What I would love to see happen to the BCS

[Charleston Pony]

I'd love to see Nebraska kick Texas' @ss. TCU in the championship would REALLY screw up the BCS.

If Nebraska beats Texas and Fla/Bama is a close game, we are going to see a rematch of Fla/Bama before TCU gets their shot. Boise will get screwed if Nebraska beats Texas because they will be out of the BCS formula while Texas goes to the Fiesta Bowl

Now, if Texas gets blown out and Bama gets blown out...TCU just might have a chance, as long as Pitt can beat Cincy

[SoCal_Pony]

If Nebraska beats Texas and Fla/Bama is a close game, we are going to see a rematch of Fla/Bama before TCU gets their shot.

In defense of a FLA / Bama rematch.....TCU would NOT go undefeated in the SEC.

[SMU2007]

I want to see an 8 team playoff. Few enough teams so that the regular season is still VERY relevant but helps resolve the argument of who exactly is the best. It'd be hard to finish in the top 8 with much more than 1 loss.

I do agree to some extent that some coaches may not like it because you are potentially "exposed" against 2-3 hard teams rather than just 1 in the big bowl game.

And on a side note, I completely agree with the above post. TCU would NOT go undefeated in the SEC. They wouldn't go undefeated in the Big 12. Yes, they appear better than the majority of the big 12 teams this year, but they don't have the challenges of playing these big schools each and every week. How easy would it have been for TCU to lose against nebraska, ok state, texas tech etc. if they were facing these teams week in and week out? Still have to give them credit for what they've done with their schedule but i just don't agree with the fact that these guys would hang with any team if they played a full schedule in a major conference.

[SMU2007]

Interesting article on SI.com about why people against the BCS should want TEXAS to beat nebraska.

Playoff lovers should back Texas, because in this case, chalk equals potential change. They should want Cincinnati to beat Pittsburgh, Boise State to beat New Mexico State and the Longhorns to throttle the Cornhuskers. That would set up a BCS title game between Texas and the SEC champ, which, besides being eminently watchable, would leave undefeated Boise State, Cincinnati and TCU on the outside looking in. That would invite more politicians always eager to siphon votes off an enraged fan base to join Sen. Orrin Hatch's and Rep. Joe Barton's crusade against the BCS.

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/andy_staples/12/04/texas-nebraska/index.html

[Football4ever]

I agree, the more teams that end up undefeated at the end of this season, the more problems it will cause for the BCS. I think especially if one of the non bcs teams ends up beating the loser of the sec ship game since those two have been 1 and 2 most of the season.

[Charleston Pony]

If Nebraska beats Texas and Fla/Bama is a close game, we are going to see a rematch of Fla/Bama before TCU gets their shot.

In defense of a FLA / Bama rematch.....TCU would NOT go undefeated in the SEC.

I agree wholeheartedly. So does anyone with any common sense and that is why we could see a rematch of Fla/Bama. I just don't want that to happen. I also don't want to see Boise get screwed, so I have to pull for Texas to win their game. That allows TCU, Cincy & Boise to all show what they can do in BCS games

[mrydel]

I am going to report a changing of my mind. I do not change course very often, but something that Coach Patterson said the other day actually made me use my thinker and I have altered my belief system.

First, let it be known that I hate the BCS structure and want it to go away. It is a monopoly and the midmajors are at distinct disadvantage in recruiting and in the opportunity ti obtain money for future progress.

That said, I find it hard to back a playoff. One statement that Patterson said changed my thinking. He compared the current system as a team being able to go prepare for one game while being regaled and rewarded for a season well done as opposed to going to a game that is a must win to continue, or else go home. That takes out the reward and fun for the players for having a successful season. No more partying and sight seeing, only game preparation. The coaches would have their jobs on the line and the kids would be under extreme pressure to win. Granted it would only be between 8 and 16 teams, but I like to look as a bowl game as a reward for a well played season rather than just another step to make more money for the school.

I am sure somewhere in this line of thinking there is a compromise, but for now I have to back off the desire for a playoff. No one will ever agree that the team that won was the best anyway.

[rich59]

With a playoff system the bowl games would still exist and they would be just as meaningful as they are today which is that many are not very meaningful. Long ago there were only four major bowls and then the minors started proliferating until it is ridiculous today. To think that schools like SMU with only six or seven wins are going to bowls shows how unimportant most of the bowls are. With a playoff of sixteen teams, the second place teams of some of the confernces would still be attractive match ups for bowls. The major bowls could be incorporated into the playoff system. A school like SMU, with a small fan base will never get into a major bowl failing a playoff which incorporates the major bowls. If you remember, in 1980 and 1984 SMU had splendid teams with good records and the best they could do was the Holiday Bowl and the Sun Bowl because of their small fan base.

[Charleston Pony]

I don't have a problem keeping the bowls and not having a playoff...as long as we recognize there may be years where we will not have an "undisputed" National Champion. What would we do this year if So Cal and Ohio State were also undefeated?

After all, the multiple polls that rate the teams have allowed SMU to claim we have a National Championship in our football history.

It does keep things interesting when regional bias is in play

[CalallenStang]

After all, the multiple polls that rate the teams have allowed SMU to claim we have a National Championship in our football history.

three

one unanimous (all major polls) 1935
two disputed (only one poll) 1981, 1982

[rich59]

I misspoke in an earlier post SMU had a good record in 1984 and only got into the SUN Bowl. They had a good record in 84 and only got into the Aloha Bowl. Without a playoff system or a conference realignment where SMU gets into a "major confernence" you will NEVER see SMU win the national championship or probably get into a major bowl.

[Stallion]

1935 wasn't unanimous. SMU was No. 1 based on an end of regular season poll. TCU and I believe Minnesota and LSU also claim the 1935 NC based on polls after bowl victory

[Stallion]

This is an official list kept by NCAA:

1935
LSU: Williamson
*Minnesota: Billingsley, Boand, Football Research, Helms, Litkenhous, National Championship Foundation, Poling
Princeton: Dunkel
Southern Methodist: Dickinson, Houlgate
TCU: Williamson

[CalallenStang]

1935 wasn't unanimous. SMU was No. 1 based on an end of regular season poll. TCU and I believe Minnesota and LSU also claim the 1935 NC based on polls after bowl victory

This is true (and you can add Princeton as well to the claimants) but even through the 60s many did not consider bowl games to be included in championship indications (i.e. Texas in 1969 who won the national championship after beating Arkansas).

[CalallenStang]

This is an official list kept by NCAA:

1935
LSU: Williamson
*Minnesota: Billingsley, Boand, Football Research, Helms, Litkenhous, National Championship Foundation, Poling
Princeton: Dunkel
Southern Methodist: Dickinson, Houlgate
TCU: Williamson

Yes this is what I found too