To me, with the current format, it spells disaster to any non-BCS team. Would a Boise State or TCU have ever made these playoffs? I can't imagine so. With four teams going, it's going to be two SEC teams, one Big Ten or PAC 12 team and one Big 12 team, year in and year out. The whole thing seems like the worst money grab and moves the MAC into second tier in its own division.

http://themacdaily.com/?p=978

Personally I think this is the only way a non-BCS team would have a shot at playing for a title. If Boise State was one of three undefeated teams then I believe they would certainly be one of the ones chosen to play in the two semi-final games, whereas if there wasn't this playoff, they would be sent to the Fiesta Bowl yet again. It's not perfect but I do think it's the only way a non-BCS school would ever have a fair shot.

Yea, I don't understand the idea that it's bad for the MAC. Tthe non BCS schools that went undefeated and were sent to a non national championship BCS game would have been one of the 4 in the Final 4. Boise, TCU, Utah, Hawaii, would have all played in the Final 4. Cincinnati would have also.

The idea that it's going to be Big 12 vs SEC , Big10 vs Pac12 every year doesn't hold water. If Miami (FL), Clemson or Florida State run the table they're getting left out?

It's the same as always a, MAC, MWC or whatever non BCS team has to run the table and they have to do it with good out of conference victories.

Since the inception of the BCS what MAC school has deserved a shot? 2003 Miami is the only school that comes to mind and they got pounded by Iowa to open the year.

You have to understand that the MAC daily is actually of a lower quality than the Bleacher report. Just assume that they're wrong and the opposite take is correct and you'll be fine...

While I don't think this is the best I don't see how this effects anything. There will still be Bowl games from what I can see and still be an opportunity for the little guy to beat the big guy.

In a perfect world here is how I would fix things.

1. Ease the transfer rules. Players from bowl teams can transfer to non bowl teams without waiting out the season.
2. 16 team playoff including 11 conference champions and 5 at large bids.
3. Get rid of the coaches poll.
4. Balanced scheduling with 6 home games and 6 away games for every team.

Under that system historically and consistently lesser programs could level the playing field and build their programs. Under the current that is virtually impossible. Imagine if Kent state could build a program that could contend with everyone. The more Boise State's the better.

Some thoughts about each rule change.
1. TRANSFER RULE: This is one of my favorites. There are too many good players who make decisions at 18 that they regret by 20. They are buried on good teams where they get little playing time behind stud players. Imagine if that stud player who barely plays due to the first round pick signed the year ahead or before him got to go to a D1 team where they cold start tomorrow. It would lead to more talent on the field undeniably and a better product for the fan. There are no losers in this scenario.
2. I have made too many posts about this one. A 4 week playoff with 11 conference winners and 5 at large bids would be excellent. Its very doable and there is no real argument against it IMO. The regular season would still be very very important for everyone because there would be so few bids. The breakdown would be Round of 16 at the higher seed site (December week 2), Round of 8 at the higher seed site (December week 3), Round of 4 at the bowls (December week 4) and Championship game at a bowl site (January week 1),
3. The coaches poll is awful. 1. Coaches don't really vote wisely because they don't have any time to watch anyone but the teams they play and 2. Coaches are affected by the teams they vote for. If an SEC team votes another SEC team higher to get them into the BCS they can get a share of the money that second SEC team gets for making it.
4. This one is also frustrating. Critics will argue that its a win win. The Big teams get more home games and the small teams get a big pay day. While this is true, the lower teams would benefit even greater from having the sellout and the home field advantage. Home teams currently win OOC games 75% of the time. A home game against a big name team is a huge draw for teams from smaller conferences. Take a look at BG. They are delighted to get Minnesota at home. Imagine if OSU had to go there. The idea that you break down a league and some teams play 8 home games and other 5 is absurd. Can you imagine if the Steelers played 8 home games and the Bengals 5. People would be outraged. That's how the system is now.

