PDA

View Full Version : BCS Nightmare


TexanSam
11-26-2007, 12:46 AM
Because I absolutely hate the BCS, I'm hoping for a nightmare scenario where the most amount of teams will cry foul.

I hope Missouri loses to Oklahoma and West Virginia loses to Pitt that way a Georgia team that didn't even win the SEC East, much less the SEC itself, plays Ohio State in the National Championship. I'm sure there would be some sort of huge outcry by multiple teams if this scenario took place, but I doubt it would cause any change in this stupid system. One can always hope though

tulexan
11-26-2007, 12:56 AM
That would actually be crazy and very possible seeing how unimpressive West Virginia has been and just how crazy everything this season has been in general.

Yankee_In_TX
11-26-2007, 08:55 AM
I think Cinci or UConn was your best shot at that...

Yankee_In_TX
11-26-2007, 09:12 AM
BTW, BCS bowl question.

My dad says GA gets the BCS SEC Bowl Bid because they're the highest SEC BCS team. I disagree. Isn't it the SEC champ regardless of BCS ranking?

tulexan
11-26-2007, 09:32 AM
Winner of SEC Championship will get the Sugar Bowl, but UGA will also get a BCS bid

eriadoc
11-26-2007, 11:17 AM
It's kind of an idle hope, because the BCS is already a debacle, but I too hope for the worst. I hate college football with a passion. Until they get a playoff system, I only tune in to root for a BCS collapse (and occasional player scouting). If they ever get a playoff system, I'll tune in.

jaayteetx
11-26-2007, 11:29 AM
I'm pretty sure they instituted a rule that states a team has to win their conference or they are not eligible for the BCS national championship.

tulexan
11-26-2007, 11:31 AM
I'm pretty sure they instituted a rule that states a team has to win their conference or they are not eligible for the BCS national championship.

Then how did Oklahoma play LSU in the National Championship after losing to K State in the Big 12 championship?

powerfuldragon
11-26-2007, 11:47 AM
I hate college football with a passion.

i kinda like this season...

kastofsna
11-26-2007, 12:18 PM
lol, the BCS is made for seasons like this. it's supposed to determine who are the two best teams, and when there are a bunch of contenders, thank god for the BCS so we can know who are the two best. :) love that BCS.<3

and i love that no matter how much everyone complains, they're still going to make a ton of money and they're never changing. ahh. :)

jaayteetx
11-26-2007, 12:24 PM
Then how did Oklahoma play LSU in the National Championship after losing to K State in the Big 12 championship?

They instituted after that year, thats how.

BigBull17
11-26-2007, 12:29 PM
The best scenario for a playoff was averted. Boston College and South Florida would have broke the camels back. As is, Mizzoo and W. Virginia may do that anyway.

jaayteetx
11-26-2007, 12:35 PM
They instituted after that year, thats how.

You know, I've done some research and can't find that rule so maybe they were just talking about it but didn't institute it. If its not a rule, it should be IMO.

kastofsna
11-26-2007, 01:05 PM
yes they never instituted the rule. for good reason. it's possible that a team from a conference that doesn't play a championship could be considered the best team in the country and still not win their conference. let's say in the Big 10, where (for example) Illinois and Ohio State have the two best records. let's assume they don't play each other this year. Ohio State has one early conference loss, and Illinois runs the table in the conference, but lost 3 games out of conference. Illinois is in the Rose Bowl and Ohio State is left out of the championship. not the most likely scenario but it's certainly possible.

Yankee_In_TX
11-26-2007, 01:14 PM
Ironically enough (and maybe this is a completely ESPN generated story) the Big 12 and SEC are complainig about their conference championships.

Hmmmm, greed (I think it is safe to assume these games weren't instituted solely for the glory of the conference!) coming back to bite you?

And don't say NEVER change Kast, just SLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWLY change, lol. Too many contracts and sponsors for anything other than baby steps, in whatever direction the BCS is headed.

CoastalTexan
11-26-2007, 02:46 PM
Every other football division including D1 FCS has Playoffs. It's a couple big wigs who want their teams in the BCS games every year and for the money. Until they have a 16 team playoff who knows who the best team is.

