NCAA Football 10 News Post

The BCS Quandary and How Video Games Can Help

12:11 PM - January 15, 2009 by RaychelSnr

There is a level of preferential treatment that certain universities receive because they bring a ton of revenue to the athletic programs via television. The Bowl Conference Championship Series exemplifies the emphasis on revenue and financial bottom lines.

The BCS system is in existence to guarantee many major conferences and regional sports networks (RSNs) television and media exposure in the multiple bowl games held at the end of the NCAA Division I football season.

The raw power of RSNs and sponsors drive mainstream sports in the U.S., and it is no different with the BCS Series. However, there is a spillover effect here: Institutions are competing to find success in any way they can to land a bowl game. This can challenge the integrity of the game, whether it is due to malpractice in recruiting or giving preferential treatment to football programs over other sports programs within an institution. In the case of the latter, this challenges Title IX sanctions in place to restrict such abuses of funding.

Read More - The BCS Quandary and How Video Games Can Help

Game: NCAA Football 10Reader Score: 6.5/10 - Vote Now
Platform: PS3 / Wii / Xbox 360Votes for game: 61 - View All

NCAA Football 10 Videos

Member Comments

# 1 asu666 @ 01/15/09 12:38 PM

Great artical and well researched. The BCS should just drop the C before they get a truth in advertising suit against them too. Let's settle these matters on the field. It's difficult for anyone to believe that a playoff that seeds teams using the RPI system won't work when it does really well in every other college sport including the non-bowl series football schools. The NCAA should just keep the schoolship tier system, use RPI, and have the best team win through a three round playoff.

# 2 trick02 @ 01/15/09 12:46 PM

Id like to see an option when starting your season if you want Bowl Games, And One, 16 team playoffs, 8 team playoffs. Could easily be done just like how baseball allows you to choose number of games.

# 3 youALREADYknow @ 01/15/09 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asu666


	Great artical and well researched. The BCS should just drop the C before they get a truth in advertising suit against them too. Let's settle these matters on the field. It's difficult for anyone to believe that a playoff that seeds teams using the RPI system won't work when it does really well in every other college sport including the non-bowl series football schools. The NCAA should just keep the schoolship tier system, use RPI, and have the best team win through a three round playoff.

They could simply use the BCS formula as the RPI and place more weight on the computers. I'm also against a three round playoff because that leaves us right back in the same argument going forward. They really need to just copy the March Madness model and apply it to football.

11 conference champions = Automatic bid
5 At-Large = Top 5 Non-Conference Champions in the BCS

Right now non-BCS conference champions get nothing aside from a bid to a meaningless bowl game and it's a shame that the revenues all go straight to the major conferences and programs.

# 4 thudias @ 01/15/09 12:57 PM

I d be happy with an 8 team playoff.

# 5 Bumble14 @ 01/15/09 01:23 PM

I'm somewhat torn on this whole subject. On one hand I would love to have a playoff, but on the other I feel that a playoff would make the regular season pretty meaningless.

What I mean by that last statement is that the NCAA regular season means so much in terms of positioning in the current system. The main issue I see with moving to a large scale playoff system is that regular season games would lose their importance if teams know that they can get into a playoff game with 3-4 losses-i.e. ACC teams. As much as I hate the BCS it is kind of nice knowing that every week is a must win.

How about this scenario where the BCS is kept intact: Instead of top tier schools scheduling cupcakes, they must schedule other top tier opponents 2 out of the 3 average non conference games they have? This would force great matchups like USC/Florida in the regular season, and weed out the pretenders (Virginia Tech/Cincinatti/Penn State).

Then, perhaps the NCAA picks a week where a flex schedule type of deal happens where top tier BCS conference schools must face off against top tier non BCS teams (think College basketball bracket buster week).

Not only have you eliminated doubt using this system, but you can keep the BCS setup the same as it is now, and you will have a better idea of who the real NC is. Then if you want to add a +1 at some point you are in business.

The outline above keeps regular season games important, forces top tier teams to battle on a weekly basis, then gives mid majors a shot at the big boys later in the season. You keep the bowls, you keep the revenue coming into small schools, you keep th BCS, but most importantly you introduce a more credible NC game.

