Mike Sorensen: College football can be improved

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • byu-utah
    Sept. 16, 2009 8:35 a.m.

    give the mtn west an automatic bid to the national championship game every year.

    that would please all of the state of utah. does anyone else care about watching the postseason or is it just the 1 million people that live in utah?

  • Better rule
    Sept. 16, 2009 8:33 a.m.

    1. Get rid of all bowl games not to 25
    2. NO games against lower division
    a. this also means FCS to NOT play DII
    3. GET PLAYOFFS, it has worked in FCS since 1978...so I can see why they say it couldn't work in FBS. ???

  • RE: BCS Tweak
    Sept. 15, 2009 3:59 a.m.

    You wrote: "two undefeated BCS teams AND Utah"

    Utah isn't going to make it past Oregon. They are mad and are going to end your dreams this weekend.

  • wet
    Sept. 14, 2009 10:27 p.m.

    The only suggestion not really well thought out is the reduction in scholarships concept. First, the very people who are controlling the BCS mess would control the number of scholarships. Next, even if, by some unforeseeable circumstance, that the number is reduced, they would all go to women sports.

  • Basking in 4 NCs
    Sept. 14, 2009 10:11 p.m.

    and odds on favorite to be playing for number 5 this season. Thats enjoying the past and present!

    Hookem Horns!!!!!

  • Living in the Past...
    Sept. 14, 2009 9:59 p.m.

    "Winter must be cold for those with no warm memories."

    BYU fans can enjoy living in the past because BYU football has a past worth remembering--and we're celebrating our Silver Anniversary of the pinacle of that past, this season.

    The only reason our little brothers are constantly criticizing BYU fans for living in the past is because Utah football fans don't have a past worth remembering.

    Fortunately, BYU fans can also enjoy living in the present!

  • You can tell Dick is a zoob
    Sept. 14, 2009 9:12 p.m.

    He's still living in the past.

    Personally, I would prefer to the see the Utes and cougars play each other the 1st game of the season. This way, we won't have to compete for air time during "Rivalry Week", and it'll give the loser in that game a whole season to work their way back back up the polls, and get a better bowl game.

    I love the relegation idea too.

  • ChrisB
    Sept. 14, 2009 7:26 p.m.

    I hear writers complain about too many bowls and complain about 6-6 teams getting into bowls, but why? It doesn't hurt the game. You just don't want to watch those games. You just don't want to go to those games. Well, fine. Don't watch. By all means, don't go. But you not being interested in the lower-tier bowls is hardly a justification for enacting a rule to get rid of them. It won't "help" college football to get rid of them, just as they don't hurt college football now. Get over it. Don't watch, don't go, and please stop whining about them.

  • Get Rid Of
    Sept. 14, 2009 5:59 p.m.

    Time to just get rid of sports altogether. Then there will be peace on earth and good will toward all men. Utes, Cougars, and Aggies can all lay down together without any ire.
    They could have chess tournaments to determine the best college in Utah.

  • BCS Tweak?
    Sept. 14, 2009 5:50 p.m.

    This suggestion would have worked last year, but does nothing to prevent MANY more possibilities from happening in the future. What if we have two undefeated BCS teams AND Utah? Then it gets tossed out as a broken system.

  • Another writer
    Sept. 14, 2009 3:48 p.m.

    Another stupid list of ideas. These writers are brilliant. just one of the many problems with his "suggestions". If big teams only played 1 smaller conference team every 2 years by rule, then what is to stop the BCS teams from implementing a rule saying they could only play one non BCS team every 2 years. Also, many of these smaller schools survive on the big guarantee they get from playing these games they are going to lose. Eliminate those games and you'd eliminate some programs, but I guess it's okay to look down your nose at the smaller programs when you aren't one of them, right? You can't have it both ways. Gotta love writers, that is why they are writers.

  • re: UteFan
    Sept. 14, 2009 3:24 p.m.

    someday, maybe, you'll grow up a become a real Utah Man; not likely, but, anything's possible.

    Max Hall will finish much closer to winning the Heisman Trophy than Brian Johnson ever dreamed of.

  • UteFan
    Sept. 14, 2009 3:05 p.m.

    has anyway noticed that Maxy looks like a little boy that had his toys taken away by a bully? He always looked scared. Now Brian Johnson, hes a real QB. Nothing but confidence in his eyes. No wnder he has been to a BCS game and Maxy has not. Ohhh... sorry Maxy, did I make you cry?

  • BCS expansion or elimination
    Sept. 14, 2009 2:33 p.m.

    The BCS is all about $$$, so the BCS is not about to kick one of the population/media heavy east coast conferences (ACC and/or Big East) out of AQ status.