TexansSeminole
11-26-2007, 04:21 PM
lol, the BCS is made for seasons like this. it's supposed to determine who are the two best teams, and when there are a bunch of contenders, thank god for the BCS so we can know who are the two best. :) love that BCS.<3

and i love that no matter how much everyone complains, they're still going to make a ton of money and they're never changing. ahh. :)

Kas I understand your perspective as I have read 3 or 4 posts of yours talking about the BCS as a good system. I just don't understand how WVU can be #2 and Ohio State can be behind them. Honestly, the only reason I see for it is that WVU lost in the beginning of the season and Ohio State lost at the end of the season. That's what seems to determine the #1 and #2 at the end of the season. I just don't think that's how it should be.

YoungTexanFan
11-26-2007, 04:31 PM
Kas I understand your perspective as I have read 3 or 4 posts of yours talking about the BCS as a good system. I just don't understand how WVU can be #2 and Ohio State can be behind them. Honestly, the only reason I see for it is that WVU lost in the beginning of the season and Ohio State lost at the end of the season. That's what seems to determine the #1 and #2 at the end of the season. I just don't think that's how it should be.

Losing late hurts you, Kansas at 11-1 dropped completely out of the national title picture, while 11-1 teams who had an early loss are now ahead of them, not to mention Kansas lost to then #4, now #1.

YoungTexanFan
11-26-2007, 04:34 PM
It's also how Michigan managed to climb back into the rankings until Ohio State. They lost early, to a subdivision school, and then lost the next week as well, but after a fairly solid stretch, they climbed back into the top 25. If this had happened mid-season instead of the first two games, Michigan would never have had a chance to climb. Period.

Overalls
11-26-2007, 04:43 PM
One reason I am glad that Hawaii is still undefeated and that their last win was against a top 20 team is that it points out the hypocrisy of the BCS. The BCS is only set up for a few elitist schools. The little dog never has a chance like in every other major college sport.

Go June Jones and the Rainbow Warriors.

TexansSeminole
11-26-2007, 04:44 PM
Losing late hurts you, Kansas at 11-1 dropped completely out of the national title picture, while 11-1 teams who had an early loss are now ahead of them, not to mention Kansas lost to then #4, now #1.

Exactly. This in itself is enough for a playoff system IMO. It just doesn't make any logical sense. "What have you done for me lately" comes to mind.

TD
11-26-2007, 04:56 PM
Because I absolutely hate the BCS, I'm hoping for a nightmare scenario where the most amount of teams will cry foul.

I hope Missouri loses to Oklahoma and West Virginia loses to Pitt that way a Georgia team that didn't even win the SEC East, much less the SEC itself, plays Ohio State in the National Championship. I'm sure there would be some sort of huge outcry by multiple teams if this scenario took place, but I doubt it would cause any change in this stupid system. One can always hope though

Its funny I spent the better part of Saturday afternoon rooting like hell for Kentucky to beat Tennessee so Georgia could go to the SEC title game and now it actually turns out better for Georgia to NOT be playing for the SEC.

What a system!

kastofsna
11-27-2007, 02:11 AM
Kas I understand your perspective as I have read 3 or 4 posts of yours talking about the BCS as a good system. I just don't understand how WVU can be #2 and Ohio State can be behind them. Honestly, the only reason I see for it is that WVU lost in the beginning of the season and Ohio State lost at the end of the season. That's what seems to determine the #1 and #2 at the end of the season. I just don't think that's how it should be.
just think about it, you'll get more of a pass on you when you lose the games that aren't as "important" game-time early in the season compared to late in the season.

it's like a playoff. it's almost like last man standing.

BTW, the computers themselves don't care at all about when you lose.

bah007
11-27-2007, 02:15 AM
just think about it, you'll get more of a pass on you when you lose the games that aren't as "important" game-time early in the season compared to late in the season.

it's like a playoff. it's almost like last man standing.

BTW, the computers themselves don't care at all about when you lose.

Touche. Only the voters.

