Sports Columnists

By FShelley

October 14, 2005 11:06 PM | Link to this

Interesting…a sports writer defending the BCS, and bowls in general. Face it college football fans…there is no such thing as a national championship in major college football. Oh sure, there’s a trophy, and people call it a championship, but it’s really just a machine to sell newspapers and get you to watch ESPN. It has turned college football into the male equivalent of figure skating, where you have technical difficulty (beating a higher ranked opponent or just one with a better reputation), and style points (margin of victory). A real championship is decided on the field, and Mr Moore alluded to it when he said #5 would feel left out in a 4 team format. Any system that depends on rankings voted on by sports writers is not a way to determine who is the national champion. The answer is simple…conference champions get invited to a playoff. SEC is tougher than the WAC…yep, and the SEC champion should whip them.

Look at it this way - UGA vs Tech in basketball…who wins? The best way to figure that out is to let them play. But what you have now in D-IA football is this: step 1: be biased based on how they did last season, step 2: add in how you THINK they recruited, step 3: watch them play a bunch of other teams (MAYBE 1 team in common), step 4 take a vote. There’s your winner. Is it real? Is it true? Has major college football ever really had a national champion?

By geechee

October 14, 2005 11:57 PM | Link to this

In a perfect world, I agree with your post FS. The reality is the bowls are too entrenched into the system. I think it was all in all a much better situation before the BCS.

The BCS itself is bogus because thyey set themselves up for failure and achieved it.

There so many bowls however the NCAA has let it become a laughable situation. Between the quantity and some of the names, it is totally ridiculous. It is getting so, where if some metropolitan area can’t land some kind of golf tournament they create a bowl game.

By Mark Fister

October 15, 2005 12:48 AM | Link to this

College football needs a playoff. The argument that there would be controversy no matter how many teams were in the playoff is a really stupid reason for not having a playoff. I’d rather have #9 upset about missing an 8-team field or #17 upset about missing a 16-team field than have multiple undefeated teams not even get a chance. There are SEVERAL ways to have a playoff. I’m tired of the excuses for not having one.

By DurhamDawg

October 15, 2005 07:13 AM | Link to this

I agree Mark. This article is bogus. Terrence, you have quotes from an executive director of the Peach Bowl trying to make the point why a playoff system is worse than the BCS bowl system. LIKE DUH!!! Of course he’s going to prefer the bowl system, he’s got his own interests at stake. Ultimately, it should be more important to have a true champion. There would be way less controversy with a 8 or 16 team playoff system (see Mark’s comments above) than the current BCS system.

And the idea that D-IA football players “aren’t equiped physically or mentally” to handle a playoff system? Where the hell did you get that idea from? D-IA teams play just about every week during the regular season and do just fine. Of course there are injuries along the way because this is after all football. A three or four game playoff would not change that.

I also don’t understand how the Falcon’s injury situation after only FIVE games has anything to do with college football or a playoff system. This is just a poorly written article.

By jason

October 15, 2005 09:17 AM | Link to this

Excuses Excuses, Conference champions are in. Thats it, thats your selection process. Notre Dame would be forced to join a conference if they wanted to compete for the title. Shorten the Season to 10 games 8 of which are conference games. And have a playoff.

The suggestion that the lower divison playoffs are less intense is just silly. The truth is that these bowl people are just worried about cash flow to their pockets.

I will say that I believe that these players should get paid some nominal sum. Either that or the NFL should establish a minor league. The wake of a NFL Minor league would kill our beloved sport. We would have 93,000 fans watching Vandy play Vandy. Perhaps that would not be all that bad. It would bring us back to the origin of Football. The way players are treated now is unconstitutional.

By Mark W. King

October 15, 2005 09:25 AM | Link to this

A playoff system would absolutely ruin college football. Playoff proponents want college football to be just like every other sport — which would destroy much of the mytique and drama of this very special sport. The controversy at the end of the season over who should really be number one is one of the many things that make college football unique and special. A playoff system would, much like it does in basketball, make regular season games less meaningful.

If playoff proponents don’t like college football the way it is, why don’t they play golf on Saturdays and watch the NFL on Sundays?