    WHEN (not if) the MWC qualifies to become an AQ conference (in 2012), the BCS will expand to 5 bowl games plus the championship game by adding the Cotton Bowl to the mix of Orange, Sugar, Fiesta and Rose Bowls.



    That's the ONLY way of determining an undisputed National Champion.

    11 conference champions + 5 at-large teams

    seeded by a committee like the NCAA basketball tournament

    1st round played the 1st Saturday after Christmas at the home of the higher seeded teams

    Quarter-finals played the next Saturday in the Orange, Sugar, Fiesta and Rose Bowls

    Semi-finals played the next Saturday (1st or 2nd Saturday in January) in two of the Quarter-final bowls

    Championship played 9 days later on Monday night (2nd or 3rd Monday in January) - in THE SUPER BOWL of college football, maybe in the Dallas Cowboys Stadium


    Other bowl games could still be played, but not on the two Saturdays when they would compete with the playoffs

  • Typical
    Sept. 14, 2009 2:15 p.m.

    BCS conferences have a better idea, in their mind. If it were up to them they would eliminate all teams not currently in the BCS system. They (the BCS boys) have NO, I repeat, NO interest in adding the MWC to the BCS.

    Take a look at BCS in Wikipedia. There's a map there with each BCS school on identified by its location on the map. If you look closely they've covered every major metropolitan area and the the majority of the US population has someone to root for. The only areas withough representation in the BCS are the upper New England and the Upper Midwest (ND & SD) and the northern Rocky Mtn States.

    The BCS is a business. The leftouts (non-BCS) do not have the TV's or the clout to "make" the BCS include them in their game. The argument is a moot point. Until the NCAA mandates a playoff, I guarantee the BCS has no interest splitting the pie more ways (think back to the WAC 16 & the MWC split-off). The BCS business model accounts for most everything the sports advertisers wants. (Sorry, not enough beer drinkers in UT)

  • Re: Relegation
    Sept. 14, 2009 1:33 p.m.

    It doesn't really work like that, since universities almost always belong to conference for different sport, besides just football. So relegating a university for having a bad football team but perhaps the best basketball or baseball team doesn't make sense. However, realigning conferences might affect rivalries like BYU-Utah and Notre Dame would finally be forced to fall in line.

  • I like the direction
    Sept. 14, 2009 1:16 p.m.

    I love all of the ideas. hopefully they can go somewhere.

  • Funny
    Sept. 14, 2009 1:13 p.m.

    The Miami and Fla St comment were classic. You must have been taking a nap for the last several years? No I mean yes :) maybe? Why do you think most fans have been bagging on the big (least) East. The little east is the biggest BCS joke of them all with the ACC close behind!

  • My suggestion again...
    Sept. 14, 2009 1:11 p.m.

    ... add eight teams (to 128) to an even eight-conference league with each conference having two, eight-team divisions. Play four "preseason" games, only one can be FCS teams. Perhaps like the NFL, conferences could be pitted against each other in a rotating schedule. Then a seven-game divisional series to determine divisional champions, meeting in a minor bowl (game 12 of the season) for the conference championship. Conference champions meet in an eight-team, seven-game playoff. This would leave us with 15 bowl games, eight mid-level championship bowls and seven major, playoff bowls.
    If the minor bowls want to survive then they have to have invitational, preseason games. This would give the minor, mostly northern, bowls a chance to host a bowl game when the have better weather, for example, the Humanitarian Bowl could be a Labor Day classic every year. But who wants to travel to Boise in December?
    The conference championships could be set bowls, with the Rose, Fiesta, Cotton, Sugar, Orange, plus two more warm-climate bowls, hosting the playoffs on a rotating basis.

  • BlueBoy
    Sept. 14, 2009 12:19 p.m.

    Schmoopy, LOVE your handle!

    You also have a good point.

    As for "Relegation," it IS coming, in the form of entire conferences being shuffled up and down, but only every four years. It should be either every year or every two years. Four is way too long for a "pretender" conference to automatically get those undue millions each year.

    Last year and this, the MWC is doing what it needs to be come a BCS conference, replacing either the ACC or Big East. Hope they can just keep it up.

  • Andrew
    Sept. 14, 2009 11:21 a.m.

    First, eliminate the BCS all together. Go to an all-inclusive 16 team playoff format. All eleven FBS conference champions get in and five at-large teams. Yes, even the Sun Belt champion. Why? Because the best moments in sports are when the underdog wins against all odds. Miracle on Ice, Villanova, 1969 Mets. All the underdogs who were not supposed to be there according to the "experts". All among the greatest championship moments in sports. By allowing the BCS to regulate who gets to play for a championship, the NCAA is prohibiting arguably the best brand of football from ever having one of the greatest championship moments in sports.

  • college fan
    Sept. 14, 2009 10:33 a.m.