Yankee_In_TX
11-27-2007, 12:39 PM
How does this not SCREAM for a playoff - Herbstreet, and most of America, think WV v. Mizzou is crap.

If OSU beats WV in a title game, it's crap.

OSU is "better" off playing USC in the Rose Bowl because it would give us legitimacy (thank God we play USC for the next 2 years so I don't have to listen to "legitimacy" gripes any more).

Sooooo.... In the current system the national title game has no legitimacy? (I mostly agree with that, too - but screw that, I'd rather notch another national title on the bed post than be "legitimate").

eriadoc
11-27-2007, 12:47 PM
Lower levels of college football have playoff systems. College baseball has a playoff system. College basketball has a playoff system. College lacrosse has a playoff system. Hockey at all levels has a playoff system. Professional football, basketball, and baseball have playoff systems. Soccer has a playoff system, for ******** sake. Team sports in the Olympics are decided by a playoff system.

But the BCS is different. They must be right.

beerlover
11-27-2007, 12:58 PM
Lower levels of college football have playoff systems. College baseball has a playoff system. College basketball has a playoff system. College lacrosse has a playoff system. Hockey at all levels has a playoff system. Professional football, basketball, and baseball have playoff systems. Soccer has a playoff system, for ******** sake. Team sports in the Olympics are decided by a playoff system.

But the BCS is different. They must be right.

nice one :sarcasm:

bah007
11-27-2007, 01:12 PM
Lower levels of college football have playoff systems. College baseball has a playoff system. College basketball has a playoff system. College lacrosse has a playoff system. Hockey at all levels has a playoff system. Professional football, basketball, and baseball have playoff systems. Soccer has a playoff system, for ******** sake. Team sports in the Olympics are decided by a playoff system.

But the BCS is different. They must be right.

Maybe they want to be different.

College football is DIFFERENT than pro football and thats why people love it.

I have no problem with the current system other than that the Harris poll should be replaced by the AP poll. Media is biased, but they also watch more games.

eriadoc
11-27-2007, 02:23 PM
Maybe they want to be different.

College football is DIFFERENT than pro football and thats why people love it.

I have no problem with the current system other than that the Harris poll should be replaced by the AP poll. Media is biased, but they also watch more games.

College football is different for a lot of very valid reasons, ranging from the academic component, to rules differences, to a hundred other reasons. The lack of a playoff system is not a good way to be different, if that's what they were aiming for (it wasn't; it's just money). There are good things about college football and its differences - subjectivity in the decision for a champion is not one of them.

4Texans
11-27-2007, 04:42 PM
Isn't all the controversy great though?????????:wild:

TexanSam
12-02-2007, 12:27 AM
My dream/nightmare came true!!

Mr teX
12-02-2007, 08:03 AM
College football is different for a lot of very valid reasons, ranging from the academic component, to rules differences, to a hundred other reasons. The lack of a playoff system is not a good way to be different, if that's what they were aiming for (it wasn't; it's just money). There are good things about college football and its differences - subjectivity in the decision for a champion is not one of them.

Glad someone understands this; & now since 1 & 2 lost again this week, the computers should just about be ready to blow up.

gwallaia
12-02-2007, 09:11 AM
Here is the answer. Of course the seedings will now have to change.

http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/news?slug=dw-playoff112707&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

Yankee_In_TX
12-02-2007, 10:46 AM
My dream/nightmare came true!!

My dream did, too.

Nothing like beating out the Texas Schools at Howl at the Moon to "win" the bar for the night (i.e. we paid more money than the othger schools to have an OSU song played).

Sadly, they didn't have an OSU penant to hang unlike the other schools.

We got booed by random people all night, it was great :)

Specnatz
12-02-2007, 11:00 AM
My dream did, too.

Nothing like beating out the Texas Schools at Howl at the Moon to "win" the bar for the night (i.e. we paid more money than the othger schools to have an OSU song played).

Sadly, they didn't have an OSU penant to hang unlike the other schools.

