Should there be a BCS playoff?
Bowl Championship Series vs FCS Playoffs. Most college football(American) Players prefer BCS playoffs because it's much more fun, players bond over gifts, football bowls and bowl trips. Government officials and certain college people(fans not presidents/players) prefer FCS because they feel, there is less time, energy and public money consumed and professional footballers have playoffs. They deem the current BCS system exhibitionist, gauche and crass. However, in a BCS, every game counts, as Bill Hancock of the Huffington post prods. BCS is more expensive for that reason, since every team is played against every other team, there are many more matches. And also, since college sports in America are largely state-sponsored, this is negative in light of the current budget crisis.
You can also add to the debate by leaving a comment at the end of the page.
BCS is tougher and therefore much more exciting
In the bowl championship series system, no loss goes unpunished, so teams are under greater pressure to derive perfection. Players are thus more motivated and the sport is true/raw. Action under adrenaline-pumping constant pressure is key in intrinsically developing sportsmanship and character. Teams are forced never to lay back and slack off because one loss means their out of the series. This means no team deliberately under-performs nor comes to a game with an entirely non-serious approach. Players are thus inclined to be true/fair to themselves and the game throughout the series.
"Since the BCS began in 1998, attendance at college football games has increased 35%--from 27.6 million to 37.4 million last year. But not only are more people watching from the stands, more people are watching at home, too. In 2009, for example, 26.8 million viewers saw college football's title game between Oklahoma and Florida. How does that compare with other televised sporting events? The 2009 NCAA men's basketball championship game was watched by 17.6 million. The 2009 World Series between the Phillies and the Yankees averaged 19.3 million viewers per game.
Not only are more fans getting involved, but more schools are, too. Every conference has an opportunity to earn annual automatic qualification into the BCS. At the beginning of the season, every team has a chance to earn a spot in a BCS game, including the National Championship Game. Indeed, TCU came extremely close to playing for the championship this year. Teams from conferences without annual automatic qualification have played in the BCS in four of the last five years. " -[[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-hancock/a-playoff-or-the-bcs_b_414208.html]]
Losses are not generated from a lack of team spirit or talent. Sometimes teams lose because of other constraints, any sort of disaster (personal or not) can instigate a downturn in team performance. Free games only allow for greater practice and space for any unfortunate tremors that unfairly represent a team's skill on the field.
IT is much more popular, there's greater viewership and participation
Think about it, the more matches you have and the more teams you give a fair and balanced shot at the championships., the more people will be involved and interested. While the cost is greater so is the payoff/revenue. Significant others are keel off the edge of their seats wrapped in the wonderment of whether their guys are in or out. And everybody has a shot, no free games, no artificially created comparative advantage and no nonsense. The BCS system is truly American in the sense that the underdog has the same shot at winning as the big shot, all teams are treated as equals at the start of the series.
That's exactly the problem, it's an all-round publicity stunt. Entirely commercial and rather pointless. Football should be about the game, the players and in essence the sport.
Players like getting gifts and are all right with playing important games in the regular season as well as the championship season. The only reason players and sponsors prefer BCS over FCS is because there is lots money floating around, it isn't about being fair to the game. The country is in the middle of a financial crisis with epic proportions, throwing cash at college football teams isn't on the President's agenda.
The players, coaches and their football loving families and friends prefer the BCS system
The whole BCS costs too much hooplah, is just that. Overall the BCS series makes a mind-blowing profit, raking in cash for government sponsors. Players prefer BCS over FBS, with more than 70 percent of the players surveyed preferring BCS over DBS on all counts. American football has always been about comradery, cheerleaders and an overall high spirited uplifting time. Taking the three bowls out of American football is like taking the feathers and flair out of a peacock. It's an all-out treacherous thing to do. [[http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5452896]]
"More schools are reaping the financial benefits, as well. Before the BCS's creation in 1998, only the teams and their conferences that participated in the major bowl games received revenue from those games. In the first 11 years of the BCS, more than $120 million was distributed to conferences that do not have annual automatic berths in the BCS bowls. The gross revenue for each conference that sends one team to the BCS is approximately $18.5 million. Each conference divides the money according to its own formula.
Part of what has made college football so exciting and popular in the BCS era is that the tradition and heritage of the bowl games have been preserved. The bowl experience is enjoyed by 68 universities each year with more than 7,000 student athletes and 10,000 other students participating as band members, spirit squad members, etc. No other sport has anything like the bowls. Many bowl games have their own parades and all bowl games have their own ceremonies and festivities. The chance for a student-athlete to play in a bowl game--and the chance for a fan to travel to one--is a memory that will last a lifetime.
In the end, the BCS should be judged like a football team: by its record. And the BCS record is outstanding.
This year, college football once again gave fans a dramatic regular season filled with meaningful games throughout the fall--who will ever forget Alabama surviving Tennessee with a blocked field goal in October or Texas edging out Texas A&M in a shootout in November? Plus, the BCS has once again produced a compelling lineup of five bowl games featuring the top ten teams, including two non-automatic qualifying schools squaring off in the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl. In addition, it will all be topped off on January 7 by a national championship matchup of the two teams that are number one and number two in all major polls: Alabama and Texas.
Does the BCS strengthen the regular season by making every game count? Yes it does.
Will the BCS be able to continue protecting the heritage of the various bowls? Yes it will.
Does the BCS do the best job of matching the top two teams in the nation? Yes it does.
