BlueGator

Thu, Nov 18, 2010 : 3:46 a.m.

Wow, am I in the minority here! I fail to see the need for football to try and come up with a playoff system. Any system would have detractors complaining about who got in, who was left on the bubble, the seeding of the combatants, etc. The season is long enough as is. It is a tough, physical game. Virtually every team already has players injured and out for the year.

RudeJude

Wed, Nov 17, 2010 : 10:59 p.m.

I hate to say that I disagree with Emperor Brandon on this one. Computers should never be involved in choosing a champion. "Each game is important and has meaning." Hmm... I don't see how Boise State's 59-0 win over New Mexico State or Auburn's 52-3 thrashing of Louisiana-Monroe are important or have meaning, but I'll take your word for it! Give me a small playoff of conference champions and let the rest play in the bowl games. I don't see why that's so complicated.

Jaxon5

Wed, Nov 17, 2010 : 7:58 p.m.

Ode to Theo The proclaimed King may accentuate the destruction of a once-proud BCS program if he loses about 6 or 7 Big 10 games next year in the expanded conference. Wisconsin rocks. ( So does Nebraska!)

Dwayne

Wed, Nov 17, 2010 : 5:52 p.m.

The funny think about this story is that I heard a national radio program late last week quoting Brandon as saying something along the lines of "well, we've actually made money from the BCS the last couple of years". Meaning, that since Michigan hasn't played in any, they didn't have the expenses associated with travel, food, lodging, etc, etc, and because the conference shares the revenue, they made more than they would have made participating. Interesting. At some point though, parity is going to demand a playoff. Eventually, the 'championship' game will be even more meaningless than it already is. Come on, NCAA basketball just expanded from 64 to 68. Even with 64, you had complaints about which teams should have gone to the tournament. Yet, we narrow a 120 team field in football down to two? The question isn't whether a playoff would be better than the ridiculous BCS, the question is whether anyone will ever be able to do anything to change it.

chapmaja

Wed, Nov 17, 2010 : 4:38 p.m.

I like what he has done as the new AD at Michigan, but I think he is way off line on this. The BCS is not good for college football, and the playoffs don't start in week 1. If the playoffs started in week 1 Boise St (who was undefeated last year) would have been national champs as well as Alabama. The fact is the only thing the Bowl System and the BCS is good for is the bottom line of the BCS Conferene schools. Looking at average revenue from last season, Michigan despite not going to a Bowl game collected in the vacinity of 2 million dolars from the BCS (Big Ten got 22 million and after expenses it is cut 11 ways IIRC). Of course the BCS system is good, it puts a large sum of money into the account Mr. Brandon has to work with. If you ask the MWC and the WAC, both conferences that sent schools to the BCS games last year, they might not agree. They depsite having two teams in games, made a total of 17.6 million (MWC 9.8 WAC 7.8). The other conferences split small portions of money, including the FCS schools (1.8 total for the division), Notre Dame (1.3), Army and Navy 100K. The MAC got 2.1 million and C-USA 2.8. When you add in revenue gained from other non-BCS Bowls and split between the schools, the Bowl system made schools a lot of money. Using the payouts from all the Bowl Games Big Ten schools played in last season, it is a fair estimate that Michigan likely made close to 3 million bucks from the Bowl system for not playing a Bowl game last year. The last time I checked, the bowl payments in the Big Ten were distributed as follows. Each schools payment goes to the Big Ten. The schools portion of expenses for the game are subtracted from the payout and the remaining money is split 11 ways.

cutty240

Wed, Nov 17, 2010 : 2:42 p.m.

I always like a comment from a AD from a BCS School,that has the most to gain from the system.If he was the AD at Boise,or TCU he might have a diiferent view.Thats why the NCAA basketball tourny is so great.If you can play the game,your in.Michigan fans should remember last year that a Non BCS school Utah,came to the Big House and won the game,oh yea almost forgot Appy.State did Coach Carr in.Both those teams could play the game.But your Pizza Man AD doesn't want that to happen to BCS games.Ask Ala.about the butt kicking Utah gave them in the Sugar Bowl 3 years ago.The BCS Old Boys Club does't want that to happen again.

Dwayne

Wed, Nov 17, 2010 : 2:36 p.m.

Of course, the AD of Michigan likes the current system, why wouldn't he? If his program does what it is supposed to do, it's fast tracked into, at least a BCS game, but more than likely, the Championship game. This whole argument about the regular season becoming meaningless with a playoff, I don't get that. Seriously, a 0-10 team is going to a playoff game? Okay, obviously ridiculous, but let's say that we have an 8 or 12 team playoff, how many Big Ten teams would be included? Ohio State, Wisconsin...maybe MSU, probably not Iowa (anymore). And why? Because of their poor performance in the regular season the last few games.

Forever27

Wed, Nov 17, 2010 : 2:34 p.m.

Of course Brandon likes the BCS. It's set up in order to maintain the status quo in the college football power structure. He's a businessman who runs the athletic department as a business. Like it or not, the BCS is good for Michigan's bottom line. Whether it's good for college football is a different issue altogether. That being said, I don't accept the "every game of the season is a playoff" argument. If that's the case than preseason rankings have way more power than they should.

P U MSU

Wed, Nov 17, 2010 : 1:20 p.m.

There is a difference between a system that work and one that is fair. This is a successful system in that it works for major programs. It is a failure of a system in regards to the national championship.