We got booed by random people all night, it was great :)

I did not realize you could hear me all the way there Yankee I will try and keep it down next time. :specnatz:

Wolf
12-02-2007, 11:06 AM
Colt Brennan threw a 5-yard touchdown pass to Ryan Grice-Mullen with 44 seconds left and No. 11 Hawaii overcame a 21-point deficit to beat Washington 35-28 on Saturday night to finish the regular season 12-0 and virtually assure a BCS berth.



another undefeated

TexansSeminole
12-02-2007, 04:35 PM
another undefeated

Put Hawaii in the championship. You can argue that they played nobody, but they didn't lose to anyone.

BCS is rediculous if they don't put these guys in the championship game. It's not even something I would like to see, it just seems fair, and unfair if they don't.

Wolf
12-02-2007, 04:37 PM
Put Hawaii in the championship. You can argue that they played nobody, but they didn't lose to anyone.

BCS is rediculous if they don't put these guys in the championship game. It's not even something I would like to see, it just seems fair, and unfair if they don't.

exactly, like you said, who's to say if they would or couldn't win.. never know until ncaa 2009 comes out :specnatz:

TexanSam
12-02-2007, 05:15 PM
Put Hawaii in the championship. You can argue that they played nobody, but they didn't lose to anyone.

BCS is rediculous if they don't put these guys in the championship game. It's not even something I would like to see, it just seems fair, and unfair if they don't.

Agreed. Kansas played one of the easiest schedules in the country then lost their first true test. Yet they still made it all the way up to #2 in the country. Why doesn't Hawaii deserve that same chance?

Overalls
12-02-2007, 05:50 PM
Go Rainbow Warriors.

awtysst
12-02-2007, 05:53 PM
Agreed. Kansas played one of the easiest schedules in the country then lost their first true test. Yet they still made it all the way up to #2 in the country. Why doesn't Hawaii deserve that same chance?

To be honest the reason is becuase they are not in a power conference. The BCS is basically put in so that non power conference teams have to play out of their mind to get a BCS invite and Power conference schools like Ohio State or LSU can lose a couple of games and still compete for the Natl championship.

kastofsna
12-02-2007, 05:57 PM
looks like LSU and Ohio State are going to play for the title. i pretty much labeled them the two best teams in the country a month ago. it all works out in the end. :)

Speedy
12-02-2007, 06:22 PM
looks like LSU and Ohio State are going to play for the title. i pretty much labeled them the two best teams in the country a month ago. it all works out in the end. :)

There's 2 teams with 1 loss and 1 team with ZERO losses, and only one of those 3 will play for the title, and it's not the ZERO loss team.

Not to mention the fact that Missouri was ranked #1 before they had to play the EXTRA conference title game, while Ohio State doesn't have to play that EXTRA game and has sat at home for 2 weeks and slides in to the 1 hole.

NOT TO MENTION you've got (10) 2 loss teams and you're going to pass up the undefeated team, one of the 2 one loss teams, and pick ONE of those 10 2 loss teams to play for the title, while the other 9 get left out.

Yeah, that worked out real well.:rolleyes:

DEATH TO THE BCS ALREADY!!!!

gwallaia
12-02-2007, 06:44 PM
The BCS can not work because college football is an unbalanced sport. Most of the top teams play more home games than road games. LSU had 8 home games and 5 road games, if you can count the game in New Orleans against Tulane as a road game. Ohio State had 7 home games and 5 road games.

The top teams always schedule cupcakes to blow-out to pad their stats and impress the computers.

The BCS conferences have a monopoly on the money and bowls. A team like Hawaii will never win a national championship even if they win their next 100 games.

A play-off system seems fair, but the BCS conferences will never permit it. There is just too much for them to lose.

Mr teX
12-02-2007, 06:58 PM
looks like LSU and Ohio State are going to play for the title. i pretty much labeled them the two best teams in the country a month ago. it all works out in the end. :)

:rant:
No it doesn't, a loss is a loss & they should count the same across the board for everyone IMO. I don't care that they play in the toughest conference so thereby their losses count somewhat differently; that's the price you pay for being in a power conference & having a better chance to play for a NC, as opposed to say a Hawaii or boise state. you shouldn't be rewarded for it. plus they lost late in the season & they barely beat a mediocore Tennessee team to win their conference. Plus, Arkansas wasn't ranked when they beat them just last week& they've looked fairly average since beating Va tech earlier this year. How's that any different from Oklahoma losing to Texas Tech? If u learned anything from this year's season, last year's NC game, the boise state game & countless upsets during march madness, it tells u that in college sports anything can happen.

