If College Basketball had a BCS type system

[Blue Hen]

This great Florida team would not even have had any opportunity to win back to back national championships. In 06, UConn and Duke would have been 'elected' directly to the national champ game by the 'opinion' polls, and in 07, Ohio State and Kansas would have been appointed directly to the national championship game.........no Florida allowed.
I realize that most everybody knows this ,but every time there is a 'real' sports championship completed I get to thinking about our favorite sport and why it has to settle for such 'mythical' $hit and an exhibition post season rather than a championship post season.

[jeff4bucks]

we know how you feel Hen. However, there is no perfect system. The BCS does try to get the best teams to play for the title. In D1A college football, every game counts. In a playoff system, if you qualify, you basically get a 'fresh start', even if you lose some games.
again, there is no perfect system...

[H.I.]

florida didn't finish the regular season #1 in the polls, but the ncaa committee granted them the #1 overall seed. which would be like getting the #1 spot in the BCS Championship Game but finishing the year ranked outside of the top two. So more than likely they would've still played for the title this year in a BCS type scenario. the only difference is they would've played UNC instead of OSU. but i get your point. playing it out of the field no matter how many times the refs allowed OSU to advance in this particular NCAA Tournament is much better than anointing a team that plays 8 home games and smacks around inferior competition 9-10 times a season.

[EvilVodka]

we know how you feel Hen. However, there is no perfect system. The BCS does try to get the best teams to play for the title. In D1A college football, every game counts. In a playoff system, if you qualify, you basically get a 'fresh start', even if you lose some games.
again, there is no perfect system...

Alot of people cite March Madness as a great idea...its a bloated oversized mess of a tournament, which pretty much makes the regular season meaningless

Just my opinion, but basketball is a sport where any team can have a great night and beat a much more skilled team...thats why the NBA plays a 7 game series each round in the playoffs....its also why you have so many Cinderellas in NCAA basketball...

If the NCAA tourney cut the fat out by reducing # of teams, and made at least a 3 game series in each round, I think you'd have a much more competitive tourney where the best teams really would rise to the top

...of course, I don't know if it would be as exciting

[Bucky]

This great Florida team would not even have had any opportunity to win back to back national championships. In 06, UConn and Duke would have been 'elected' directly to the national champ game by the 'opinion' polls, and in 07, Ohio State and Kansas would have been appointed directly to the national championship game.........no Florida allowed.
I realize that most everybody knows this ,but every time there is a 'real' sports championship completed I get to thinking about our favorite sport and why it has to settle for such 'mythical' $hit and an exhibition post season rather than a championship post season.

So Men's College Basketball features the top four teams each year at the final four?

You can't have it both ways.

[Blue Hen]

I don't think so, H.I

If college basketball was run by a renegade cartel, like the BCS, there would be no NCAA seeding committee to get Florida directly to the champ game. The opinion polls and computer geeks would decide the two finalists, and based on the final opinion polls, UConn vs Duke in 06, Kansas vs OSU in 07.....no Florida. Thank goodness this idiotic system is confined to Bowl Division college football and hasn't infected any other team sport, world wide.

Yes, 'playing' your way into a champ game is far superior than getting 'voted' directly into a champ game.

[Blue Hen]

What exactly is a 'top four' team, Bucky ?

Do you mean the 4 best teams ?. That's an abstract concept and impossible to prove. ...a waste of time even referring to a 'best 4'.

or, do you mean 'top four' as rated by some opinion system ? ....that would be pure 'mythicalness' ...no 'real' value.

[Blue Hen]

Oregon State is the D1 NCAA national baseball champion. That team wouldn't have been given a chance either if Collge Baseball chose the 'pretend' system ( BCS style). Rice and Clemson, the opinionated two best would have been appointed directly to the national championship game.

'Playing' is better than 'voting' when it comes to sports championships. Only one single team sport on planet Earth prefers 'voting'.

[H.I.]

Alot of people cite March Madness as a great idea...its a bloated oversized mess of a tournament, which pretty much makes the regular season meaningless

whatever. 11 of the 16 teams the finished the season in the top 16 in the final regular season AP poll made the Sweet 16. 8 of the top 10 advanced to the Sweet 16. 14 out of the top 25 made the Sweet 16. with vanderbilt and usc coming in at 26 and 31, respectively.

also, so what if you can't win a game vs. a supposed "inferior" team. that's something the so-called "best" teams should be able to do. UCONN was the best team last season, but do they really deserve a pass to the national championship game when they can't beat a mid-major like george mason? i don't think so. what makes the regular season meaningless are football games like tOSU vs. Michigan this past season - when we have to hear the talking heads of college football talk about what a great game we just witness between the two best teams in college football. when anybody with two eyes saw a sorry game that tOSU dominated for almost 4 qts. the same way tOSU got dominated by UF a few months later.