Although the original argument probably doesn't make sense about MAC football (when is the last time a MAC team even fell into an argument about national prominence?), let's look at 2010. Leading up to the final bowl games, here were the BCS rankings:

1. Auburn 13-0
2. Oregon 12-0
3. TCU 12-0
4. Stanford 11-1
5. Wisconsin 11-1
6. Ohio State 11-1
7. Oklahoma 11-2
8. Arkansas 10-2
9. Michigan State 11-1
10. Boise State 11-1

Now, which four teams would be in the playoffs? Most people like us would say it would be Auburn, Oregon, TCU, and Stanford. However, it could equally likely be Auburn, oregon, Stanford, and Ohio State. Why would TCU be selected for the playoffs when you could put Ohio State in and get HUGE crowds and lots of money. Besides, more people want to see Ohio State instead of TCU.

In 2009, here were the BCS rankings prior to the bowls:

1 Alabama 13-0
2 Texas 13-0
3 Cincinnati 12-0
4 TCU 12-0
5 Florida 12-1
6 Boise State 13-0
7 Oregon 10-2
8 Ohio State 10-2
9 Georgia Tech 11-2
10 Iowa 10-2

Which four teams would you take? Again, the logical thing would be to take the top 4, leaving an undefeated Boise State on the outside. However, why couldn't the playoffs choose Alabama, Texas, Cincinnati, and Boise, or take Florida for the 4th slot (since we can't be fair and choose all undefeated teams, we'll just only take the BCS undefeated teams)? Knowing what we know now, where Boise beat TCU by 7 and Cincinnati got crushed by Florida, the proper playoffs probably should have been Alabama, Texas, TCU, and Boise. But, who would choose those 4? There's no money in choosing TCU AND Boise.

I could keep going through the old rankings, but I think these two very recent years explain the point. The BCS will continue to do what it pleases. Nowhere in this entire discussion was it ever mentioned that the BCS would disappear, or that every conference would be considered on equal footing. In fact, if they went to a 16 team playoff, they would be more likely to pick the top two teams from each BCS conference and then fill in at-large teams (and definitely use Notre Dame if they were 8-4 or better) than would they be to take the 11 champions and 5 at-large teams (why would the Sun Belt and MAC champions belong in a competition for the national title). Although the 4-team playoff is on the right track to getting toward a true playoff, if there aren't rules built into it then it will be a joke. With the 4-team playoff, they could have easily ranked TCU #5 in both years, and then they could just take the "top 4 teams" for the playoffs. We've all seen the rankings slight a team just to favor a certain match-up. What says it can't happen under this format?

The new system is another way to make more money for the big schools and at the same time make it look like they're giving the fans a playoff. I still don't think there is any way a non-BCS team gets into that 4 team playoff. They just won't let it happen. Just like year's past where it was obvious Boise or TCU should have been in the top 2, they got snubbed...they'll now get snubbed from the top 4.

The BCS is run by the schools who benefit most from it. They want to give off the impression of fairness, but only as it affects the biggest schools...they're not about to take money from their pockets and give it to the non-BCS conferences.

If they really wanted a fair and equitable system they'd go with 16 teams, automatic berths for every conference, 5 at larges, and let 'em play it out on the field. That system would bring in far more total money than this 4 team, or the old fashioned bowls do. Unfortunately it also would allow the non-BCS teams a shot at the real prize (MONEY), and they're not about to let that happen.

You're absolutely right Hammb. You have to look no further than the seedings done by a similar committee for the NCAA Basketball Tourney. Non BCS teams despite past success in the tourney, strong rankings and good RPIs (although this measurement is also skewed in the big schools favor) are consistently seeded lower than BCS type teams with similar or inferior records. While everyone has an equal chance once in the system and there have been surprises, Butler and George Mason, a lower seed often skews the matchups where a team is playing higher ranked seeds every game without the benefit of drawing a 15th or 14th seed early. with a four team football, the powers will certainly assure that in the abense of a sole unbeaten non-BCS team against no other unbeatens, the power conferences will complete the field fully year after year.

I'm surprised it took them this long to realize more money can be made through a playoff system than the BCS system. Having cities bid on the championship game is sheer genius and capitalism at its finest.