    I haven't thought about the rest of the column, but your first idea is bad. That's the funnest part about the college football season is that it adds championship excitement even in the first weeks of the season. As opposed to the pros where, regular season losses aren't as detrimental to championship hopes as they are in college. So a college football fan who recognizes this shouldn't care when conference games are played. Although teams with no shot at a national championship often claim that there number one goal is a conference championship, for teams with national championship aspirations a non-conference game is no less important than a non-conference game

  • Ekim
    Sept. 14, 2009 10:22 a.m.

    Loved the "Relegation" idea. But it won't be adopted because it clearly makes sense.

  • Ernest T. Bass
    Sept. 14, 2009 9:51 a.m.

    I think another great idea would be to make the switch to flag football. There are just too many injuries in this sport and the violent hits scare me. I shreiked and felt out of my chair when a BYU player upended that Tulane player. And if this idea had been implemented in the pros going way back do you know what that would mean? Merlin Olsen could still be playing today.

  • Dick
    Sept. 14, 2009 9:08 a.m.

    Culpa mea.

    Ignore my 8:00am message. I was still back in the day when Florida State and Miami were in different conferences.

  • Wrong, DICK
    Sept. 14, 2009 8:53 a.m.

    Check your own facts. Miami has been in the ACC for several years now, which is another reason the Big Least shouldn't have ab automatic ACC bid. It lost several of its best teams to the ACC. That being said, this year the ACC looks a little weak, too.

  • Re: Dick
    Sept. 14, 2009 8:43 a.m.

    Miami and Florida State play in the ACC.

  • Schmoopy
    Sept. 14, 2009 8:27 a.m.

    You failed to mention what the benefit would be for your point about playing non-conference games before conference games. Aside from the utter impracticality of it (what - Notre Dame, Navy, and Army can only play four games per season? Florida and Florida State have to play their bitter rivalry game before we know how good each team is?), I don't see how it makes things better. Miami and Cincinatti currently have the upper hand in their respective conferences because they won early conference games. Maybe their opponents would have been better had the games been played later in the season, but so what? What's wrong with playing conference games early or non-conference games late?

  • @The plus one idea
    Sept. 14, 2009 8:05 a.m.

    Florida, even with their two cupcake out of conference games, plays a tougher schedule than many other top teams. They have to play Tennessee, Georgia, LSU, South Carolina, and Florida State, among others. Then, they'd have to play another top SEC East team in the championship game.

    Teams from the MWC can't even imagine that kind of schedule. We think we have a "tough" schedule when we play one top name team a year.

  • Dick
    Sept. 14, 2009 8:00 a.m.

    Mike, surely you are aware that Miami and Florida State don't play in the same conference. One plays in the Big East and the other in the ACC. Stating those two teams shouldn't play "key conference" games the first weekend of the year is like saying Utah shouldn't be allowed to play Utah State or Colorado State shouldn't play Colorado on opening weekend. Perhaps we should outlaw New Mexico from playing New Mexico State, Central Michigan from playing Michigan State, etc. also so that we don't have conference games early in the season!

  • Relegation
    Sept. 14, 2009 7:57 a.m.

    College football should borrow a concept from soccer's English Premier League (EPL), relegation. Relegation means that at the end of every season, the EPL's bottom 3 teams move down to a lower division and the top 3 teams from the lower division move up to EPL.

    At the end of every college football season, the bottom 3 BCS teams would move to the non-BCS league and the top 3 teams from the non-BCS league would move to the BCS league. This would probably require that the idea of conferences be altered.

  • The plus one idea
    Sept. 13, 2009 11:12 p.m.

    is not bad. 5 bowl games with 2 winners selected from the 5 to play in the NC game. However, easy schedules should not be rewarded in securing the 5 bowl games.

    FL would ease up on the cupcakes if they knew they had to play their way into the NC.

  • Good Ideas for the most part
    Sept. 13, 2009 10:03 p.m.

    but there are too many bowl games in the first place. If the standard was improved to seven games there wouldn't be enough qualified teams so the big thing is to eliminate many of these useless bowl games AND

    employ a 16 team play-off. It would be the most exciting thing in college sports. The conference champs would get automatic bids and along with five at large bids. Now the little guy has a real shot. You can even keep some other bowls for teams that didn't make the play-offs, sort of like a football version of the NIT--give deserving teams a shot. ALSO,

    the college game is too long. NFL games fit right into nice three hour packages. Seldom does a regulation game go over 3 hours and 15 minutes, they pretty much average three hours. Even OT games are shorter than many college games. Rule changes like the NFL regarding boundaries etc. could really speed up the game. Stop the clock for the first down in the last two minutes of the game, otherwise use the NFL rules for timing and reduce the game length.

    At all costs eliminate the BCS!