[CJHawkeyes]

Alot of people cite March Madness as a great idea...its a bloated oversized mess of a tournament, which pretty much makes the regular season meaningless

Just my opinion, but basketball is a sport where any team can have a great night and beat a much more skilled team...thats why the NBA plays a 7 game series each round in the playoffs....its also why you have so many Cinderellas in NCAA basketball...

If the NCAA tourney cut the fat out by reducing # of teams, and made at least a 3 game series in each round, I think you'd have a much more competitive tourney where the best teams really would rise to the top

...of course, I don't know if it would be as exciting

As I mentioned in another thread, CBB's regular season is not diminished by the existence of a 64 team playoff but rather by the manner in which its participants are determined and seeded and the lack a greater reward for high seeds. If, for example, there were a 320 team league divided into 32 ten team conferences and each conference played 36 games and the top two teams in each conference advanced to the playoffs, making the playoffs under this setup would be more difficult for all involved. I'm not proposing this setup nor do I think it is realistic. I'm just demonstrating the the regular season could have more value without changing the size of the playoff. As such, the playoff isn't responsible for CBB's diminished regular season and pointing to it as a argument against a larger playoff in college football is invalid. As things stand, the best players can just keep picking BCS schools because they make the tournament just by finishing in the top five or six of their conference. Not much of challenge compared to the hypothetical league I mentioned. But of course, BCS schools and many of their fans would not stand for that. After all, brand names deserve more than half of the playoff berths simply because they are brand names.

[Don]

As I mentioned in another thread, CBB's regular season is not diminished by the existence of a 64 team playoff but rather by the manner in which its participants are determined and seeded and the lack a greater reward for high seeds. If, for example, there were a 320 team league divided into 32 ten team conferences and each conference played 36 games and the top two teams in each conference advanced to the playoffs, making the playoffs under this setup would be more difficult for all involved.

This still has an underlying assumption that defeats the purpose. The assumption is that in these 32 leagues, the team talent is universally distributed and thus by taking the top 2 from each leagues assembles the best 64 teams. The talent isn't evenly distributed throughout all leagues now so your method is no improvement.

[EvilVodka]

what makes the regular season meaningless are football games like tOSU vs. Michigan this past season - when we have to hear the talking heads of college football talk about what a great game we just witness between the two best teams in college football. when anybody with two eyes saw a sorry game that tOSU dominated for almost 4 qts. the same way tOSU got dominated by UF a few months later.

IMO, that game wasn't meaningless...it was basically a playoff game during the regular season...the winner was assured a spot in the National Championship, and the rivalry between these schools is one of the best in college football...

Florida won ugly all year and had a loss...they certainly didn't "look" better than these teams, so I think its fair for the media to have the pre-game hype it did between Ohio St-Michigan

[CJHawkeyes]

This still has an underlying assumption that defeats the purpose. The assumption is that in these 32 leagues, the team talent is universally distributed and thus by taking the top 2 from each leagues assembles the best 64 teams. The talent isn't evenly distributed throughout all leagues now so your method is no improvement.

I make no such assumption. Furthermore, whether or not talent is evenly distributed is irrelevant. The purpose of competition is simply to determine a winner. Even if I stipulated that all ten teams in conference A are more talented than all ten teams in conference Z, conference A teams are not entitled to more for that reason. Nowhere but in college sports do fans think being more talented entitles them to a higher ranking. Talent is a tool acquired to better a team's chances of achieving the level of success required by a competition's rules in order to win it. An 18-12 Stanford is not entitled to a tournament berth over a 26-7 mid-major no matter how much more talent they possess. That said, my hypothetical league was just one example of making the regular season more meaningful without reducing the size of the playoff. I also gave an another example of improving the importance of the regular season while still allowing all conferences access to 34 at-large berths. Again, my only point is that CBB's diminished regular season is not due to the existence of a playoff and arguing that it is in order to claim that a playoff would do the same to college football's regular season is false.