In terms of the MAC? Nothing will change so why even debate it. They'll never play a schedule deemed tough enough to even be considered for a playoff scenario. The rich get richer here and thats exactly what the NCAA and BCS schools all wanted.

Perfectly said, Hammb. Totally agree with the 16 team set up and how the slots would be filled. The BCS continues to be the biggest joke in college sports...I absolutely hate the BCS.

We could play Florida, Va Tech, Michigan State and WVU in non conf, beat them all, and our MAC sked would still hold us out of any playoff. The MAC MUST vastly improve if it wants a shot at the BiG prize.

The NCAA and BCS can go pound salt...

I heard a player from a FCS school make this comment and it makes a lot of sense. If strength of schedule is going to be a serious component of the formula for determining the four playoff teams, why would a 'BCS' school ever again schedule a FCS school? A MAC school? A Sunbelt school? These smaller schools require that 'money' game to help pay the bills. Now these bigger schools are going to be more reluctant to play these schools that will hurt their strength of schedule. So instead of playing 4 cupcake non-conference games, that probably goes down to one. And then they fill that in with other BCS schools.

So we will see that kind of impact. There is no way we will ever be able to schedule four non-conference games against BCS schools in one season. This playoff format sucks.

[quote="hammb"]
The BCS is run by the schools who benefit most from it. They want to give off the impression of fairness, but only as it affects the biggest schools...they're not about to take money from their pockets and give it to the non-BCS conferences.

[quote]

BCS team fans would simply reply that they make the money so they should get it.

This is obviously true, but I always think there will be more total revenue for the sport if they spread the wealth and allow the entirety of Division 1A to compete. The way the system is run now the BCS schools get a HUGE portion of the wealth and I think keeping it that way weakens the sport.

I use myself as the barometer of this. College football used to be my favorite sport but I've grown completely apathetic about it over the past 10 years. This will be the first year I won't have season tickets to BG in a long time. I just don't care anymore. The dispersion of money has crippled the MAC to the point I find it virtually unwatchable...and nearly impossible to really be enthusiastic about my alma mater. I'm sure the NCAA just assumes that fans such as myself will become OSU fans and the money will still keep pouring in, but I know in my case that's just not true. Sure I'll watch more games on TV than I have in years past, maybe, but without a relevant MAC, I really am not that enthusiastic about college football anymore.

I can only speak for myself, but the monopoly the BCS has created has taken me from being a die hard college football fan down to a casual fan. Honestly the only real enjoyment I get out of college football anymore is watching the star players and projecting how they'll do in the NFL.

I can't imagine I'm the only fan to feel this way, but maybe I am. But nobody will ever convince me that allowing the top tier BCS schools to dominate the cash and media attention is what's best for the sport as a whole. It's what's best for THOSE schools, of course, but it's not what's best for the sport, IMO.

Interesting point, Hammb...and I can see why ya feel that way. For me, college football is king. But not the BCS schools or conf. The MAC, FCS, Div II and Div III are much more enjoyable than the semi pro conferences. I'll watch NAIA, whatever...as long as it's college football. However, I don't watch the national college football shows much anymore simply cuz all they cover and talk about is BCS sheet. I don't care what Alabama or Oregon is doing and I certainly don't give a rat's azz about ohio state. You are absolutely correct about the media catering to the BCS schools, no question about it. And it has ruined some aspects of the college game. How can the MAC compete? It must find a way or we'll NEVER get a shot at the BiG Time perks. We have to beat the BCS schools on the field, consistently, and build fan bases over the long term. Yeah, we'll never have the fan base of the buckeyes and I can live with that. It means I don't have to share my team with a billion sheep who can't follow their heart and jump on the bandwagon.

It's the same with me and the NFL...I used to be a die hard Browns fan, like I am BG. I simply don't care about the NFL except to see how the MAC players are doing. I love the Browns history up to about 1994...I started caring less each season when Bill B was the coach. When they cut Kosar, I was livid. The dude couldn't run, throw beautifully or have amazing athletic skills. But he won...a lot and he was gusty. My dad was a huge Browns fan growing up in the 50's and when that schmuck fired Paul Brown, he said no mas.