Terence is dead-on right on this one.

By Mark

October 15, 2005 09:31 AM | Link to this

Terrence, I have only read the opening question and answer and that is enough for me to say you are clueless on this issue and you repeating old columns. Didn’t you write a similar column a year or two ago. The playoff system is the only thing that will satisfy the fans. Georgia players and fans don’t want to Masters Survey Championship. They want to be recognized as the best team in football by everyone if they beat all comers. No other sport does this. Why is college football stuck in the 1920s? Why can’t the sport evolve? It is so much fun and so frustrating at the same time. No team wants to share a championship with someone. Ask the Patriots if they would enjoy being co-Super Bowl champs with the Eagles or if UNC would enjoy sharing the title with Illinois b/c they both had good seasons. It is absurd to insinuate that a true national champion can not be crowned. It isn’t rocket science, it is football. Just make it work. Terrence, you are WAY off on this one, and don’t think fans notice that your ploy to fire up the reader base. I think you actually agree with us on some level but you just want the discussion to get started.

By drew

October 15, 2005 10:09 AM | Link to this

First of all Terrence, hat’s off to you for even trying to defend the current system. But if the argument you’ve put forth (and it’s a very weak one at that) is the best you can do, let’s go ahead and start looking at a playoff system right now. Mr. Bestwick says, “No matter how many teams you have in a playoffs â€â€? whether we’re talking eight, 16, whatever â€â€? you would have more controversy than now”. Huh?? Nonsense! The problem with the BCS is that it takes the national championship out of the hands of the players and into the hands of pundits, coaches, accountants and computers. A true national championship deserves better; the bottom line is that the question should be settled on the field. A playoff system involving 8 teams would require only 7 games, over the course of 3 weekends, to determine a TRUE national champion. These 7 games could be bowl games (and as far as who plays in what bowl, I could care less, just seed the teams and assign them a location (i.e., bowl). The top seven bowls could come up with any system they want to decide who get’s what game. All the other bowls could then invite whatever worthy teams don’t make the playoffs. I can’t believe any team ranked 9 or higher (by any ranking system) could complain too much about not getting a chance to play for a national championship. The current college bowl system is (with maybe one or two exceptions) a collection of top notch exhibition games…boring! A playoff system would bring some “March Madness-type” excitement to college football, and more importantly, it would allow the question of who’s number one to be settled the way just about every other championship is decided—-on the field of play.

By belly

October 15, 2005 10:19 AM | Link to this

Now, I’ve heard the arguments that D1-A football players are either too weak(not as strong as NFL)or too strong(stronger than players from lower levels)for a playoff. But I’ve never heard both arguments made in the same paragraph before. Terrence, you gotta make up your mind.

By Colin

October 15, 2005 11:32 AM | Link to this

Nice post, Drew!

By mem

October 15, 2005 09:10 PM | Link to this

Weak, weak, weak! Moore has written this same article over and over again, and each time his argument is just plain weak. For all of the reasons, just read the posts above by FShelley, Fister, DurhamDawg, Jason, Drew, etc. A playoff system is absolutely doable, but the bottom line is that the folks making money will not allow it. I understand their position, but college football would benefit from a playoff. You only need to look at March Madness to see that.

For those who say it would take away from the regular season, if conference champs are the only ones who go, each regular season conference still means something. It may take away from the out of conference games, but it might also provide better out of conference than the Samfords, LA Monroe’s, and Western Kentuckys that we currently get now. After all, if playing an out-of-conference USC (or Texas, VA Tech, UGA, etc.) isn’t going to cost you a playoff spot, why not play them to see where you measure up?

By mem

October 15, 2005 09:14 PM | Link to this

Geez, I’ve lost my marbles… that’s “each regular season conference GAME” and “might provide better out of conference MATCHUPS” for all the grammar Nazi’s out there.

By jason

October 15, 2005 10:54 PM | Link to this

One more thing about out beloved traditional bowl’s. You only need to follow the money to find out exactly why the bowls probably never go away. I am thank ful fo rthe sacrifice that these players make on saturdays. I dont know that I would play as hard for just a degree and a chance to go to any bowl host city. I guess that is why I am sitting on my couch and they are playing.