[Don]

I make no such assumption. Furthermore, whether or not talent is evenly distributed is irrelevant. The purpose of competition is simply to determine a winner. Even if I stipulated that all ten teams in conference A are more talented than all ten teams in conference Z, conference A teams are not entitled to more for that reason. Nowhere but in college sports do fans think being more talented entitles them to a higher ranking. Talent is a tool acquired to better a team's chances of achieving the level of success required by a competition's rules in order to win it. An 18-12 Stanford is not entitled to a tournament berth over a 26-7 mid-major no matter how much more talent they possess. That said, my hypothetical league was just one example of making the regular season more meaningful without reducing the size of the playoff. I also gave an another example of improving the importance of the regular season while still allowing all conferences access to 34 at-large berths. Again, my only point is that CBB's diminished regular season is not due to the existence of a playoff and arguing that it is in order to claim that a playoff would do the same to college football's regular season is false.

Your system is FAIR only if you have a 320 team playoff. To SELECT x (where x is less than 320) teams from the 320 team field WITHOUT regard to scheduling to TOTALLY UNFAIR. One CANNOT compare an 18-12 team to a 26-7 team without considering scheduling. IF you think that you can then don't bother with a tournament just annoint the 26-7 team as the better and go home. The reason for the tournament is because one can't tell from record alone which is the best team.

[CJHawkeyes]

Your system is FAIR only if you have a 320 team playoff. To SELECT x (where x is less than 320) teams from the 320 team field WITHOUT regard to scheduling to TOTALLY UNFAIR. One CANNOT compare an 18-12 team to a 26-7 team without considering scheduling. IF you think that you can then don't bother with a tournament just annoint the 26-7 team as the better and go home. The reason for the tournament is because one can't tell from record alone which is the best team.

Of course, my hypothetical is fair. Again, the purpose of this format is simply to determine a winner of first place in a competition. I don't care who the best team or teams are and neither does any objectively deteremined competition. This isn't to say that you can't favor a format you believe is more likely to qualify the best 64 teams, but being better with respect to any deserved ranking is irrelevant. There may be rules that would place Stanford above a 26-7 mid-major but neither team is entitle to a higher ranking based on being more talented. I imagine most don't think the NBA playoffs will have the best 16 teams with the West being so dominate at this point, but that doesn't make the format in place unfair. Back to my hypothetical, if everyone agreed to this format and recruits know that no matter which they choose, they have to be a top two team in their conference, they can't argue "but we are better than Team A in Conference Z" as if it were relevant.

Ultimately, I'm not pushing this format. It was only an example of increasing the importance of the regular season without reducing the size of the playoff. Under it, every team knows they are competing for one of two playoff berths against nine other teams. In that regard, everyone plays the same schedule. If it so much easier to qualify by competing in a weaker conference, then perhaps the talent would actually go there.

[H.I.]

Of course, my hypothetical is fair. Again, the purpose of this format is simply to determine a winner of first place in a competition. I don't care who the best team or teams are and neither does any objectively deteremined competition. This isn't to say that you can't favor a format you believe is more likely to qualify the best 64 teams, but being better with respect to any deserved ranking is irrelevant. There may be rules that would place Stanford above a 26-7 mid-major but neither team is entitle to a higher ranking based on being more talented. I imagine most don't think the NBA playoffs will have the best 16 teams with the West being so dominate at this point, but that doesn't make the format in place unfair. Back to my hypothetical, if everyone agreed to this format and recruits know that no matter which they choose, they have to be a top two team in their conference, they can't argue "but we are better than Team A in Conference Z" as if it were relevant.

Ultimately, I'm not pushing this format. It was only an example of increasing the importance of the regular season without reducing the size of the playoff. Under it, every team knows they are competing for one of two playoff berths against nine other teams. In that regard, everyone plays the same schedule. If it so much easier to qualify by competing in a weaker conference, then perhaps the talent would actually go there.

exactly. some of these big schools seem to think just because the sign the so-called "elite" recruiting classes that this automatically makes them better than other teams no matter their record. i mean how many times do we here this? if boise state played in the Big 12 they'd be lucky to finish above .500, etc. but when boise beats Big 12 champs Oklahoma, nobody says anything like Oklahoma would finish at best 2nd in the WAC - when that's the reality of what would've happened last year based on the results of the Fiesta Bowl.

