College Football

[Uzumaki]

Damn, and I was all geared up to go to the Rose Bowl. Texas has screwed California twice in one month.

 

[Crothian]

What besides the BCS....?

 

[Shadowdancer]

Damn, and I was all geared up to go to the Rose Bowl. Texas has screwed California twice in one month.

Texas didn't screw Cal -- the BCS system screwed Cal. Just as the system screwed Texas and others last year, and in past years.

Hate the game, not the playahs

 

[fett527]

What I am tired of hearing is analysts that say the BCS worked, it gave us # 1 vs # 2 as it is supposed to. It gave us a disputed #1 vs. #2 and screwed up match ups in the other BCS games. It didn't work this year, it didn't work last year, skip 2002 since there were only 2 undefeateds and etc., etc.

GET A PLAYOFF.

 

[Crothian]

Even if we had a playoff there will be disutes. There always are going to be disputes. THe BCS did work, it set up number 1 verse number 2 using the agreed upon criteria. Both polls had USC and Oklahoma as 1 and 2, the BCS followed the will of the writers and the coaches, so they deserve blame too. The BCS sucks, but it did exactly what it was meant to do.

 

[drothgery]

Even if we had a playoff there will be disutes. There always are going to be disputes.

And if they're disputes like basketball, where we're arguing over seeding, the last two or three at-large teams and the merits of minor conference champions, that's fine. In my "college football bracketology thread", where I'm speculating using a tweaked version of the I-AA playoff rules for I-A, I don't think Iowa or North Texas would have a real shot at winning the whole thing.

The basic problems with the BCS rather than a playoff are 1) If there's not a clear #1 and a clear #2 [which basically means that every other major confrence team has a worse record than #1 and #2], the system breaks; this happens almost every year with the current system 2) There's no way for a two-loss team that finishes strongly (like Colorado in 2001 or USC in 2002) to make a championship run.

 

[Dimwhit]

Texas didn't screw Cal -- the BCS system screwed Cal. Just as the system screwed Texas and others last year, and in past years.

Hate the game, not the playahs

Well, the Texas coach was publicly pleading for votes from the coaches and media to put them above Cal so they could go, and many think that is part of what tips them over.

Serious lack of class on the part of Texas. And the Cal coach has the opportunity to run up the score on Southern Miss and didn't, showing great class. And it also likely contributed to the tip.

And that, once again, is why the BCS system, or the one in place before it, doesn't work. When rankings are judged on style points, it's all just BS.

 

[fett527]

..THe BCS did work, it set up number 1 verse number 2 using the agreed upon criteria...

I understand what you are saying, I just disagree with the assessment that the BCS worked:

If they’d lost a game, they would understand. If they hadn’t won their conference championship game, they wouldn’t argue. If they’d even ever really struggled to win, they could see being left out on the championship picture. But how do you look these Auburn Tigers in their eyes and tell them going 12-0 in the Southeastern Conference, winning eight conference games by a margin of 18.9 points per game, and beating four ranked opponents, isn’t good enough to earn a place in the national championship game?

 

[Crothian]

According the press and coaches they weren't good enough. It is not like this is the first time we will have teams finish undefeated even after the bowl season and not be National Champions. Heck, Auburn could kill VT and Oklahoma and USC play terrible and we get another split championship like last year. Or, and this would be just funny, UTah, Boisem, and Auburn all lose leaving uis with one undeafeted team by the time its all done.

The BCS is no good, it needs to go and go now.