By Michael

October 16, 2005 01:17 AM | Link to this

This is the dumbest column I have ever read…again. Every year thousands of writers make these same “what about #9 with an 8-team playoff” slippery slope complaints. If you can’t comprehend the difference between leaving out a 12-0 conference champion and a 9-2 conference runner up I really don’t know how to explain things.

The whole “free trip” thing is tired as well. I’m sure most football players would rather compete for an undisputed national title than have a free trip to Nash-Vegas or Shreveport.

The BCS is broken and the only people that don’t want to hear that are the people who stand to profit from it and a few writers like Terence Moore.

By doug

October 16, 2005 02:00 AM | Link to this

maybe you will get your wish. if i and others get fed up enough, maybe we will play golf on saturday and watch the nfl on sunday, and skip college football. maybe the bowl hucksters will be happy then.

By Submariner683

October 16, 2005 10:38 AM | Link to this

The fact that Div-I football does not have a playoff system while every other division and every other sport has one is ridiculous.

The arguements about the bowls are stupid. A true playoff would generate more TV revenue. Can you imagine the bidding war to broadcast that tournament?

I’ve seen arguements that the season is too long and these athletes are students first and adding those games will be too hard on them academically. Most team’s last games are at the end of November and then they don’t play a bowl until January. The students are usually off the entire time. Plus my arguement with having a championship game 4-5 weeks after the teams’ last games is ludicrous. That is too much time off. Why not play the game in February or March? Might as well. You don’t have the same two teams after that kind of break.

Make a tournament. Now! I’d say a 16 team tournament. 4 weeks. You’re done. You could have 3 weeks, take two off for the championship, then your done. Have your last game in November and you are still done by the start of the New Year. Take every major conference winner (SEC, PAC-10, BIG-10, BIG-12, ACC, BIG East, Mountain West) and 8-9 at large teams. You can argue whether the Big East or Mountain West or MAC, WAC deserve an automatic bid.

I’d say give an automatic bid for the conferences with a championship game. Right now they are stupid because all they do is put a championship contender in jeopardy by having to play another game.

Yes there are going to be teams that feel they should get in. The same happens in the basketball tournament. But do those teams that don’t get in really have a shot at the title? Also, no matter who wins the tournament, there will be no question who the national champion is. No debate. A team that runs the table in the tournament there will be no questions. No polls, no writer’s opinions. Because that is all the national championship is now. Opinions.

By handmade

October 16, 2005 11:44 AM | Link to this

For those of you who just love the college basketball tournament, I’d like to point out that until the conference tournaments start in March, the entire season is mere exhibition. Theoretically, a team could go 0-25 in the regular season, and still win the national championship. The Duke-UNC game in January is a nice diversion, but let’s face it. The loser of that game is still going to be at worst a 3 or 4 seed in the NCAA tournament. The regular season in college football IS the tournament. Win or go home starting on Labor Day and going straight through for 3 months. Don’t change a thing.

By Clete

October 16, 2005 02:09 PM | Link to this

Listen people! The champion of ANY sport needs to be decided on the field in a playoff. Anybody that thinks differently (i.e. TM) is an idiot.

By MB

October 16, 2005 02:34 PM | Link to this

I think the “anti-playoff” advocates are stuck in the mud of the past. A lot of people think the NCAA basketball tournament is the best event in sports, and I agree. Yes, you can play basketball games on less rest, but they also have to win 6 games to win the tournament. It takes 3 weekends… round of 64, Sweet 16, and Final 4.

The BCS championship game has tremendously DEVALUED all of the other BCS bowls. Who really cares who wins between number 4 and number 9, for example, under the current configuration?

As to a tournament, I think just the top 8 teams, per the BCS (or something like it) should compete. Yes, the number 9 may complain, but they don’t have a real claim to a national title, do they?

So, between Christmas and New Years, the first round of 4 bowl games: No. 1 v No. 8, No. 2 v. No. 7, etc. That leaves 4 teams. What a great week for fans!