# 6 rudyjuly2 @ 01/15/09 01:51 PM

I love the win or die mentality of the regular season. Of course two teams got in the title game with one loss but it takes a lot of nail biting to go that route. I'm fine with the current system but would go with a 4 team playoff (take the top 4 ranked conference champions personally).

I just don't understand anyone who wants a 16 team playoff where every crappy conference champion gets an automatic bid. This isn't kindergarten and everybody doesn't get to go home with a gold star that says I'm special. A lot of those teams could have horrible records.

# 7 Trini G1aDiaToR @ 01/15/09 02:59 PM

I don't buy the "end of season playoffs make the regular season meaningless" line. I think that's total BS. What sports fan really thinks that? The only way that happens is if too many teams make the playoffs *cough* NBA *cough*.

With over 100 something Div 1 schools (sorry but I refuse to say that stupid new subdivision name they use), there's no way a 16 team (or less) playoff makes the regular season meaningless.

Besides, if a team has a loosing season and doesn't making a bowl game under the current system, how is that any different than not making the playoffs under a new system? Loosing seasons suck either way.

Also, I don't see why it has to be either-or. Continue to have bowl games for those who didn't make the playoffs... NCAA Basketball has the NIT. Sure it's less popular than the big dance, but it's something right?

Just keep doing bowl games for the non playoff teams, there's already tons of stupidly sponsored bowl games with no national implications. Why stop that fine tradition?

# 8 youALREADYknow @ 01/15/09 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trini G1aDiaToR


	I don't buy the "end of season playoffs make the regular season meaningless" line. I think that's total BS. What sports fan really thinks that? The only way that happens is if too many teams make the playoffs cough NBA cough. With over 100 something Div 1 schools (sorry but I refuse to say that stupid new subdivision name they use), there's no way a 16 team (or less) playoff makes the regular season meaningless. Besides, if a team has a loosing season and doesn't making a bowl game under the current system, how is that any different than not making the playoffs under a new system? Loosing seasons suck either way. Also, I don't see why it has to be either-or. Continue to have bowl games for those who didn't make the playoffs... NCAA Basketball has the NIT. Sure it's less popular than the big dance, but it's something right? Just keep doing bowl games for the non playoff teams, there's already tons of stupidly sponsored bowl games with no national implications. Why stop that fine tradition?

1	Conf	Team	BCS
2	ACC	Virginia Tech	19
3	Big East	Cincinnati	12
4	Big Ten	Penn State	8
5	Big XII	Oklahoma	1
6	C-USA	East Carolina	41
7	MAC	Buffalo	55
8	MWC	Utah	6
9	Pac-10	USC	5
10	SEC	Florida	2
11	Sun Belt	Troy	62
12	WAC	Boise State	9
13	At Large	Texas	3
14	At Large	Alabama	4
15	At Large	Texas Tech	7
16	At Large	Ohio State	10
17	At Large	TCU	11

Rank them by the BCS ranking and let the games begin. You can clearly see that no ACC at-large would have made it into the tournament.

# 9 nolan273 @ 01/15/09 04:43 PM

In my opinion, a playoff is the ONLY way to truly determine a champion. The whole 'Bowl Championship Series' reminds me of the olden days when a mythical national champion was crowned. In most years since the BCS came into being, the two best teams have not been in the championship game. How, then, can anyone proclaim the winner 'champion'?

# 10 Bumble14 @ 01/15/09 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by youALREADYknow

Precisely my thoughts. The bowl games will still bring in the same revenue as before. There's no way a die-hard Nevada fan is going to suddenly NOT go to their bowl game because the BCS decided to go to a tournament/playoff system.

Also, how would the regular season become meaningless when you need to win the conference and/or finish in the top 10 to reach the playoffs? I can pretty much guarantee that 2 loss teams from mediocre conferences would not get into the playoffs.

