The BCS Is A Joke

Originally posted by no1marauder
You seem to be forgetting that Utah of the "junky" Mountain West routed Alabama of the SEC.

If we had a four team playoff instead of the bowl system Utah would not have had the opportunity to play Alabama. There was a time when all teams were happy to go to a good bowl game and try and win it. Now winning a major bowl just makes teams feel they should have played in a different bowl.

Originally posted by quackquack
If we had a four team playoff instead of the bowl system Utah would not have had the opportunity to play Alabama. There was a time when all teams were happy to go to a good bowl game and try and win it. Now winning a major bowl just makes teams feel they should have played in a different bowl.

There was a time when teams wore leather helmets, scored by dropkicks, used the flying wedge and when the forward pass was illegal. Those were the days.

I support an 8 team playoff as already mentioned.

Originally posted by Badwater
The thing about USC was their loss to the Beavers - it was a bad loss and they were totally dominated. The Beavers were beaten by Utah, however.

USC had one bad week and it cost them the national championship. They dominated most of their opponents, most of which are in the Pac-10, a conference in which no team ever has a weak schedule.

Lot's of teams beat the Beavers.

I agree that an eight team playoff with teams selected by a system similar to the BCS scoring system should replace the major bowls.

The scoring system should give stronger preference to strength of schedule as determined by the results of the a team's opponents--polls should have no bearing on strength of schedule determinations.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You seem to be forgetting that Utah of the "junky" Mountain West routed Alabama of the SEC.

I do agree with your point no1, but I don't think you can call the AL/Utah game a "rout." I don't like Alabama, esp. w/ Nick Satan as coach, but Utah routed them in the 1st quarter.. 21-0, then played even ball with them until the end when the Tide played desparation catch up..

Originally posted by no1marauder
You are incorrect; I already said how the individual conference determines their champion is up to them. It's unclear to me whether having a conference championship game is a disadvantage; you have to play an extra game but you don't have as long a layoff. Anyway, I'd just leave it to the conferences.

The situation in the Big 12 South thi ...[text shortened]... t would be fair to automatically shut out exceptional mid-majors and/or independents.

Why am I incorrect...because YOU say so? I stated, for the record that these are college athletes and stretching them to an additional two games after a long grinding season is ludicrous. It is obvious you never played the game at the collegiate level from your attitude. I think if a playoff system is introduced, the NCAA should dictate to the conferences that they should abandon championship games. This way, they are only adding one more game to the schedule, unless they take the radical approach of conference re-alignment that I alluded to in my earlier post. Everyone knows the conference championships is not about deciding who is the best team, it is about revenue generation. Period. Many times the two best teams aren't in the championship game anyway.

The fact that the situation in the Big 12 occurred demonstrates what is possible. The SEC had a similar problem a couple of years ago as I recall. The proper way to create a solution is to consider all of the potential problems and scenarios and let that guide the judgement. That is the prudent thing to do...obviously no your way of doing things.

There are actually easy ways to determine which schools qualify for which division. You could base it on student body population. You could base it on financial budget availability. There are a number of ways to do it. The true facts of the atter on your mid-majors and independents is that none of them are producing championship caliber teams year in and year out. They happen every so often. Boise State is not a huge power. Neither is Utah, nor Brigham Young, etc... on a regualr basis. Do you believe they would be more satisfied going up against goliaths and getting meet the majority of the times versus having a legitimate shot at their own national title each year?

Originally posted by shortcircuit
Why am I incorrect...because YOU say so? I stated, for the record that these are college athletes and stretching them to an additional two games after a long grinding season is ludicrous. It is obvious you never played the game at the collegiate level from your attitude. I think if a playoff system is introduced, the NCAA should dictate to the conferenc ...[text shortened]... he majority of the times versus having a legitimate shot at their own national title each year?

You claimed that my system would force the conferences to retain championship games; that IS incorrect. Realistically the NCAA is not going to be able to force leagues to abandon lucrative championship games. I prefer to keep these proposals realistic; apparently that's not your way.

Utah's now won 2 BCS games in five years. How many teams can say that? Boise should have gotten another shot this year after winning the Fiesta two years ago. No, I don't think the exceptional mid-majors would prefer playing in a weaker subdivision as a way to screw them out of a shot at a true national championship; this is just another way to rip them off like the BCS does now.

Used to be teams only played 8-10 games and 1 bowl game; now they're playing 12. I didn't hear the USC or Utah players saying they didn't want to play another game!

Originally posted by no1marauder
You claimed that my system would force the conferences to retain championship games; that IS incorrect. Realistically the NCAA is not going to be able to force leagues to abandon lucrative championship games. I prefer to keep these proposals realistic; apparently that's not your way.

Utah's now won 2 BCS games in five years. How many teams ...[text shortened]... ng 12. I didn't hear the USC or Utah players saying they didn't want to play another game!

Hawaii was last years' gripe against the system. How'd they do this year?