Jan 1- 8 (just depending on the calendar), you have 2 more major bowl games, matching the winners from above. This leaves the top 2.

And a week later, the national title game, (rotating, I guess, between the current BCS bowl games/sites).

I know there are “cultural” changes that this would involve. I respect Dick Bestwick’s opinions, but I also think that thought process has become outdated. There is no other championship that I can think of that doesn’t involve a playoff or tournament. The Bowl games have become the anti-climax; and teams that lose one game during the regular season are left with no hope of redeeming themselves, no matter how good they might be.

As to all the other bowls, I think the more “bowls”, the better. If Akron Ohio wants to invite the MAC number 2 to play the WAC number 3, great, if they can support it financially. If you think there are too many bowls, don’t watch. If enough people don’t watch, be assured, the bowl will go away. But, most of us will watch any football game that’s on t.v., so what are we complaining about?

By HughG

October 16, 2005 03:38 PM | Link to this

Right Idea, not as good arguments. The best thing about College Football is the Regular Season! College Football’s regular season is the first weekend of March Madness (The truly best part of sports all year) all season long, where tiny schools and archrivals can eliminate a team from the national title picture with just one shot. Last night’s USC-Notre Dame wouldn’t have been nearly as exciting knowing that SC could just go back to the Pac 10 where they’d easily win the conference. Upsets abound in College Football, and they’re the best part: Any 1 vs. 8 game or 3 vs. 6 wouldn’t be much of an upset anyway. March Madness works for its large scope and multiple winner take all games. Everyone seems to want March Madness for football, or compares it to a new playoff, but the results would be the boring as all get out NFL Playoffs. Multiple Bowl games make for interesting Conference Squareoffs, be it Michigan-TX from last year’s Rose Bowl or last year’s Iowa-LSU. If you want a national title, go undefeated and rip everyone apart. No one outside of our state next door legitimately made the claim Auburn deserved the national title last year, because USC went out and legitimately won it on the field in the way they played. Keep what we’ve got, and quit your yapping trying to turn this good sport into the inferior product seen on Sundays.

By Matt

October 16, 2005 06:20 PM | Link to this

Worst column I’ve read in a while. To quote somebody for evidence in support for the current bowl system, he uses a bowl representive! That was just an absolutely pitiful argument.

I agree with the general consensus that the conference champions should be in the playoff. Notre Dame would join the Big 10 and PAC10 and Big East would fill out with 12 teams. Four more conferences will have 10 teams and seven teams would be relegated down to 1AA. Then, say the Sat. after Thanksgiving, play the six conference championships of the current BCS conferences and two “play-in” games for the mid-major conference champions. Next weekend, a committee will seed the teams from No. 1 to No. 8 and then have four games with the higher seed hosting. This way fans don’t have to travel to some neutral site for three different games.

Finally, let the chips fall and play the bowls as usual the next few weeks, except for the four winners. They’ll play two playoff games first week of January at two sites rotating between Rose, Sugar and Orange bowls. Then two weekends later, play for the an actual championship at the remaining site. It gives me pause that this system would make non-conference games essentially exhibition games, but they would still help determine which bowls non-playoff games would go to.

By David

October 16, 2005 06:20 PM | Link to this

HughG said: “USC went out (last year) and legitimately won it on the field in the way they played.”

USC had to come from behind in the final minutes of the game to beat lowly 4-7 Stanford, looked terrible against a bad Oregon State team, barely held on to beat a 6-6 UCLA team, needed a phantom pass interference call to beat Virginia Tech and only beat Cal because their wide receiver slipped and fell on a sure touchdown. USC’s “signature” win in the regular season was against Cal, and Texas Tech’s mauling of them in their bowl game showed everyone that Cal was nothing more than a mediocre team from the PAC-10.

That doesn’t really seem to back up your statement that they “legitimately won it on the field in the way they played.”

And if we and Virginia Tech go undefeated this year, we’ll both get screwed over the same way Auburn did last year. USC and Texas began the season at 1 and 2, respectively, which means an undefeated season by us, regardless of how well we play, won’t mean squat unless USC or Texas loses. That, my friends, is an awful way to decide a national championship.