In pro sports, sometimes you hear analysts & coaches talk about teams playing their best ball down the stretch, that's also true of college teams as well. With this system, they cheat fans as well as those teams who might not have gotten off to the best of starts but came together late towards the end of the season. Instead they have ESPN know-it-alls beating their drums (herbstreit & co.) & all these different garbage polls taking the temperature of who everyone else thinks should play & then manipulate this BCS trash to show who they've picked. Teams like Georgia who play in the same conference have the same amount of losses, were ranked higher than LSU before the SEC championship game have been on a roll since losing to tenn in early October. Ditto for Va Tech who also have the same amount of losses & won their conference. Why LSU over these 2 or any other 2 loss team for that matter? :rant:

Wolf
12-02-2007, 07:04 PM
:rant:
No it doesn't, a loss is a loss & they should count the same across the board for everyone IMO. I don't care that they play in the toughest conference so thereby their losses count somewhat differently; that's the price you pay for being in a power conference & having a better chance to play for a NC, as opposed to say a Hawaii or boise state. you shouldn't be rewarded for it. plus they lost late in the season & they barely beat a mediocore Tennessee team to win their conference. Plus, Arkansas wasn't ranked when they beat them just last week& they've looked fairly average since beating Va tech earlier this year. How's that any different from Oklahoma losing to Texas Tech? If u learned anything from this year's season, last year's NC game, the boise state game & countless upsets during march madness, it tells u that in college sports anything can happen.

In pro sports, sometimes you hear analysts & coaches talk about teams playing their best ball down the stretch, that's also true of college teams as well. With this system, they cheat fans as well as those teams who might not have gotten off to the best of starts but came together late towards the end of the season. Instead they have ESPN know-it-alls beating their drums (herbstreit & co.) & all these different garbage polls taking the temperature of who everyone else thinks should play & then manipulate this BCS trash to show who they've picked. Teams like Georgia who play in the same conference have the same amount of losses, were ranked higher than LSU before the SEC championship game have been on a roll since losing to tenn in early October. Ditto for Va Tech who also have the same amount of losses & won their conference. Why LSU over these 2 or any other 2 loss team for that matter? :rant:
I hear ya, but for what the "experts" on tv wanted to see at the beginning of the season, so they made it happen.. I personally wish something could be done, but all I can hope for is low bowl ratings due to this mess and they get a legit playoff (won't happen but I can dream)...

Mr teX
12-02-2007, 07:10 PM
The BCS can not work because college football is an unbalanced sport. Most of the top teams play more home games than road games. LSU had 8 home games and 5 road games, if you can count the game in New Orleans against Tulane as a road game. Ohio State had 7 home games and 5 road games.

The top teams always schedule cupcakes to blow-out to pad their stats and impress the computers.
The BCS conferences have a monopoly on the money and bowls. A team like Hawaii will never win a national championship even if they win their next 100 games.

A play-off system seems fair, but the BCS conferences will never permit it. There is just too much for them to lose.


That's another thing, it ticks me off why it's ok for the big time teams in supposed power conferences to schedule cupcakes b/c they play in a tough conference but teams who play in middle teir conferences can't do that or all of a sudden "they haven't played anybody..". Or what's more is, they back out of contracts b/c their is a slight possibility they might get a decent game out of that cupcake & it messes up the "wow" factor of the win, kinda like what Michigan did so they could put app. state on their schedule. I couldn't be more estatic that that happened to them this year.

Not all of these teams in BCS conferences are what you would call NC contenders, examples include the baylors, iowa states kansas & k-states of the CFB community. Instead of 4 probable cupcakes you have at least 2-3 more within your own conference, helping to pad your stats for the rankings.