If we used that format, here are the teams that would have made it this year:

1 Conf Team BCS

2 ACC Virginia Tech 19

3 Big East Cincinnati 12

4 Big Ten Penn State 8

5 Big XII Oklahoma 1

6 C-USA East Carolina 41

7 MAC Buffalo 55

8 MWC Utah 6

9 Pac-10 USC 5

10 SEC Florida 2

11 Sun Belt Troy 62

12 WAC Boise State 9

13 At Large Texas 3

14 At Large Alabama 4

15 At Large Texas Tech 7

16 At Large Ohio State 10

17 At Large TCU 11

Rank them by the BCS ranking and let the games begin. You can clearly see that no ACC at-large would have made it into the tournament.

Looking at that chart of teams makes me salivate as to what could have been.

Anyhow, I'd be all for a tourney as long as we get compelling, powerful non conference matchups. I'd also like to see every BCS conference have a campionship game at some point.

# 11 dkrause1971 @ 01/15/09 05:38 PM

I cannot imagine you'll see more than an eight team playoff. If i recall right the D1A plays 11 games right? When you factor in that D1 plays 12 games and a fair number play a title game i just don't' see them forcing a 16 team playoff. They are not going to have the teams drop a game of revenue to do this and the arguement is the students would be playing too many games otherwise.

An eight team playoff you have the same current issue- under what criteria do you force a Utah or Boise st in? Sure this year you can state that Utah should be in but last year Hawaii looked horrible.

That's the thing without a bigger playoff or with non BCS teams. You don't fully know until they actually play and its not like non-BCS teams historically beat BCS teams at a .500 or better mark. I believe Boise St has a losing mark over the past five years vs BCS if i remember right.

That said- I think the Mountain West is vastly better than the other non bcs conference and close to the big east and should get more respect. The big east is just deeper.

So my question to you guys is- What can you really do with 8 teams or fewer that is really fair to non BCS teams? I guess you could consider 12 teams with 4 byes at best. I think your just going to see an and one. Which is mildly better than the current system.

# 12 krc1130 @ 01/15/09 05:55 PM

I love all the BCS excuses for why there is not a playoff system. My favorite is "too many games for players." If anything a 16 team playoff would only help.

People always say that at some point during the NFL season rookies seem as though they have run out of gas. This is because of the differences in the amount of games played.

A 16 team playoff allows those rookies to get used to long schedules.

Also the BCS complains about a playoff bringing too many injuries. That is SO dumb. Sure a playoff will bring injures but EVERY SINGLE PLAY can cause an injury.

Playoff FTW

# 13 dkrause1971 @ 01/15/09 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by krc1130


	I love all the BCS excuses for why there is not a playoff system. My favorite is "too many games for players." If anything a 16 team playoff would only help. People always say that at some point during the NFL season rookies seem as though they have run out of gas. This is because of the differences in the amount of games played. A 16 team playoff allows those rookies to get used to long schedules. Also the BCS complains about a playoff bringing too many injuries. That is SO dumb. Sure a playoff will bring injures but EVERY SINGLE PLAY can cause an injury. Playoff FTW

They should play more so they are ready for the NFL? Seriously, you have like 250 guys get drafted out of like 10,000 D1 college players. Plus, these are student athletes. Its not like they have nothing else to do but play football. Last note, these guys play a schedule much closer to their pro league than any of the other major sports- NBA, NHL and MLB. If anything you hear the hitting the wall in the NBA more than NFL.

Your second point might be dumber than your first. Why wouldn't the NCAA complain about injuries. Sure injuries can happen any play but more plays means more injuries.

Under your plan why not a 64 team playoff? Players would really be ready for the NFL then and injuries can happen anyway.

16 teams playoffs can likely only happen if you limit the regular season games and/or title games more, its that plain and simple. With a conference title game and the national title game your talking 17 games total. I don't see that flying with the NCAA. In D1A- i believe 15 is the most you can play.

# 14 HokieB @ 01/15/09 06:55 PM

8-team playoff is a must, and here's the best method I've heard:

Top 8 ranked school make it in
(no conference champ auto-bids)

First 2 rounds are played at higher-seeds home field
(talk about motivation to get a 1 or 2 seed. What an advantage! And can you imagine the atmosphere at these football cathedrals for a playoff game! It wouldn't get any better!)