Never mind the fact that it would be the second time in two years that a team from the SEC, the best football conference in country, would get screwed over by this asinine system.

By Michael

October 16, 2005 11:09 PM | Link to this

Handmade has the college football motto wrong. It’s “Win and/or go home”. Considering most teams have 3 out-of-conference games you can make no case for who is better between USC, Texas, VT, or Georgia/Alabama. USC is #1 because they went undefeated last year. Texas is #2 because they’re always ranked #2. VT is up there because they won the ACC last year and didn’t lose a lot of people. Georgia has the 10-win seasons previously and is #4 because of who they lost. Alabama is next because they stunk last year.

So obviously what you bowl-lovers think is a team is better because of what the previous teams at that school did. Great logic.

By toot

October 17, 2005 12:22 AM | Link to this

It seems to me Division 1-A already has a playoff - the regular season. Every game is vital. No post-season playoff would completely eliminate controversy and subjectivity. There would still be argument. Am not defending the BCS but can remember when the press association symbolic championships were awarded after the seaon, not the bowl games. Am now wondering whether that wasn’t better.

By Jim

October 17, 2005 01:37 AM | Link to this

The best sports season is the Bowl season when we get all the games that we could never see during the regular season. Even an eight game playoff will eliminate much of the spirit of college football. A playoff system will probably finally be adopted because many people have no interest in colleges and consider college football players to be minor leaguers. That is sad because college football is so much more. Terence, you always seem to generate lots of heat with your columns but don’t stop and don’t let the rednecks get you down.

By Jason P

October 17, 2005 11:55 AM | Link to this

handmade makes no sense with the 0-25 team making it to the national tournament by winning the conference tournament. In case you haven’t noticed, College Football HAS NO conference tournament! I agree that the regular season is what makes College Football so special. The regular season is also what determines the conference champion. So, (try to keep up here, Terrence and handmade, if the conference champion (especially if Undefeated) is not allowed to compete for a national tittle, You have just made the regular season worth NOTHING.

And Mark W. King, what makes college football unique and special are the kids playing it; Not being spoiled millionaires is what separates us from the NFL. What you call “mytique and drama” = CONFUSION and FRUSTRATION. You want mystique and drama, watch TNT!

By Jason P

October 17, 2005 12:57 PM | Link to this

Back to TM’s first paragraph, “What’s wrong with…Blah, blah…Master Coaches Survey, blah, blah, AP champion…Blah, blah…Texas in the Rose Bowl to become king of the Bowl Championship Series?” Nothing? As in (Terrance knows) NOTHING? you bet. ASTERICKS That’s what it matters. Good, and even average, teams all over the country have huge flags waving in their stadiums that say “19xx National Champions.” We don’t want flags that say “19xx Blah blah, blah National Champions.” Might as well say “1990 Corn Flakes Cereal box Prize National Champions.” I used an actual example year, one we UGA fans like to point out whenever discussing things with out “friends” over in Atlanta. You know they don’t want to see any asterick about Colorado on their flag. (And to show my Trade School friends no hard feelings, I really DO think you could have taken ‘em.) But back to the “everybody’s a winner” polls: We all tried to leave popularity contests in High School. This is sports, and what makes college football the best one, is Rivalries. And Braging rights. See Red River shootout, Paul Bunyan’s Axe, etc. How can you brag about being better than the other guy, if you never get the chance to proove it. Go back to those powder puff rec-leagues (not the one I played in) where they don’t even keep score.

By MB

October 17, 2005 01:45 PM | Link to this

To say the regular season is the tournament is fine…except you NEVER PLAY the teams ranked ahead of you, and you don’t play the same quality of opponent. It’s unlikely that the No. 3, let’s say VA Tech, will ever Play 1 (USC) or 2 (Texas), because each conference is only likely to produce 1 top 5 team (due to conference championship games). So how do we know how good VA Tech is; never beaten, but never played the “best”?

As long as, for instance, USC, Texas, Alabama, and Ohio State can theoretically go undefeated (just an example), I don’t know how you can oppose a playoff. Each is a great program; and each plays a tough schedule, and if they win all their games, they should have at least the opportunity to be recognized as champions.