Coach Mark Richt is right. With the creation of the BCS, the whole season is now a playoff. Today, college football is more exciting, more popular, and more successful than ever before."- [[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-hancock/a-playoff-or-the-bcs_b_414208.html]] The majority of the people who are involved in college football prefer the ongoing BCS system, and their opinion should be the only one that counts.
The U.S.A is in financial turmoil and All-American college sports, which are fundamental in making America the global media giant that it is, have to take the boot. Sacrifices have to be made today, to build a better tomorrow.
BCS/FBS vs FCS playoffs
"For years, fans of college football have clamored for a playoff at the highest level of the NCAA sport. Instead, the school presidents have opposed it in favor of the BCS system. And while some school presidents on the outside of the BCS have made some noise, and even government officials such as Utah Attorney General, Mark Shurtleff and Utah Senator Orrin Hatch, no major changes have been made."
Under the Obama presidency, 'change' is the order of the day.
There's currently greater money in BCS because the NCAA isn't in control
If the NCAA can magnate so much fame and fortune to Basketball(Michael Jordon) think of what it can do for football, a game, watched much more fervently by Americans in general. Football is a major sport and if there are FBS playoffs, then real money will be made. Instead of three bowls, there will be one major season, with allowance for a few losses, in case of unpredictable disasters that will lead very efficiently to a a round up of the 8-16 best college football teams in the country.
BCS school/college presidents prefer BCS because it currently gives them a monetary advantage over FBS schools, the monetary advantage also gives them an overall advantage in playing the nationals. BCS schools have no incentive to give this up. And in the spirit of equality, fairness and justice the initial status of all football teams must be equalized, that is certain school presidents, coaches and the like shouldn't be making more money than their peers/counterparts playing FBS games. [[http://collegesportsinfo.com/tag/bcs-vs-playoff/]]
There's a lot of if's there. Schools partaking in the BCS are making more money, are doing better in the nationals and have an overall advantage over those using the parallel FCS/FBS system. So why not boot the Playoffs rather than the BCS, which is obviously better as coaches and school presidents testify?
BCS rankings are computer generated based on statistics and not on field performance; this takes the all-important human element out of the game
Computer generated rankings do not literally conjure images of robot takeovers such as in Terminator-2, irobot etc etc but these do rest somewhere in the back of every fans mind. Part of what created the current financial crisis were computer generated risk measurements/assessments gotten from prosaic and enigmatic statistical formulae such as the Black-Scholes equation, all equations depend on assumptions/axioms/postulates and those are not always the divine truths quants/computers take them to be. Mechanical errors are also an issue. Point being, not everyone trusts computers/mathematics and most football fans reportedly feel that football needs to be measured entirely on the field, with no prediction-software and suspicious statistics. [[http://collegesportsinfo.com/tag/bcs-vs-playoff/]]
The FCS is all about:
a) Playing games that don't matter. (what's the point then?).
free games, series games played that don't count in the ultimate overall ranking are just a waste of time, students need to attend classes.
b) Giving all teams the same money, even though some teams are obviously better than others(let's call this football communism, shall we?)
c) Bringing the BCS/FBS down even though, the Ivies associate themselves with BCS and this series has done a better job of creating better players, making more money, getting more publicity etc etc.
d) If there's no computer generated ranking system, do we go back to the stone ages and revert to blackboards and chalk?
Exams do factor in, when it comes to altering performance on the field, this means, rankings need to be determined some other way.True, the BCS/FBS is not perfect but it's certainly/way better than the FCS.
It all comes down to how to determine the 'Best team'
"I agree that I like the fact that the "little" guy gets a chance in the playoffs. However, I feel that in the BCS the really tough leagues like the SEC and Big 12 get a priority over a team that runs the table in a weak conference. I like that because it awards teams for playing tough schedules. You have to admit there is no preference given to JMU for playing arguably the toughest schedule in the country this year. Anyways, I want to Congratulate Montana on a well played game, but man I wish Rodney was in there at the end. It would have been one of those situations where Rodney would have scored and no one would have stopped him. I agree whole-heartedly that the JMU team without the Landers is not the best team in the nation, with him they are. "- DUKES 09 [[http://boards.caazone.com/showthread.php?t=74234]]
In the chat forum cited here, most people are fairly upset about how the BCS computer generated win system JMU won, even though, if the team were to play on the field without injured Landers, it would predictably lose by most counts. Of course there's no certainty in this matter, since the final game was never played on the field. Point being, computers can be wrong and series schedules can be shifted to seasons during which students are not busy with final exams and that is what FCS playoffs are about. Instead of knowing about a series months prior to it and practicing tenaciously for big bowls you can't risk losing, FCS schedules let teams know only a week or two prior to a series and 'less' time is wasted fraternizing and exchanging battle spoils, while the most important games are played on the field not with whack-job computers deciding who 'should be' the best; theoretically/predictably. The FCS therefore, is a fairer, more honest less wasteful system and is proffered by the President of the united states, no less.
Students should not be playing football during exams. It's no wonder most 'players' prefer the BCS/FBS system. Give the players a break, cut them some slack, please let them be human. They work hard on the field all year round, so computers can generate accurate predicted results, they run tough and tight schedules and it isn't fair that just because Landers got injured, a travesty in itself; JMU shouldn't have won.
As the vote on JMU's overall superiority over all the other teams throughout the series is unanimous. It is fair that JMU did not have to take the fall, after an overall all-star performance because of an unfortunately injured player.
What do you think?