BCS problems

[WestEnd]

Here's why the BCS sucks. They change the rules every year to make it so that whichever team is the flavor of the month at the end of the season gets a BCS system set up the next year that caters to their specific set of circumstanes from the season where they were the media darling. While far from perfect, the BCS the way it was run last year was pretty good. If you change the rules every damn year, of course people are going to call out the BCS. It gives the impression they have no idea what they are doing. Which is true.

 

[JXC]

I agree...under a few of the rules that they have had...OSU would have been #2 in 1998.

There is still time for the cat to get amongst the pigeons.
Late losses hurt a programs ratings.

What would make the Perfect Storm as the last few games play out? One that suits Auburn to a tee. 'Course Auburn must still get over Tennessee in the SEC title game.

USC loses to Notre Dame (Yeah -like that'll Happen this year - though ND can sometimes rise to the level of their opponent, I just think the climb this time is too high) OR
USC loses to UCLA (well it is an in-state X-town rivalry)

Oklahoma Loses to what Iowa State in the B12 Title Game (Unlikely this will happen - though stranger outcomes permeate the brief history of the Big 12 Title Game)

CAL loses to Southern Miss (not a hope in hell its a re-scheduled powder puff work-out from early in the season -- but this is a perfect storm I'm thinking of) AND

Texas drops the ball against the Aggies on the 26th - boy that would be fun -- 2 big time egg-in-your face losses for the Longhorns -- would Mack Brown really survive even that.

Mmm. Whom Would that then leave Auburn facing? An X-1 team or Urban Meyer's boys.

Change it so CAL wins at Southern Miss (it really is the longest stretch of nay of the above upsets). Then you are left with

Oklahoma with one LATE loss
USC with at least one LATE loss
Texas LATE second loss is merely because it would please me and has no impact.
Depending on the drop USC and Oklahoma would take --

It could definitely set up CAL vs Auburn

How about all of this...plus Auburn losing as well? How about a Utah vs. Bosie State game? If Utah and Bosie state are the only two undefeated teams and Cal and Texas lose...why not?

And what would make this even better...is if this does happen...then our win Saturday kept scUM out of the championship :)

 

[sandgk]

How about all of this...plus Auburn losing as well? How about a Utah vs. Bosie State game? If Utah and Bosie state are the only two undefeated teams and Cal and Texas lose...why not?

And what would make this even better...is if this does happen...then our win Saturday kept scUM out of the championship :)

JohnathanXC
That would be too funny --
Like my dad always told me -- if you are going to dream - dream really big.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Here's why the BCS sucks. They change the rules every year to make it so that whichever team is the flavor of the month at the end of the season gets a BCS system set up the next year that caters to their specific set of circumstanes from the season where they were the media darling. While far from perfect, the BCS the way it was run last year was pretty good. If you change the rules every damn year, of course people are going to call out the BCS. It gives the impression they have no idea what they are doing. Which is true.

Absofuckinglutley correct. It friggin pissed me off watching the BCS selection show last year and the BCS commish - the Big East Pres - gets up and starts making apologies to USC for a failed system... You know what? Fuck USC. The whole point is that pollsters can't get it right... we had a 3 way tie at the top, and the tie was broken using the system. Apologize? Motherfucker, you say "This is what the system is designed to do" and rave about how great it is, not go in to apolgetics. What last year's system would have "taught" was - hey, if you want to play for all the marbles, don't load up on cream-puffs. Now, I'm not saying USC intentionally loaded up on creampuffs, but the fact is, LSU and OU played harder schedules and deserved it more. Last year, anyway.

You make a system to get rid of poll voter influence and in less than 7 years you go back to the friggin pollsters. Absurd. Hell, if they wanted to fix the OU not deserving it because they didn't win their conf. problem, all they had to do was write a rule that says, "To play for the NC, you have to have won your conference" Would have called it the Big XII rule - remember Nebby in 01? They already had the so called Big East Rule (Syracuse winning a BCS bid with 4 losses in 98 or 99 and being ranked low)

 

[MightbeaBuck]

The scariest thing is BC gets an automatic bid. If they wouldn't have taken SOS out of the system then I doubt this would happen.

