Another two cents on the BCS mess

[Fight_n_back]

For years people bithced about polls deciding the national champ. Division I doesn't want a playoff for money reasons so the BCS was created. One of the main criteria is strength of schedule to keep teams from padding their schedules and also to even out teams in big conferences who lose to real opponents versus teams in weak conferences that go undefeated against crappy schools.

So now USC is No 1 in both polls and won't play in the Championship game. Why? Because the polls are wrong and are frequntly wrong! USC lost to CAL. Oklahaoma lost to Kansas State. Their is a big difference between those two losses.

If USC doesn't take the pipe against Cal then this whole thing is moot.

If Oklahoma had lost to K State in the middle of the season but won the Conference game then it would also be moot. USC losing to Cal in the middle of the season doesn't give them more of a "right" to play for the championship than Oklahoma.

USC lost to a school that doesn't even cheat. That alone should disqualify them.

And for you playoff fans...who would the fourth team be in the playoff be? Michigan? Texas? TCU?

Personally I miss the old days when the Rose Bowl was always Pac Ten Big Ten, the Sugar was SEC (Alabama) versus a top ranked school (Notre Dame or Penn State) and the Orange was Nebraska or Oklahoma versus a patsy.

[sasquatch]

1. Why not the playoff

My plan has 16 teams in it and that includes the underestimated MAC boys playing in it. So that way the small schools don't feel cheated:)

[Catholic Sensation]

2. Here's how I could solve this:

We have the playoff but the seedings are based on points like the bcs, with several categories:

1. rank on the ap poll
2. rank on the espn poll
3. strength of schedule
4. quality win (lose .1 points for every top 15 "bcs" team beaten)
5. in the acc? (if yes, lose .5 points, no, +.5 points)
6. is the college nc state (if yes, automatically #1, if not +.5 points)
7. do I like the team (if yes, lose .5 points, if no, gain 10 points)

Okay so it's a little biased.. :D

[SmileyBoy]

3. Well, would you want computers and politics deciding it...

...or let the teams decide it on the field???

Why shouldn't LSU, USC, Oklahoma and another team get the chance to hypothetically battle it out on the field???

Here's why the BCS is crap:

LSU is in the national championship. But to compare USC to Oklahoma, USC loses to Cal, Oklahoma loses to K-State. California is a worse team than K-State. Oh, well then, Oklahoma is CLEARLY the better team than USC, right???:eyes: There's no WAY that we have to allow those two teams to play each other to see which one is better, like EVERY SINGLE OTHER COLLEGE SPORT IN EVERY OTHER DIVISION EXCEPT OURS!!!!

If Oklahoma played USC 10 times, it would be a 5-5 split. WHY NOT LET THE FUCKING TEAMS DECIDE IT IN A PLAYOFF INSTEAD OF A COMPUTER SYSTEM THAT JUST ASSUMES THAT THIS TEAM IS DEFINITELY BETTER THAN THE OTHER???!!!

I bet Michigan, Ohio State, Florida State, etc. could easily give OK a run for their money in a playoff game.

LET THE TOP-EIGHT TEAMS DECIDE IT ON THE FIELD!!! NOT THE COMPUTERS!!!

[Fight_n_back]

5. Computers?

Computers didn't decide anything. People developed a method of judging a teams strength based on many factors. A computer is just a way of totaling it up.

The polls are wacked.

In a "playoff" system, Oklahoma would not be playing USC because Oklahoma didn't win its conference. If you send the second place team in a conference to the playoffs then why have a conference championship game at all?

The eight playoff teams would always be the top two teams in the SEC and Big 12 with the winners of the ACC, Big 10 and Pac ten and occasionally Notre Dame. Thats exactly what happens now. A playoff would solve nothing because there would still be teams that get screwed.

There is no solution! If a football playoff is so great then name me the last Division 1A or division II or III champs.

[SmileyBoy]

6. Um no... Computers decide the entire BCS.

Let the teams fight for the championship amonst themselves, like football players are supposed to do.

The BCS is soooo gay.

[Fight_n_back]

8. That is like saying

that computers decide what is posted on DU.

[SmileyBoy]

7. 2002 DI-AA Champs: Western Kentucky. D2 champs: Grand Valley State...

...D3 champs: Mount Union (Ohio).

And I extensively watched the DI-AA and D2 playoffs last year.

Playoffs are the best solution.

[sleipnir]

4. I miss the old days when Bama, Notre Dame and Penn St. actually had a team

Too bad they sunk into a virtual oblivion as of late, except maybe Bama.

8 Teams is enough, 16 is too much. 8 teams would take 3 weeks, just right if you shorten the non-conference schedule. No matter what, the mid-majors are going to get screwed, so they might as well get used to never playing for a title. There's just no ticket revenue for Northern Ill to travel to Pasadena...I'd love to see it, but how often did you see a mid-major in the top 8? Oh wait, you never do...
16 games takes 4 weeks and you just can't shorten the sked by that much without affecting the students (yes, they're still students ;)...

8 Teams, with an improved computer that eliminates the human polls (which are the real problem, but most everyone seems to be overlooking this fact.)

This whole thing is summed up in a great line from 2001:

HAL- "It can only be attributed to human error...."

[joeybee12]

10. Yeah, remember when they were ALWAYS in the hunt!

Seems like ages ago!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Awsi Dooger]

9. Remember, the AP poll forced this problem on the BCS

Initially, the BCS people wanted to use the two major polls exclusively to select the teams in the title game. But the writers and broadcasters from the AP poll objected, saying they would be making decisions, and not reporting them.

How the AP members can rationalize that decision with decades of deciding the national champ, and perhaps choosing USC over the Sugar winner this year in their final post-bowls poll, is beyond logic. The primary thing wrong with the college postseason was the automatic tie-ins, which separated the two '94 unbeatens, Penn St and Nebraska, with the Huskers winning both polls. The college setup would be fine as long as the top two teams from the final regular season polls would meet, but both polls free to vote for any team after the bowl games. That would allow for a 3rd, 4th or 5th team to vault to the title with an outstanding performance.

Let's see, Miami-Ohio, TCU and Boise St also have one loss. None was considered for a top two spot in the polls because the voters wisely incorporate strength of schedule in their evaluations. To have a separate SOS rating, and one that is allowed to completely trump consensus poll rankings, is remarkable superfluous idiocy.

Oklahoma has no claim to a title berth, IMO. In college football history, it's extremely rare to win a title after losing in November or later. To blow by 28 on Dec. 6 and remain #1 is all that needs to be said regarding the BCS. The Sooners have been the beneficiaries of two incredible BCS blunders. In 2000, OU was allowed to play FSU instead of a much superior Miami team in the Orange Bowl, because the quality win component had not been added to the BCS. Like in 2000, the BCS will be tweaked next spring to prevent a replay of this year. None of the dozens of other BCS flaws will be contemplated or fixed.