned about tinkering is that it's better to try and do it four months after the season ends than in the middle of the week when the big bowl games are being played," he said. "Believe me, we know it's not perfect and even if we came up with a selection process that was, there are still people who would scream for a playoff."

For at least one more season, though, the BCS will turn a deaf ear to those cries. The university presidents, Tranghese insisted, "don't waver on this thing. They just say they're not doing it."

Instead, he suggested fans appreciate the system that's in place.

"What we'll have is the winner of this game in New Orleans and the kids from USC both waving we're No. 1 and telling their kids down the road that they won a national championship. If that's the worst thing the BCS has done," he paused, "then it's not such a bad thing after all."

In my opinion, this is absurd. There needs to be a better way to determine the national champion than the BCS, which is showing its flaws right now. A tournament like the NCAA Basketball Tournament would be much better than the current, flawed system.
 
I like the idea of a 64 team football tourney....but football's nature doesn't make that practical.
 
how many teams in this playoff--4--8--16? no matter how many you will leave one out and their will be complaining. if you pick 4, the very first year will have 5 undefeated or 1 loss teams ( murphy's law )ect.... plus who picks them--the coaches poll? 50% of the coaches amit they don't see every team play and vote on wheather its a known power and box scores! the ap poll--same thing, east coast writers don't watch west coast games ( these people voted USC #1 when 75% of them most likely never watched 1 USC game)
 
Me too..... NOT!

If it's good enough for Divisions 1-AA, II, AND III, it's good enough for the semi-pro athletes playing in Division 1. Period.

16 teams has worked in each of those, and the Division II Championship I have watched a lot in recent years, because it is an actual "championship".

Now if we could just get USC and LSU to play a secret game next week.... :mischief:

-- From The Cellar :smoke:

P.S. The argument about teams feeling left out is bogus. If you want an automatic shot, win your conference! Every major conference champ, plus any undefeated team, plus at-large teams (they could even keep the BCS system for at-larges)
 
they have already stated the bcs WILL be renewed, its about $ theres what--@30 bowl games taking from 800,000- 4.5 million each in payoffs. there NOT cutting this down to @ 10 games and losing that money!! plus the coaches want bowl games--so your 6-5 record will get you the whoopi-do bowl and you keep your job. theres i think 117 football schools and mostly likely only 17 want a playoff system ( ohio st,michigan,miami,flordia st. ect.. ) the mojority know their only hope of a bowl game and payoff is how it is.
 
Yes, it is definitely all about ca$h......

BUT, why can't the schools who aren't in the playoffs still play in the "whoop-de-doo" bowls? Even basketball has an NIT..... those schools would still make their money, and the BEST schools would have extra games to make revenues from.

Just a thought....

-- From The Cellar :smoke:
 
The coaches may not see all the games, but at least they don't pick a team #1 when it doesn't show up to play for the conference championship.
 
3 coaches picked USC # 1--i thought they were forced to honor the bcs ?
 
Originally posted by archer_007


Whats so silly about a playoff?

It's unnecessary. We've had the current system for 65 years, with a few modifications. Nobody in 1938 was complaining for a playoff when both TCU and Tennessee finished 10-0 but TCU got the sole championship. They already have a playoff, a two team one. To say we have a "split championship" this year is kind of absurd, really. LSU won the Sugar Bowl. They're the champs. I'll grant that perhaps USC is better than LSU. But it's impossible to place three teams into two spots. Somebody had to get left out. Due to "strength of schedule" computer numbers, USC got hosed.
 
Originally posted by DBear
The coaches may not see all the games, but at least they don't pick a team #1 when it doesn't show up to play for the conference championship.

Well, to be fully correct and fair, the only team that didn't "show up" to a conference championship (out of the 3) was USC, because the PAC 10 doesn't have one.... :rolleyes:

The only way to require a conference championship, imho, is if EVERY BCS conference has a championship. No Big 12 championship = Oklahoma 12-0....

In fact, that's why LSU won the national championship.... because they played a championship game....

-- From The Cellar :smoke:
 
latest news is they are talking about a " plus 1 senario ", if there is a situation like this year the 2 winners would play next week

michgan vs usc
lsu vs oklahoma

becomes lsu vs usc a week later
 
Originally posted by archer_007
Why would you claim Oklahoma's lost to K State caused them to lose the national title game?

I don't think that's what he was saying. OU was 12-0 before the Big 12 championship game. I think what he was saying about LSU was that they might not have been in the title game without their conference championship game.
 
Thems fightin werds. USC couldn't even beat Cal.

I'd have a stronger argument if OU didn't do so bad the last 2 games.
 
I'm a strong believer in overtime losses counting less than regular losses. If two teams have one loss apiece, and one was in OT, they should win the tiebreaker.

Originally posted by pawpaw
latest news is they are talking about a " plus 1 senario ", if there is a situation like this year the 2 winners would play next week

michgan vs usc
lsu vs oklahoma

becomes lsu vs usc a week later

That would be all messed up if Michigan had beat USC. Then a TWO LOSS team would have a remote chance at winning a national championship. That should never happen when there are two or more one loss teams.
 
Top Bottom