[Don]

Suppose to take the 320 team field and divide it up into 32 conferences. 31 of the conferences have 2 teams each and 1 conference has 258 teams each. All 320 teams play 16 conference games to determine the conference champs. Now, we pick the "top 2" from each conference and put them in the 64 team tournament. Now of course the "champs" have been determined objectively, right? The champs were determined on the court so it MUST be fair!

[Bucky]

What exactly is a 'top four' team, Bucky ?

Do you mean the 4 best teams ?. That's an abstract concept and impossible to prove. ...a waste of time even referring to a 'best 4'.

or, do you mean 'top four' as rated by some opinion system ? ....that would be pure 'mythicalness' ...no 'real' value.



OK

Beginning September 8, lets just begin a 119 team playoff to determine the "champion" of college football. Single elimination, no complaining, no BCS, no computers, and according to you, no "real" champion.


What exactly do you people want from college football? What value or happiness do you gain from watching the sport?


You seem like the most unhappy, and biggest critics of the sport.


Please, try to enjoy college football for what it is. If you give it a chance, you might find that for 12 Saturday's in the fall, you can experience the emotion and thrill of genuine sport. The passion, dedication, and enthusiasm that players, fans and coaches have for college football is what makes it, in my opinion, the greatest sport on the planet.



But if you still can't find any joy, be sure to catch ESPN 2, they have plenty of replays of the World Series of Poker TOURNAMENT. Where a true champion is determined every year.

[Blue Hen]

You're so lost, Bucky. I've enjoyed the thrill and emotion of College Football long, long before you ever heard of college football....guaranteed. Some of us prefer 'real' while you prefer pretend and mythical when it comes to sports championships. You know, young Bucky, if you love something, you naturally want it to be the very best it can be, right?????...your kids, sports..whatever. You will comprehend all this in time. CF is great...but it's the only team sport on planet Earth without a legitimate championship....and many of us want that corrected, because we love CF. So, please lighten up in your criticism. These forums are for discussions of CF issues and the lack of a NCAA championship in this sport is probably the # 1 issue.....is it not ?

[CJHawkeyes]

Suppose to take the 320 team field and divide it up into 32 conferences. 31 of the conferences have 2 teams each and 1 conference has 258 teams each. All 320 teams play 16 conference games to determine the conference champs. Now, we pick the "top 2" from each conference and put them in the 64 team tournament. Now of course the "champs" have been determined objectively, right? The champs were determined on the court so it MUST be fair!

What is absurd is that you think the quoted response relates to any argument I have made in this thread. I never claimed the hypothetical format is fair simply because it is objective. My claim is that talent distribution has no bearing on its fairness. For starters, talent cannot be quantified. Therefore, there is no way to determine talent distribution. Besides, superior talent has no value outside of the presumption that a more talented team is more likely to beat a less talented team. Greater talent neither guarantees success nor entitles it especially when the purpose of a competition is simply to determine a winner, not identify the most talented team. Again, talent is a tool used to win a competition. Competitions are not won for the purpose of demonstrating superior talent.

Quite obviously, talent is not equally distributed amongst all conferences and divisions in pro sports. Are their formats unfair for that reason? Even if you want to claim greater parity amongst pro sports leagues than a hypothetical 320 team league, so what? How do you determine if there is suffiicent talent distribution throughout a league in order to declare it fair? If a 320 team league using my format started tomorrow, talent distribution would be equal without any players. Once teams go about filling their rosters, when does such a league become unfair?

My original reason for proposing the format was simply to point out that CBB's regular season is not diminished by its postseason but rather by the manner in which its regular season is used to determine participants in its postseason. Therefore using BB's diminished regular season as an argument against a larger playoff in football is without merit. CBB's regular season can have greater value while retaining the same number of playoff teams. Another example (and this is just an example) would be if teams were ranked according to my ranking system and the top 34 at-large teams plus 31 auto qualifiers made it and homecourt advantage were awarded to high seeds throughout the tournament and there was no fixed bracket guaranteeing that highest surviving seed plays the lowest in each round. Under this format, there is less room for error for BCS schools with respect to qualifying and seeding and with homecourt advantage at stake for every playoff game, the difference between any two places becomes significantly greater than what currently exists. Again, my point is only that CBB's regular season is not diminshed becasue the sport has a 64 team playoff. Regardless of reasons for this example not being practical, it clearly enhances the regular season's importance without reducing the playoff field.