To me, the arguments over academics and logistics are a red herring. These things are worked out in every other sport, at every level. I just think the college presidents don’t want to risk upsetting the revenue stream because, despite the flaws, the bowls make money. What else are you gonna watch over the New Years Holiday? But it could be SO MUCH better!

I’m a huge Georgia fan; if we finish 4th in the BCS, of course I’ll watch a game against someone like Florida State or Penn State, but I only marginally care about the outcome. The “other” four BCS bowl games are little more than exhibitions leading up to the big event. It doesn’t have to be that way.

By B.A.

October 17, 2005 01:46 PM | Link to this

I hate all of Terence’s arguments especially the too many games argument. I think a few years ago Nebraska played some strange warm-up game, a twelve game regular season, a conference championship and a bowl game. Thats fifteen games. With the 11-game schedule and a conference championship, you could still play the 8-team format. I believe the eight team format removes the complaining especially if Division-1 listens to this proposal. Increase the number of teams by three to 120. Have ten 12-member conferences. Notre Dame would go Big Ten. Have a conference championship. At most, you could have ten unbeaten teams and the bottom two conferences would get left out worse-case scenario. I can’t forsee a Sunbelt champion. By the way, a 12-game season with bowl games is the same as an 11-game season with the plus-one.

By MB

October 17, 2005 01:54 PM | Link to this

By the way, for you other playoff advocates, BCS President, and Pres. of U of Oregon David Frohnmayer’s email address is pres@oregon.uoregon.edu. I don’t suggest anyone behave in anything less than a courteous manner, but it might make sense to share your thoughts with him.

If anyone knows a better way to “advocate” on this issue, please post it!

By Xman

October 17, 2005 03:23 PM | Link to this

The only way to settle this argument is to let the coaches and student athletes decide it. Just have an election and let them vote fair and square on the deal. That’s a heckuva lot better than letting a bunch of sportswriters and corporate sponsors decide their fate. Whatever the players and coaches decide is fine by me.

By StuDawg

October 17, 2005 03:26 PM | Link to this

Moore, you are just plain ignorant, you do not have much intelligence, and, you are stupid. I am sorry to be so blunt, but, please, just shut up. You probably believe that George Bush has a weather-making machine in the oval office. It is a shame that a media outlet such as the newspaper of a major metropolitan area gives you a voice with which to speak your little mind.

By Clete

October 17, 2005 05:43 PM | Link to this

Michael made a great point about why the teams in the top five are where they are right now. It’s one of the better points I’ve read on one of these blogs in a long time and it’s definitely better than any point Terence Moore has ever made to keep the bowls. ANY sports champion needs to be decided, on the field of play, by a playoff. Anybody who does’nt believe that, is stupid.

By SEC FAN

October 17, 2005 08:35 PM | Link to this

PLEASE READ Advocate Playoff’s

Don’t buy Bowl game tickets!

Don’t watch the Bowl games!

Bet we will get the playoffs THEN! The title must be decided on the field!

Again, we must hit them in the wallet!

By Jay Thorp

October 17, 2005 08:42 PM | Link to this

The column misses the crux of the matter! The teams should decide who’s champion, & not some ill-informed, already-prejudiced, sports writer. ALL college No. 1’s come from one of the eight major conferences: B-10, B-12, B-East, SEC, ACC, Pac-10, Mtn. West, & West. Ath. Conf. All their champs meet in 4 of the 7 major Bowls. Winners play two weeks later in 2 more of the 7 major. Those winners play two weeks later in the remaining Bowl for the TITLE. Rotate by lot, each year, the order of bowls, and the matching of Conf. Champs so that all meet each other eventually. ALL these teams would play one Bowl Game anyway! Only four good teams would be in TWO post-season games. And only two VERY good teams would wind up playing in three contests. If the major conferences and Bowl committees cooperate in such a venture, the payoff to colleges, & conferences, would be in the HUNDREDS of millions! The television audiences would top 50 Million for ALL the games. No drama would be greater!

