BCS Bashing/SEC Shutout (Merged)

[Sloopy45]

If I have to read another article, or hear another whiny sports reporter bash the BCS ad nauseum, I think I'm gonna puke.

Everyone wants to bitch about how Auburn is getting screwed, but Auburn should've thought of that before they scheduled Louisiana Monroe, The Citadel, and Louisiana Tech. I'm sorry. As deserving as Auburn is (I personally think they'd beat OU or USC in the Orange Bowl), a team with that out of conference slate does NOT deserve one of the top two slots. I don't care how good the SEC is this year. Replace the Citadel with a winnable game from a BCS conference (not even a world beater, just a mid-level team: Michigan State, Missouri, Oregon State, etc.) and you'd have an argument.

What makes my argument even more plausable is that Auburn dropped its first two OOC games against USC and Georgia Tech last year. Maybe they do get picked off this year if they played someone with a pulse and not Louisiana Monroe.

The BCS frickin works! Bottom line. Was it a better system a few years ago when undefeated scUM and Penn State squads didn't even get a shot at a consensus Title? Was it better when you couldn't go to the same Bowl in consecutive years and the one-loss Big Ten Champs Ohio State in '93 gets knocked all the way back to the Holiday Bowl? Heck no.

I can't argue with a single match-up the BCS has come up with since '98. Not a single one. The real problem now is that it took too much away from the computers and put more power in the hands of the Mike Lupicas of the world who don't even watch the games.

 

[Misanthrope]

Everyone wants to bitch about how Auburn is getting screwed, but Auburn should've thought of that before they scheduled Louisiana Monroe, The Citadel, and Louisiana Tech. I'm sorry.

The ONLY reason Auburn is 3rd is because of the preconceptions of the voters before the season. Your argument about their OOC schedule is irrelevant, because if the pollsters had them 1 or 2, they'd be 1 or 2 in the BCS. The voters have them at 3 because they were off the charts before the season, while OU and USC were highly regarded based off last year and spring practice.

What makes my argument even more plausable is that Auburn dropped its first two OOC games against USC and Georgia Tech last year.

Actually, it's irrelevant because it was, say it with me, LAST year.

The BCS frickin works! Bottom line.

Baloney! The BCS only "works" when things fall into place. A system that depends on specific outcomes to "work" doesn't work.

Was it a better system a few years ago when undefeated scUM and Penn State squads didn't even get a shot at a consensus Title? Was it better when you couldn't go to the same Bowl in consecutive years and the one-loss Big Ten Champs Ohio State in '93 gets knocked all the way back to the Holiday Bowl? Heck no.

I agree. The BCS is an improvement on the old system, but that isn't saying much because the old system was no system at all. There exists a workable system that is used everywhere else but DI-A football, figure skating, and gymnastics - it's called a playoff.

 

[tibor75]

the media's take:

If the BCS reaffirms what the media and coaches think, it works.

If it doesn't, it fails.

Great logic.

 

[osugrad21]

Your argument about their OOC schedule is irrelevant, because if the pollsters had them 1 or 2, they'd be 1 or 2 in the BCS. The voters have them at 3 because they were off the charts before the season, while OU and USC were highly regarded based off last year and spring practice.

Couldn't they be at 3 because they played La Monroe, The Citadel, and La Tech? Sure they have been on fire since the start but don't discount those three gimmies

 

[Hubbard]

The ONLY reason Auburn is 3rd is because of the preconceptions of the voters before the season. Your argument about their OOC schedule is irrelevant, because if the pollsters had them 1 or 2, they'd be 1 or 2 in the BCS. The voters have them at 3 because they were off the charts before the season, while OU and USC were highly regarded based off last year and spring practice.

That is no the only reason, Sloopy just gave you another one, because they didn't play anyone OOC. Period. + I agree with him, they have no one ot be mad at but themselves, play someone and then they coulda made an arguement.

Actually, it's irrelevant because it was, say it with me, LAST year.

He was talking about a possible reason Auburn didn't schedule anyone other than the school of the blind to play, not sure what the heck you are talking about.

 

[Alan]

without the bcs you would have:

rose: usc v. mich
fiesta: okla v. cal
sugar: auburn v. va tech
orange: pitt v. texas/utah

 

[dav713]

the media's take:

If the BCS reaffirms what the media and coaches think, it works.

If it doesn't, it fails.

Great logic.

I've been saying this for 3 years. Every year they tweak the BCS to Ensure that the teams the media/coaches wanted last year would have been in the title game with the corrections.

I do like the BCS though over a playoff. This is the first year that there will be a major conference team unbeaten left off the BCS. Bottom line in every other year is If you loose, you have nothing to complain about, just be happy if things fall into place and you make it.

 

[BuckeyeNation27]

without the bcs you would have:

rose: usc v. mich
fiesta: okla v. cal
sugar: auburn v. va tech
orange: pitt v. texas/utah

just because the BCS is better then what they used a few years ago doesnt mean it works.