[Don]

My claim is that talent distribution has no bearing on its fairness. For starters, talent cannot be quantified. Therefore, there is no way to determine talent distribution.

Talent distribution has a lot to do with fairness!! The purpose of competition is to determine the best team under fair and equitable conditions. That's way rules are established, to try and make the conditions suitable for competition. Talent CAN and IS quantified all the time. Does superior physical talent of the players guarantee victory? No. There are other "talents" involved such as mental talent of the players as well as the coaching talent. All of which have a bearing on the outcome.

Greater talent neither guarantees success nor entitles it especially when the purpose of a competition is simply to determine a winner, not identify the most talented team. Again, talent is a tool used to win a competition. Competitions are not won for the purpose of demonstrating superior talent.

NO, the purpose is not JUST to determine a winner. It is to determine the winner under fair competition. If UF was forced to play the championship game blindfolded and OSU was allowed to play without any handicaps do you think their championship would be worth much?

There are only two choices for a meaningful tournament.

A) Have a tournament in which every team get a shot in which case the regular season is mostly worthless.

B) Have a tournament in which only a select number of teams gets invited in which case the regular season does matter INCLUDING WHO each team played as well as record. Play a more difficult schedule and get HIGHER consideration.

[CJHawkeyes]

Talent distribution has a lot to do with fairness!! The purpose of competition is to determine the best team under fair and equitable conditions. That's way rules are established, to try and make the conditions suitable for competition. Talent CAN and IS quantified all the time. Does superior physical talent of the players guarantee victory? No. There are other "talents" involved such as mental talent of the players as well as the coaching talent. All of which have a bearing on the outcome.



NO, the purpose is not JUST to determine a winner. It is to determine the winner under fair competition. If UF was forced to play the championship game blindfolded and OSU was allowed to play without any handicaps do you think their championship would be worth much?

There are only two choices for a meaningful tournament.

A) Have a tournament in which every team get a shot in which case the regular season is mostly worthless.

B) Have a tournament in which only a select number of teams gets invited in which case the regular season does matter INCLUDING WHO each team played as well as record. Play a more difficult schedule and get HIGHER consideration.

I'm sorry, but the purpose of competition is simply to determine a winner. It is not to determine the best team. Of course, you can adopt a format that you believe favors talent, but equal talent distribution is not required to guarantee fairness. Again talent is not evenly distributed throughout the pro sports leagues. Are they unfair? In the NBA, it is quite possible that a team in the East will advance to the playoffs whereas a team in the West does not despite the latter being more talented and playing a more difficult schedule. Furthermore, your blindfold analogy has nothing whatsoever to do with talent distribution or the fairness of my hypothetical format. If I sponsored a 320 team basketball competition in which a lottery was held to place teams into 32 10-team conferences, each conference played a round robin schedule (9 games) and the top 2 advanced to the playoff round, there would be nothing unfair about it. Under this format, all teams are equally subject to the advantages or disadvantages of talent distribution. By your assertion, the World Cup competition is unfair. Quite obviously, the best teams are evenly distributed throughout the various competing regions. I seriously doubt the best 32 teams eventually qualify for the World Cup. Is it unfair?

[H.I.]

I'm sorry, but the purpose of competition is simply to determine a winner. It is not to determine the best team.

exactly. that's the reason why the argument that no mid-major or non-BCS school will never win the national championship, hence they don't belong is a stupid argument. the point is they have just as much right to ruin the "big boys" season as another "big boy."

just imagine if boise state matched up with ohio state in the first round of a 8 team tournament this past season and beat the buckeyes. who cares if they go on the next week an get pasted by usc by 40. they earned that right. just like george mason earn the right to get thumped by uf by ending michigan state's, unc's, and #1 uconn's season last year in basketball.

[Don]

just imagine if boise state matched up with ohio state in the first round of a 8 team tournament this past season and beat the buckeyes. who cares if they go on the next week an get pasted by usc by 40. they earned that right. just like george mason earn the right to get thumped by uf by ending michigan state's, unc's, and #1 uconn's season last year in basketball.

That's right. They earned it by beating good teams. The problem is IF the tournament started at the final 4 instead of with 64 teams then George Mason WOULDN'T have earned the right to be there. IF GW wanted to earn the right to be in the final 4 then they would have to beat michigan state, unc, and uconn DURING THE REGULAR SEASON!!!!