Originally posted by SmookieP
Hawaii was last years' gripe against the system. How'd they do this year?

Most years the mid majors will get eliminated, probably in the first round. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be given a slot. I don't think Boise State would have made it to the NC game, but this year's Utah team just might.

As I mentioned earlier, there is a lot of money involved here and it isn't just the people running the bowls and selling the packages. The schools get alot of money. It isn't right to guarantee certain schools millions of dollars and attempting to exclude others. I hope that Utah wins that case against the BCS system.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You claimed that my system would force the conferences to retain championship games; that IS incorrect. Realistically the NCAA is not going to be able to force leagues to abandon lucrative championship games. I prefer to keep these proposals realistic; apparently that's not your way.

Utah's now won 2 BCS games in five years. How many teams ...[text shortened]... ng 12. I didn't hear the USC or Utah players saying they didn't want to play another game!

I am not incorrect. Your system calls for the conference champions from the 6 major conferences and two at large bids into your playoffs...right? Well, how do you determine the Conference champion in a two divison conference where all of the teams don't play each other? A little common sense here on your part would see you have boxed it into forcing a conference championship.

I'll sit back and see how you wrangle yourself around this one before I hang you on the next one. The floor is yours.

Originally posted by shortcircuit
I am not incorrect. Your system calls for the conference champions from the 6 major conferences and two at large bids into your playoffs...right? Well, how do you determine the Conference champion in a two divison conference where all of the teams don't play each other? A little common sense here on your part would see you have boxed it into forcing a c ...[text shortened]... ow you wrangle yourself around this one before I hang you on the next one. The floor is yours.

You're putting the cart before the horse. The conferences that went to a two division system did so for the purpose of having a championship game. I don't ever remember separate divisions inside a conference and no championship game, do you? If they wanted to eliminate the divisions or figure out a way to decide their champion by other means it's alright by me.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You're putting the cart before the horse. The conferences that went to a two division system did so for the purpose of having a championship game. I don't ever remember separate divisions inside a conference and no championship game, do you? If they wanted to eliminate the divisions or figure out a way to decide their champion by other means it's alright by me.

I don't think there's any way that you can exclude a team like Utah or Boise State last year. It should be open; I think you can use the existing Bowl games as quarter- and semifinals. Rose, Sugar, Cotton, Orange, Fiesta, Sun. There would be more games and more money, and a true national champion, not this travesty we have now.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
USC had one bad week and it cost them the national championship. They dominated most of their opponents, most of which are in the Pac-10, a conference in which no team ever has a weak schedule.

Lot's of teams beat the Beavers.

I agree that an eight team playoff with teams selected by a system similar to the BCS scoring system should repla ...[text shortened]... f the a team's opponents--polls should have no bearing on strength of schedule determinations.

My Ducks are in the PAC-10 and there seems to be a bias against the PAC-10 and for the SEC. This year, however, I'd have to call USC's loss worse than OK, Texas, or Florida.

An 8-team playoff would go a good way toward solving the annual problem of determining a national champion.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You're putting the cart before the horse. The conferences that went to a two division system did so for the purpose of having a championship game. I don't ever remember separate divisions inside a conference and no championship game, do you? If they wanted to eliminate the divisions or figure out a way to decide their champion by other means it's alright by me.

No, the conferences expanded/merged and there were now too many teams to have everyone match up every season. To solve this problem, they created divisions and then to unify the conference champion, they created the conference championship. Yes this game is very financially lucrative which is why the confererences have been reluctant to get rid of it. However, if they are guaranteed a sizeable payout from the playoff games, this would offset the loss of the championship game. That is why the NCAA can toss it and the conferences would have to give in or be left out of the mix. That isn't rocket science. The problem is with 12 or 14 teams in a single conferenec, you are perpetually going to be dealing with a conference schedule where every team does not play every other team. The solution to that problem is to reshape the conferences, just like the NFL did. This is where it will be tough to split them up, but if they want a national championship, it is very doable.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
I don't think there's any way that you can exclude a team like Utah or Boise State last year. It should be open; I think you can use the existing Bowl games as quarter- and semifinals. Rose, Sugar, Cotton, Orange, Fiesta, Sun. There would be more games and more money, and a true national champion, not this travesty we have now.

Utah wasn't excluded. I presume you would have bumped Ohio State in favor of Boise State? Hell, Boise State couldn't beat TCU in the bowl they played in. The fans of the cinderella story never cease to amaze me.

Originally posted by shortcircuit
Utah wasn't excluded. I presume you would have bumped Ohio State in favor of Boise State? Hell, Boise State couldn't beat TCU in the bowl they played in. The fans of the cinderella story never cease to amaze me.

I didn't say that Boise State should be national champion, there, swizzle stick. I said they earned a right to play in a national championship tournament. Alabama got blown out by Utah. Does that mean that Alabama shouldn't have been there? It's got nothing to do with Cinderella stories. It's got everything to do with deciding a champion on the field.