That isn't the reason for the automatic bid. They get it because they are the conference champions. Even if somehow they had an overall losing record, as long as they were/are conference champs they get in a BCS bowl (though its very unlikely that something like this could happen.)
The BCS series contract was with the six - at the time - most powerful conferences combining their bowls, with Notre Dame thrown a bone also. These six always have to have someone in, as part of the contract.

 

[Saw31]

OK, I only read the first page, so forgive me if this has been mentioned.

Why does anyone here think that the Bowls, the BCS, or college football is about giving us a true champion? It's never been about that. It's about promoting the Universities and the Cities where the Bowls are played. The less college football resembles the NFL, the more I like it. All this scrambling to make some sort of 117 team NFL-esque system is, IMO, wrong for the college game. College athletics is about giving the young men and women who play them, a unique life-experience that will add to their growth and education. I for one have no problem with this so-called controversy.

I enjoy college football because it is essentially the same game that my grandfather watched decades ago. You fight all year to go to the Rose Bowl, kick the crap out of the latest Pac Ten pretender , and if the vote doesn't go your way, oh well. That doesn't mean you didn't have a great year. Once you start saying that winning a playoff is the goal of your season, you change what college football has been since long before any of us have been around. Playoffs didn't make college football so appealing, a meaningful regular season with the opportunity to go to a Bowl game is what made college football great. Change the essence of what the game is about, and you change the game. I think a lot of people don't fully understand the ramifications of changing the very foundations on which the college game has been built.

In short, playoffs suck.

 

[TallIndian]

8 or 16 team play off ... I can live with either .....

I think there are times that a Hot no 16 could beat a slumping #1
The problem there is there is no reward for being undefeated ...
When a two loss team puts it all together ... and wins out.
I like the 8 team format better.
Use the conference championships as the last 8 games of the 16 ....

8 teams from after the conferance championships.

A few years ago a French advertising company set this up and guarenteed millions of dollars ... but no one wanted a foreign company to put together the US college chamionship series ......

The Time has come .....

TI

 

[JXC]

I always felt that winning all your games was more important than #1. For instance...I think being #1 last year wasn't that big of a deal...cuz you lost a freakin game. If OSU would have gone to the Rose Bowl instead in 2002 and been 14-0 that way...I would have been satisfied. (Not saying I didn't like playing Miami and proving we were outright #1), but i'm just saying that the BCS didn't really make things better...it just made them different, and sometimes worse. OSU being 14-0 thru the BCS, or being 14-0 thru the Rose Bowl to me would have been about the same. I wouldn't care if we split a poll or not. I know I like to rag on scUM fans about 1997 and them having to split the NC...but in all honesty they did exactly what they wanted to. They won all their games and the Rose Bowl. The plus to the BCS was that we got to play Miami and show that we were #1 along with being undefeated. The minus was that we missed out on a Rose Bowl. I guess I just feel like beating scUM and going to the Rose Bowl is the ultimate goal. It was just weird having the dream season without a Rose Bowl.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

...I think there are times that a Hot no 16 could beat a slumping #1
The problem there is there is no reward for being undefeated ...
When a two loss team puts it all together ... and wins out.
I like the 8 team format better.
Use the conference championships as the last 8 games of the 16 ....

TI

Got to have a 16-team format, since all the other divisions do. There was once or twice that YSU was ranked lower than #8 in the final regular season polls yet ended up winning the national title, so sometimes deserving teams aren't necessarily ranked as high as they should've been.

 

[ScarletArrow]

16 team format means more games.

more games = more money for NCAA.

If a playoff ever occurs - it will be a 16 team playoff.