The point is they MUST EARN IT.

IF there is ever going to be a playoff in football it WILL NOT have 64 teams. Therefore teams MUST BEAT SOMEONE OF CONSEQUENCE IN THE REGULAR SEASON!!!!! Something that Boise St. HASN'T DONE YET!!!!

Boise St has been in D1A since 1996. There are 111 D1a teams that have been playing for that entire span. Of the 110 other teams, only Toledo has played fewer top 20 ranked teams during the regular season than BSU. BSU has played only 5 top 20 ranked teams during the regular season over the past 11 years and haven't beaten a single one. How many teams have played at least twice as many top 20 teams as BSU has over that span?

96 teams!!!

There are 56 teams that have played at least 5 times as many as BSU.

The most is 46 ranked opponents (over 9 times as many as BSU).

[Blue Hen]

C'mon Don. You make it sound like a Boise State can just call up the B10 or B12 and announce that it is going to join the conference.........or that BSU can pick up the phone and schedule Home & Home games with Tennessee, Michigan or Texas anytime it wants.
Realistically, the wealthy 'name brand' programs have lots of scheduling options and the perceived 'mids' from the non priviledged BCS leagues do not...therefore, your 'who'd you beat' complaint has no merit. The two class system is just not a fair system......in championship opportunities, scheduling, recruiting, revenue ...or about anything else.

[EvilVodka]

Realistically, the wealthy 'name brand' programs have lots of scheduling options and the perceived 'mids' from the non privilidged BCS leagues do not...therefore, your 'who'd you beat' complaint has no merit. The two class system is just not a fair system......in championship opportunities, scheduling, recruiting, revenue ...or about anything else.

Boise State did play in the Fiesta Bowl...they wouldn't have had that opportunity pre-BCS

[CJHawkeyes]

That's right. They earned it by beating good teams. The problem is IF the tournament started at the final 4 instead of with 64 teams then George Mason WOULDN'T have earned the right to be there. IF GW wanted to earn the right to be in the final 4 then they would have to beat michigan state, unc, and uconn DURING THE REGULAR SEASON!!!!


The point is they MUST EARN IT.

IF there is ever going to be a playoff in football it WILL NOT have 64 teams. Therefore teams MUST BEAT SOMEONE OF CONSEQUENCE IN THE REGULAR SEASON!!!!! Something that Boise St. HASN'T DONE YET!!!!

Boise St has been in D1A since 1996. There are 111 D1a teams that have been playing for that entire span. Of the 110 other teams, only Toledo has played fewer top 20 ranked teams during the regular season than BSU. BSU has played only 5 top 20 ranked teams during the regular season over the past 11 years and haven't beaten a single one. How many teams have played at least twice as many top 20 teams as BSU has over that span?

96 teams!!!

There are 56 teams that have played at least 5 times as many as BSU.

The most is 46 ranked opponents (over 9 times as many as BSU).

The number of ranked opponents played is a completely misleading argument. BCS schools have created a system that allows them to monopolize the talent pool, guarantees that their best teams play more ranked opponents but face less parity in and out conference, provides no incentive for them to play the best nonBCS teams while demanding that the latter play someone of consequence then pretend they are brave for their schedules while nonBCS schools are cowardly. Boise State's ability to play ranked teams is limited by the BCS. For starters, if Boise State is successful in the WAC, they are likely the conference's only ranked member. How many WAC teams are getting credit for playing a ranked Boise State? That eliminates eight games. As for OOC games, Boise State needs home games too. How many ranked opponents are begging to play on the smurf turf? And since an unbeaten season virtually guarantees a BCS school a title game berth if there are less than three unbeatens, BCS schools have nothing to gain by playing such teams. Under the BCS, any difference between a win over Boise State and the last place WAC team is too insignificant to risk an upset. Certainly, Boise State does manage to play a handful of ranked opponents OOC, but these games are almost always on the road and the BCS simply does not afford Boise State the ability to attract the recruits needed to compete on a consistent basis. Why would anyone choose to play for program that can't win under the system in place if they have another option? Finally, even when a nonBCS school manages to beat a ranked BCS opponent, it seems as if the BCS school's value is diminished by pollsters more than a nonBCS school's value is enhanced.

[Blue Hen]

Very nicely explained, CJH. Keep up the good analysis on this 'two class' system. Some of these guys will eventually 'get' it.