LonerATO
12-02-2007, 07:25 PM
I'm sorry I think that lsu doesnt deserve to be in the nt. I mean how many shots are they going to keep giving these guys and if they do make it into the nt I hope that they get burned bad by osu.

TexansSeminole
12-02-2007, 07:42 PM
I'm sorry I think that lsu doesnt deserve to be in the nt. I mean how many shots are they going to keep giving these guys and if they do make it into the nt I hope that they get burned bad by osu.

They lost two overtime games. They beat some good teams pretty decisively. Virginia Tech, they beat them 48-7 in the beginning of the season. They are a damn good football team, as their coach says.

gwallaia
12-02-2007, 07:43 PM
Here's an interesting article that summarizes many of my feelings.

What's it all mean? Utter chaos and uncertainty today, that's what. We now have no less than seven (or could it be as many as eight or nine?) teams with a legitimate argument that they should play for the national championship. Here are the contestants in this glorified beauty contest:

But it won't happen. The financial folks with a vested interest in the present system won't budge, so don't expect an exciting, national championship, I-A football tournament anytime soon. Just because it works incredibly well in Division I-AA makes no difference to these folks. They'll argue it takes too long, it interferes with exams at the schools (it wouldn't have to) or it's just not practical. Whatever. Instead we've got this unprecedented big and ugly mess this season, which can't possibly be resolved to the satisfaction of anybody but two pretty lucky teams and their fan bases.

http://www.spmsportspage.com/published/spmfeatures/bcs-sweepstakes-national-.shtml

Wolf
12-02-2007, 07:48 PM
so it takes too long and interferes with exams?(their excuses)


hmmm I wonder what the division 2 schools do about exams :hmmm:

bah007
12-02-2007, 08:11 PM
That's another thing, it ticks me off why it's ok for the big time teams in supposed power conferences to schedule cupcakes b/c they play in a tough conference but teams who play in middle teir conferences can't do that or all of a sudden "they haven't played anybody..". Or what's more is, they back out of contracts b/c their is a slight possibility they might get a decent game out of that cupcake & it messes up the "wow" factor of the win, kinda like what Michigan did so they could put app. state on their schedule. I couldn't be more estatic that that happened to them this year.

Not all of these teams in BCS conferences are what you would call NC contenders, examples include the baylors, iowa states kansas & k-states of the CFB community. Instead of 4 probable cupcakes you have at least 2-3 more within your own conference, helping to pad your stats for the rankings.

The only difference is that all those teams could beat Idaho, New Mexico St, Utah St, & La Tech.

If you play in a conference like the WAC, then you have to play top competition in your non-conference games.

If you are LSU, and you play ranked teams 7 times during the season, I dont really care who you play in your non-conference games.

Wolf
12-02-2007, 08:17 PM
The only difference is that all those teams could beat Idaho, New Mexico St, Utah St, & La Tech.

If you play in a conference like the WAC, then you have to play top competition in your non-conference games.

If you are LSU, and you play ranked teams 7 times during the season, I dont really care who you play in your non-conference games.
agreed

For conversational purpose
like the NFL
That is almost like saying New england( couldn't hang with the AFC south "conference" because of Buffalo,miami and the jets where the afc south has Indy,Jacksonville,Titans and Texans.

yes it is who you play and some take the hard road, but without a playoff (which separates the men from the boys)..it is all speculation.

Teams get hurt because the conference they are in can't get their competition up

LonerATO
12-03-2007, 10:10 PM
Here's an interesting article that summarizes many of my feelings.

What's it all mean? Utter chaos and uncertainty today, that's what. We now have no less than seven (or could it be as many as eight or nine?) teams with a legitimate argument that they should play for the national championship. Here are the contestants in this glorified beauty contest:

But it won't happen. The financial folks with a vested interest in the present system won't budge, so don't expect an exciting, national championship, I-A football tournament anytime soon. Just because it works incredibly well in Division I-AA makes no difference to these folks. They'll argue it takes too long, it interferes with exams at the schools (it wouldn't have to) or it's just not practical. Whatever. Instead we've got this unprecedented big and ugly mess this season, which can't possibly be resolved to the satisfaction of anybody but two pretty lucky teams and their fan bases.

http://www.spmsportspage.com/published/spmfeatures/bcs-sweepstakes-national-.shtml


I love how they use that it interferes with school considering that 1-AA playoffs end before the end of dec. they just do have bye weeks so it could be done. They say that it would take them into the next school year but with the nt game it does carry into the next semester.