 

[Misanthrope]

Couldn't they be at 3 because they played La Monroe, The Citadel, and La Tech? Sure they have been on fire since the start but don't discount those three gimmies

Nope.

Auburn opened the season at 74 in one poll, 80 in another. OU and USC were in the top 5. Despite their OOC schedule, Auburn moved as far as they could move - to number 3.

 

[Sloopy45]

Misanthrope: "Actually, it's irrelevant because it was, say it with me, LAST year."

You're missing my point. I didn't say that last year has any relevance on this year. My point is that how do I know that Auburn doesn't drop another early season match-up against a good or half-way decent team this year, when they did just that a year ago? Maybe this year they're just as vulnerable as last year but have Disco Tech on their schedule instead of USC. My point is they haven't proven squat outside of the SEC and therefore don't deserve the bid if there are two other undefeated teams.

"Baloney! The BCS only "works" when things fall into place. A system that depends on specific outcomes to "work" doesn't work."

No. Actually, the BCS only doesn't work when there's no undefeated team (like last year). And even then it worked. The bottom line for me is this: a one loss team can never EVER bitch about "getting screwed." So the fact that USC didn't get to play in the Sugar Bowl last January doesn't make me shed tears. As soon as you lose a game in CFB, you have instantly taken away any argument you have for entitlement, and are completely at the mercy of non-football factors. And that goes for every single team in America.

"There exists a workable system that is used everywhere else but DI-A football, figure skating, and gymnastics - it's called a playoff."

Well then, if a playoff is what you want, then go watch D-1AA games. Start following hockey. Go watch any and every other sport that is so damn good in your eyes and this one sucks so much because there's no playoff. How did you ever become a college football fan? Was there ever a playoff that enamored you to CFB at a young age and then was whisked away? Nope. I don't know how a guy like you could ever be a fan of such a horrible sport with no playoff.

 

[Sdgobucks]

When there is no or very little strength of schedule you will see more teams like the "Citadel" and "Middle Nebraska State" on the slate. That is just a fact, when you don't punish teams for having a weak schedule, they will play one. Don't tell me strength of schedule is included in the BCS formula, if it was Utah would not be ranked #6.

 

[Misanthrope]

That is no the only reason, Sloopy just gave you another one, because they didn't play anyone OOC. Period. + I agree with him, they have no one ot be mad at but themselves, play someone and then they coulda made an arguement.

You can agree with him all you like, but the evidence doesn't support the argument. Auburn opened the year at 74 in one poll, 80 in another. USC and OU were in the top 5. Auburn moved as high as they could - 3rd - so the only way the OOC argument flies is if you believe the voters would've leapfrogged AU over OU or USC because of their schedule. History shows the voters don't work that way. If you're #1 at the start, and win, you'll stay there. Auburn had no chance, due to the system.

He was talking about a possible reason Auburn didn't schedule anyone other than the school of the blind to play, not sure what the heck you are talking about.

I'll explain it to you. The pollsters aren't basing their votes this year based on Auburn's schedule, this year or last year. Again, the Tigers have moved the maximum, barring a loss by OU or USC. As such, the schedule argument is irrelevant.

 

[osugrad21]

Nope.

Auburn opened the season at 74 in one poll, 80 in another. OU and USC were in the top 5. Despite their OOC schedule, Auburn moved as far as they could move - to number 3.

So even if the polls were started five weeks into the season, Oklahoma and USC would still be ranked higher and Auburn would still have those 3 cupcakes on their resume'. That argument is out the window.

 

[OilerBuck]

The BCS frickin works! Bottom line. Was it a better system a few years ago when undefeated scUM and Penn State squads didn't even get a shot at a consensus *** le? Was it better when you couldn't go to the same Bowl in consecutive years and the one-loss Big Ten Champs Ohio State in '93 gets knocked all the way back to the Holiday Bowl? Heck no.

I can't argue with a single match-up the BCS has come up with since '98. Not a single one. The real problem now is that it took too much away from the computers and put more power in the hands of the Mike Lupicas of the world who don't even watch the games.

The BCS works BETTER than the old system. Just because something works better doesn't mean that it's good. There have been a quite a few "questionable" matchups in the BCS, and I could definately argue a couple of them (some subjectively, some objectively). If an undefeted team from a major conference (I don't consider Big East major) goes undefeted and gets no legitimate shot at the national *** le, this goes down as a bigger blunder than the 1994 Penn State screwing. Obviously Auburn scheduled some cupcakes, but year in and year out, the atmosphere and top to bottom toughness of the SEC makes up for that considering USC and OU only have to show up to about 2 or 3 games a year to win out.

A few games that I COULD use to argue the point that the BCS could still be vastly improved...