All 8 teams would end up in a BCS Bowl. The 4 Bowls would rotate best-to-worst game each year. So this year it would have been:

- Orange Bowl: Semifinal winners play each for Natl Championship
- Sugar Bowl: Semifinal losers play each other
- Fiesta: Highest-seeded quarterfinal losers play each other
- Rose: Lowest-seeded quarterfinal losers play each other

All the the other bowls can continue on as they always have, say for a few auto-bid tweaks here and there.

# 15 Cardot @ 01/15/09 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HokieB


	8-team playoff is a must, and here's the best method I've heard: Top 8 ranked school make it in (no conference champ auto-bids) First 2 rounds are played at higher-seeds home field (talk about motivation to get a 1 or 2 seed. What an advantage! And can you imagine the atmosphere at these football cathedrals for a playoff game! It wouldn't get any better!) All 8 teams would end up in a BCS Bowl. The 4 Bowls would rotate best-to-worst game each year. So this year it would have been: - Orange Bowl: Semifinal winners play each for Natl Championship - Sugar Bowl: Semifinal losers play each other - Fiesta: Highest-seeded quarterfinal losers play each other - Rose: Lowest-seeded quarterfinal losers play each other All the the other bowls can continue on as they always have, say for a few auto-bid tweaks here and there.

Yes, this is exaclty my preferred system. You have two weeks of playoffs in early December on campus, and then you have the typical Bowls as usual. One for the title, and then the other exibition matches where students can live out the "Bowl Experience" and fans can travel to places like Miami and Pacedena.

# 16 youALREADYknow @ 01/15/09 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dkrause1971


	16 teams playoffs can likely only happen if you limit the regular season games and/or title games more, its that plain and simple.

Agreed.... and that is exactly what should happen. There's no reason for a team to play 13 regular season games like some SEC or Big XII teams do every year. If injuries are really a problem, then why should a team play 13 games when they were eliminated from title contention after their 2nd loss?

11 game season + conference championships + 16 team playoff.

It's not like most teams are going to suddenly be playing 15+ game seasons now. Only 2 teams would be playing 15/16 games and 2 additional teams would be playing 14/15 games. As the system stands right now, 11 teams played 14 games this season. I don't think 1-2 additional games are going to kill an elite college football team.

# 17 Fox1994 @ 01/15/09 07:27 PM

^^What about the other two BCS teams? They need to promote the Cotton Bowl to being a big bowl like it used to be so that it can be a BCS bowl and the other two teams could play in that.

# 18 Fox1994 @ 01/15/09 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by youALREADYknow


	11 game season + conference championships + 16 team playoff.

10 game season + conference championships + 16 team playoff

Or maybe they can add the independent teams to the conferences with eight or nine teams... and drop down the twelve conference teams. Even it out to ten or eleven for all of the conferences so there's nto as much as a four-school discrepency between the biggest and smallest conferences.

# 19 dkrause1971 @ 01/15/09 07:35 PM

I personally like the 12 team schedule with 4 byes. Its only a 3 week playoff that way and getting a Bye is a huge advantage for those teams to push for. People cannot say the regular season is meaningless with the byes is my feeling. Plus, with one less week than the 16 team playoff its easier to sell.

I just don't see the teams giving up a 12 game season in an way. The title games maybe but not 12 revenue days.

# 20 slip3rman @ 01/15/09 10:38 PM

This debate can (and has) go on for years. Personally, I'm in favor of the 16-team playoff that youALREADYknow uses as an example, my friend and I had the same idea. I think it is a must, to include every conference in the championship hunt (giving relevance to every conference), even if it is with a fighters chance. Even then, it could possibly advance the parity that is beginning to emerge in college football. Good players may choose to go to "mid-major" schools for a chance at a title and having their team in a national title hunt can bring exposure to the school as well.

To comment on some things in the article, I don't know if Utah has an anti-trust case because they are given a shot at the BCS every year (by winning their conference and finishing in the top 12 BCS rankings), and were included in the BCS twice, so they are allowed to participate.

Also, I'd thought you might like to know that saying BCS Series is redundant, as the 'S' in BCS stands for series, so it's like saying Bowl Championship Series Series. Insightful article.

« Previous12 Next »

More Links

The BCS Quandary and How Video Games Can Help