TexanSam
12-03-2007, 10:42 PM
I love how they use that it interferes with school considering that 1-AA playoffs end before the end of dec. they just do have bye weeks so it could be done. They say that it would take them into the next school year but with the nt game it does carry into the next semester.

I never understood why all the bowl games had to be so long after the season ended? Why is the national championship game 4 weeks after either team has played their final game?

kastofsna
12-04-2007, 02:15 AM
if ya don't understand history or respect it, you probably won't like the bowls. understandable.

bowls were originally used as a vacation for the players. they were long after the season because they couldn't just fly to Southern California from Michigan or anywhere, they had to take a train, and they wanted to ensure that the fans had plenty of time to get there.

Yankee_In_TX
12-04-2007, 08:25 AM
Not to mention the fact that Missouri was ranked #1 before they had to play the EXTRA conference title game, while Ohio State doesn't have to play that EXTRA game and has sat at home for 2 weeks and slides in to the 1 hole.


That's a conference problem, not a BCS problem. They should eliminate their conference games in light of the BCS system, or not complain, IMHO.

Ever since the inception of the BCS, I am so glad Notre Dame turned down the Big Ten invite twice (because then we'd have twelve teams and probably a conference championship).

Texan_Bill
12-04-2007, 09:21 AM
That's a conference problem, not a BCS problem. They should eliminate their conference games in light of the BCS system, or not complain, IMHO.

Wrong... That is 'the' problem with the BCS and thats why the system is flawed. Just the fact that Georgia could be considered for a title shot after not even winning their division (because conference standings do not matter) is ludicrous... In other words, conference championship games 'should' mean something.

Mr teX
12-04-2007, 09:32 AM
Wrong... That is 'the' problem with the BCS and thats why the system is flawed. Just the fact that Georgia could be considered for a title shot after not even winning their division (because conference standings do not matter) is ludicrous... In other words, conference championship games 'should' mean something.

All year you can predict the top 5 standings. 1 & 2 go down, 3 & 4 move up at least 1 spot. Then the last week of official games 1 & 2 go down, number 3 goes up & number 4 not only doesn't move but loses a spot in the rankings when they've done absolutely nothing to hurt their case, It's a *&^%-ing joke. I'm seriously considering not even watching any of the games this year. Of course it won't hurt much, just my way of screaming "down with the BCS."

HoustonFrog
12-04-2007, 09:37 AM
if ya don't understand history or respect it, you probably won't like the bowls. understandable.

bowls were originally used as a vacation for the players. they were long after the season because they couldn't just fly to Southern California from Michigan or anywhere, they had to take a train, and they wanted to ensure that the fans had plenty of time to get there.

I think bowls are great but there is an easy way to have a playoff and get rid of the system. There is no way a team like Missouri this year should be passed over. It is a joke.

You could have an 8 team playoff and still rotate the championship game. Lets say the Sugar Bowl is the championship. You could have the Fiesta and Rose as the semifinals and lets say the Cotton, Orange, Gator and Outback as the Quarterfinals. Its all a matter of scheduling over 3 weeks. You could keep the lesser bowls. I mean it isn't hard but the Presidents refuse.

TD
12-04-2007, 05:07 PM
Not to mention the fact that Missouri was ranked #1 before they had to play the EXTRA conference title game, while Ohio State doesn't have to play that EXTRA game and has sat at home for 2 weeks and slides in to the 1 hole.

Exactly!! What really pisses me off is that OSU and Georgia are both sitting at home at #3 and #4 respectively; #1 and #2 lose; OSU jumps to #1 and Georgia DROPS to #5.

WTF?!?!

kastofsna
12-05-2007, 01:58 AM
i guess the voters value winning one's conference.