1998 Fiesta: (1) Tennessee 23, (2) Florida State 16
Ohio State starts the season #1 and holds the top spot until a comeback upset against Michigan State that came down to the final play. Florida State started behind us and (as I recall) got throttled by a bad NC State team. Both OSU and F$U ended with a single loss, and the BCS was saved by Tennessee finishing undefeted rather than having several one-loss teams. While my view of this is biased because of my status as an OSU fan, no one can tell me we wouldn't have beaten Tennecheat.

1998 Orange: (8) Florida 31, (15) Syracuse 10
Syracuse had three losses on the year and didn't deserve a BCS game. This is an example of why additional measures need to be put into place to assure quality games.

1999 Rose: (7) Wisconsin 17, (22) Stanford 9
Close game seemed to justify their placement but a three loss, 22nd ranked team should never be in a BCS game.

2000 Orange: (1) Oklahoma 13, (2) Florida State 2
Again, the BCS produces a consensus national champion...but not without controversy. There's no doubt which team is No.1—Oklahoma, which finishes the regular season 12-0. On Bowl Selection Sunday, three once-beaten teams are vying for a spot against the Sooners in the national championship game: Florida State, Miami, and Washington. Miami had beaten Florida State during the regular season, and Washington had beaten Miami. Florida State, however, finishes second in the BCS Standings and earns the right to get their offense shut down in the national *** le game.

2001 Rose: (1) Miami 37, (2) Nebraska 14
BCS lucks out again by a team finishing undefeted. But there is still controversy as Nebraska got beat by Colorado in their season finale. They didn't even PLAY in the conference championship. Not only do they get the bid over the CU team that beat them and went on to win the Big 12 *** le, but they also got the bid over one-loss Oregon, who many thought were more deserving and went on to DESTROY Colorado 38-16 in the Fiesta Bowl.

2002 Sugar: (3) Georgia 26, (14) Florida State 13
FSU has 4 losses and plays in a BCS bowl...give me a break. Give it to a deserving team instead of having MANDATORY ties to conferences. Conference ties are good because they allow a 3 loss team in a tough conference to make it. But when you play in the Big East or the old ACC and lose 3-4 games in a season...you need to be in a bowl that isn't associated with the word "Championship".

2003 Sugar: (2) LSU 21, (1) Oklahoma 14
Chokelahoma loses it last game, isn't even their conference champion (got blasted by K-State) and they remain #1?!?!? There is NO circumstance in which the BCS would've worked with 3 equally deserving one-loss teams. Any team among the three that didn't get a shot at the championship would've been screwed. We could see a similar problem this year, as ALL three undefeted teams deserve a shot.

I think we have to tie the bowls in with a playoff. This playoff should consist of 6-8 teams (if you go with 6, give the top 2 byes). I realize #7 or #9 would complain, but I feel better not giving a lower top 10 team a shot as opposed to a top 5 team.

The key is that we are being lied to. We have what is supposed to be a true national championsip, yet this *** le isn't always earned on the field. If we cannot decide a championship in the trenches, the way the game was designed...then we should abolish the system all together and return to the "Mythical National Champion". Don't call it something that it's not...it is so hard to go undefeted through the season, and many times the best team in the country is left out of the national championship because of this. Every pro sport and nearly every other college sport recoginizes this. A small playoff would guarentee the significance of a regular season, while letting the players decide who is the best...not computers.

As I type, Tennecheat tied Auburn...so the BCS may get lucky again. Let's not fool ourselves...The NCAA doesn't change a system that (in your words) "frickin works", they've continuously recognized that it doesn't...and it will continue to be tweaked REactively, opening other gaping holes in it's logic, allowing another deserving program to be screwed out of a *** le shot.

 

[Misanthrope]

You're missing my point. I didn't say that last year has any relevance on this year. My point is that how do I know that Auburn doesn't drop another early season match-up against a good or half-way decent team this year, when they did just that a year ago?

I didn't miss your point. I just don't believe it is relevant.

Actually, the BCS only doesn't work when there's no undefeated team (like last year).

Thank you for acknowledging my point that the BCS only "works" when the outcomes fall into place. That means, on its own, it does not work, because it depends on a certain outcome.

And even then it worked.

It did? Tell me, who "won" the NC last year? USC or LSU?

...if a playoff is what you want, then go watch D-1AA games. Start following hockey. Go watch any and every other sport that is so damn good in your eyes and this one sucks so much because there's no playoff.

I don't recall ever saying college football "sucks" so only YOU have any idea what the hell that means. Are you on the BCS committee? You're acting like someone who is being attacked personally. All I did was disagree with your argument, and poke a few holes in it. Nothing personal.

How did you ever become a college football fan? Was there ever a playoff that enamored you to CFB at a young age and then was whisked away? Nope. I don't know how a guy like you could ever be a fan of such a horrible sport with no playoff.

Nice rant. It makes no sense but it's a nice rant.

I love college football, which is why I hate this silly system.