By tom

October 17, 2005 08:56 PM | Link to this

the reason we don’t have a playoff is simple money. if you go to a playoff like basketball the money is divided among al ncaa schools. if you go to a bowl you only give some to your conference and keep the rest. ask any school president wich pays more a bcs bowl bid or winning march madness. thats why school presidents at the major conferences will never vote for a playoff.

By nexttime

October 17, 2005 10:21 PM | Link to this

what a Moore-on (either Terence or Dick Bestwick, take your pick). Just look at the articles about the BCS where the student-athletes talk about being left out of the championship picture after busting their butts for months to get where they believe they deserve to be. Who the hell is Dick Bestwick to look that kid in the eye and say, “Sorry, but a bunch of old, if respectable, has-beens decided your season is over without the dream shot you’ve worked all your life for. But here’s some money, now go and have some fun.” It just stinks.

I think it’s safe to say that last year’s Auburn team is less miffed about not having the title of National Champion than they are at not having to chance to play for the Championship. The BCS formula and system failed.

By DawgForLife

October 19, 2005 11:31 AM | Link to this

Well this write makes decent points. BUT I still believ ea playoff is much fairer. Someone mentioned having all conferences play a title game, I’ve said for last few years it was a shame that some didnt have title game because it gave them an unfair advantage in they play one less game. Looks like we should have at least a one plus bowl system in case there are still two undefeated teams left after all the bowls.

By t taylor

October 19, 2005 12:47 PM | Link to this

I hate to say it…because Terrence, I think you get a lot of undo crap thrown your way, but in this instance you couldn’t be more wrong…Your argument is so weak as to be non existant……who cares what 9 and 10 think? Or for that matter 5 and 6? They weren’t close enough to make a difference. At some point there has to be some playoff to make things more fair…you can’t say that it would be the same situation..because as far as the top teram of the year goes when does even coming in a questionable third make a difference? Your argument is stupid!

By t taylor

October 19, 2005 12:54 PM | Link to this

PS- Jeff schultz and Mr. Football suck…………..When is the biggest newspaper in the south going to get some writers that aren’t failing in their attempts to be comedic or intelligent?

By ben

October 20, 2005 03:39 PM | Link to this

If you take the c out of bcs what do you have? Exactly. The bcs is one of the dumbest things that I heard of in my life. If you going to vote on the national champion instead of playing it out on the field what’s the point of even playing any games at all. Hell why not even play the games just have 1 poll every year and randomly chose a champion. That way no one will be happy and everyone will feel equally cheated.

By T-Lud

October 20, 2005 06:17 PM | Link to this

Moore’s article is terrible. And bowl game mystique? Of course! Like that legendary showdown in the glorious and storied Motor City Bowl last year between the majestic Huskies of Connecticut and the Toledo Rockets’ red glare. Come on. The bowl system had mystique back in the 50s when you could count all the bowls on your fingers. Now FIFTY-SIX teams make the “post-season.” It’s the big-boy equivalent of participation trophies in little league.

The BCS is better than how it was before because at least two unbeatens played each other last year. Before the BCS, all three would have played in different bowls against teams with losses.

I’m not advocating changing the whole system. I think we should have one optional extra game after the BCS games are played so that if there are undefeated teams left after the dust settles (like last year) they can settle it on the field. Screw USC’s snub from the title game two years ago. If you have one loss, you can’t whine about not being ranked best of the losers.

The BCS has actually created a plus-one game for next year so that the Nat’l Championship game will be after the bowls. The problem is that the teams that get to play in that game will still be decided after the regular season and not including the bowl games. They made the change only to keep intact the conference tie-ins for corporate sponsors like those for the Rose Bowl. They actually added a 5th BCS game, but it will do nothing to settle potential differences in opinion as to who is in the top two at the end of the season. Great job BCS.

By Steve

October 21, 2005 03:31 PM | Link to this

The only people that really benefit from the current bowl system are the paid executives who run the bowl games. Bowl games weren’t created to provide great postseason matchups, but as exhibition games to promote local tourism, as well as the consumer product brands that sponsor most of them. As long as the bowls think it’s more important to get student-athletes to make a vacation out of their bowl appearance, we’ll never have a playoff.