TD
12-05-2007, 06:40 AM
i guess the voters value winning one's conference.

I guess they do now.

Signed,

The 2003 Oklahoma Sooners

kastofsna
12-05-2007, 02:35 PM
nice joke, but unfortunately you're wrong, as the voters in 2003 voted Oklahoma 3rd behind LSU and USC, who both won their conference.

TD
12-05-2007, 03:06 PM
nice joke, but unfortunately you're wrong, as the voters in 2003 voted Oklahoma 3rd behind LSU and USC, who both won their conference.

Not wrong. Oklahoma was voted ahead of Florida State, Miami, Michigan, and several other conference winners. Not even mentioning Kansas State which beat them.

Either conference championships are important or their not.

The argument is simple. Either GA and OSU both move up or Oklahoma and LSU both jump them because of the conference title game victories. To treat them differently is a bus load of crap.

bah007
12-05-2007, 03:22 PM
Not wrong. Oklahoma was voted ahead of Florida State, Miami, Michigan, and several other conference winners. Not even mentioning Kansas State which beat them.

Either conference championships are important or their not.

The argument is simple. Either GA and OSU both move up or Oklahoma and LSU both jump them because of the conference title game victories. To treat them differently is a bus load of crap.

Well Ohio St did win their conference.

kastofsna
12-05-2007, 03:24 PM
OSU and LSU moved up because of their conference championships. UGA was deemed not worthy of the title game for not even playing in the conference title game, let alone winning it.

toronto
12-05-2007, 05:33 PM
OSU and LSU moved up because of their conference championships. UGA was deemed not worthy of the title game for not even playing in the conference title game, let alone winning it.

In the coaches poll, UG Coach Richt voted his team higher than his own conference championship winner. Real smart.

TD
12-05-2007, 07:05 PM
In the coaches poll, UG Coach Richt voted his team higher than his own conference championship winner. Real smart.

As did virtually every voter prior to the SEC championship. If GA was better before the game it stands to reason they still were after the game. They don't play the same conference schedule so the winning the conference argument is weak and its not like LSU's win over Tennessee was impressive.

As far as Richt, the coaches at Alabama, Connecticut, Texas Tech, and Notre Dame voted GA over LSU. GA played a lot of freshmen and lost early, but came on late. Anybody who's watched the SEC this year knows GA is the better team right now.

If the polls are supposed to be based on the whole season, fine. But if they're voting on the best teams right now, they blew it plain and simple.

bah007
12-05-2007, 08:41 PM
As did virtually every voter prior to the SEC championship. If GA was better before the game it stands to reason they still were after the game. They don't play the same conference schedule so the winning the conference argument is weak and its not like LSU's win over Tennessee was impressive.

As far as Richt, the coaches at Alabama, Connecticut, Texas Tech, and Notre Dame voted GA over LSU. GA played a lot of freshmen and lost early, but came on late. Anybody who's watched the SEC this year knows GA is the better team right now.

If the polls are supposed to be based on the whole season, fine. But if they're voting on the best teams right now, they blew it plain and simple.

They are. That's why those games aren't called exhibitions.

kastofsna
12-06-2007, 12:15 AM
obviously the whole season is what matters. which is what separates college football from every other sport. also, the computers only factor the whole season.

TD
12-06-2007, 06:55 AM
obviously the whole season is what matters. which is what separates college football from every other sport. also, the computers only factor the whole season.

I don't think a good chunk of the voters feel that way. At least voting patterns haven't shown that to be true. Either way, I still say the voting makes no sense. GA was mathematically eliminated from the SEC championship race when they were voted #4. It makes ZERO sense to then say they're not SEC champs so we need to move them down. If it mattered, they shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Interesting thing about the computers is that they put VA Tech in title game over OSU by a wide margin. That at least makes sense to me. I don't really have a problem with LSU so much as I do a clearly inferior OSU team who backed in with a weak conference title while the quality teams knocked each other off.

Anyway. The BCS Sucks. If there's not going to be a playoff I wish they'd go back to the old bowl schedule