BCS is BS!

[cowboyfan8]

Anyone agree? No doubt that they got lucky this year and USC and UT are the 2 best teams in the country. Not so in the past. My thought is to get rid of preseason rankings and start ranking after week 3 or so when most are done with non-conference. In the current system, if you are the preseason #1 and goes undefeated, you will be the national champ, nobody else has a shot(except for the preseason #2 who also went undefeated). Also Notre Dame gets an automatic BCS bid and their #8! I'm not saying TCU(10-1) deserves a shot at the title, but Penn St.(10-1) won't get one either. There's no parody with this system. Would the undefeated Tulane team a few years back been given a shot at the title, yeah right. Even though sos is not a factor.Thoughts? Am I way off base?

[GreenMonster]

You are not WAY off base but off base. Strength of schedule is used in this method. I do think the BCS is BS though. NCAA needs a play-off structure and they know it, they just can't figure out how to keep the money stream that the bowl system brings in.

[shankbear]

There is PARODY in the system as it is a joke. There is no parity because they don't compare apples to apples. No equality. Not being a smart a$$ there but the parody thing is actually fitting.

[BTEXDAD]

they need the playoff system, but you have to agree, system is a whole lot better than it was years ago.
Back then, Conference champs were always tied to certain bowls. PAC 10 and Big 10 went to rose bowl. Big 8 to Orange Bowl. SEC to Sugar Bowl and southwest conference to Cotton Bowl.
You had possibility of 3-4 undefeated teams and none of them playing each other.
Also, with national title decided strictly by voting, you could lose game early in season and still have shot at national title, but you didn't if you lost game late in season which wasn't fair either. BCS Computer takes entire season into account each week.
To use example of two years ago. Oklahoma lost big 12 title game, but played in BCS national championship game against LSU anyway. Many people said USC should have been in BCS title game. But why? LSU was 11-1, OKlahoma was 11-1. USC was 10-1. Plug the wins and winning percentage in. Who were the two best teams? It was obvious.

[Adidas410s]

Originally posted by cowboyfan8
In the current system, if you are the preseason #1 and goes undefeated, you will be the national champ, nobody else has a shot(except for the preseason #2 who also went undefeated).

For the record, Texas started the year in a virtual deadlock with Tennessee but took over #2 with their win over Ohio State, combined with Miami losing to Florida State, ND beating Michigan, Michigan St beating ND, FSU losing to Virginia, and Tennessee losing to EVERYBODY!!! Heck even Louisville had a 1st place vote to start the season but South Florida ended those dreams


Originally posted by cowboyfan8
Also Notre Dame gets an automatic BCS bid and their #8!

To clarify, Notre Dame doesn't get an automatic bid into a BCS game. Since they aren't in a conference with an automatic bid, the BCS has an "ND Clause" that states that they are eligible for consideration in a game as long as they are ranked in the top 12 in a BCS game. Obviously, any time that they are in the top 12 they will get a bid because they have the biggest fan base in the country! For the other BCS games, they need to draw as many fans as possible to the game to cover their costs and the money they are giving away and Utah vs Pittsburgh just isn't going to cut it!

Now don't go thinking that I am in favor of the BCS system. However, for those who gripe about the system, remember back 10 years ago before we had this system and the bowl games would have looked something like this:

Cotton Bowl
#2 Texas vs #7 Notre Dame/#10 Miami/#9 Auburn

Sugar Bowl
#3 LSU vs #10 Miami/#6 Ohio State/#8 Oregon

Rose Bowl
#1 USC vs #3 Penn State

Orange Bowl
#5 Virginia Tech vs #12 West Virginia

Fiesta Bowl

Two of the following #6 Ohio State/#8 Oregon/#7 Notre Dame/#9 Auburn/#13 Georgia

So at least the current system offers SOME kind of clarity as to who the national champion is. If Texas wins their game and USC wins theirs...who is the champ? USC would still be #1 in the polls because, as you stated earlier, they started the year there so until they lose they wouldn't have dropped from there. While the current system isn't perfect, at least we can say that there is a definite national champ even if we don't agree with the system used to declare who that champion is.

[lostaussie]

Originally posted by cowboyfan8
I'm not saying TCU(10-1) deserves a shot at the title a factor. don't you know tcu is kicking themselves in the keester. loss to SMU is the difference in a bcs bowl and the quaker state a la mode bowl (i made that up). dollars for the school in payouts will be huge!!!!!!!!!!!

[District303aPastPlayer]

Originally posted by lostaussie
don't you know tcu is kicking themselves in the keester. loss to SMU is the difference in a bcs bowl and the quaker state a la mode bowl (i made that up). dollars for the school in payouts will be huge!!!!!!!!!!!

aint that the truth

[schu1213]

Originally posted by Adidas410s
For the record, Texas started the year in a virtual deadlock with Tennessee but took over #2 with their win over Ohio State, combined with Miami losing to Florida State, ND beating Michigan, Michigan St beating ND, FSU losing to Virginia, and Tennessee losing to EVERYBODY!!! Heck even Louisville had a 1st place vote to start the season but South Florida ended those dreams



To clarify, Notre Dame doesn't get an automatic bid into a BCS game. Since they aren't in a conference with an automatic bid, the BCS has an "ND Clause" that states that they are eligible for consideration in a game as long as they are ranked in the top 12 in a BCS game. Obviously, any time that they are in the top 12 they will get a bid because they have the biggest fan base in the country! For the other BCS games, they need to draw as many fans as possible to the game to cover their costs and the money they are giving away and Utah vs Pittsburgh just isn't going to cut it!

Now don't go thinking that I am in favor of the BCS system. However, for those who gripe about the system, remember back 10 years ago before we had this system and the bowl games would have looked something like this:

Cotton Bowl
#2 Texas vs #7 Notre Dame/#10 Miami/#9 Auburn

Sugar Bowl
#3 LSU vs #10 Miami/#6 Ohio State/#8 Oregon

Rose Bowl
#1 USC vs #3 Penn State

Orange Bowl
#5 Virginia Tech vs #12 West Virginia

Fiesta Bowl

Two of the following #6 Ohio State/#8 Oregon/#7 Notre Dame/#9 Auburn/#13 Georgia

So at least the current system offers SOME kind of clarity as to who the national champion is. If Texas wins their game and USC wins theirs...who is the champ? USC would still be #1 in the polls because, as you stated earlier, they started the year there so until they lose they wouldn't have dropped from there. While the current system isn't perfect, at least we can say that there is a definite national champ even if we don't agree with the system used to declare who that champion is.


Some kind of clarity to declare who the champion is? No way. The BCS is the worst way to decide a champion and everyone knows it. IMO, if they would just use the plus one method then it would be good enough for now. The BCS has a contract with ABC till 2009 so i think we are stuck with it for a while. All they have to do till then is add one more bcs bowl game to decide they real nc.

[Adidas410s]

Originally posted by schu1213
Some kind of clarity to declare who the champion is? No way. The BCS is the worst way to decide a champion and everyone knows it. IMO, if they would just use the plus one method then it would be good enough for now. The BCS has a contract with ABC till 2009 so i think we are stuck with it for a while. All they have to do till then is add one more bcs bowl game to decide they real nc.

The BCS IS A BETTER SYSTEM that what we had before it. You totally missed the point. At least it TRIES to match up #1 and #2 where the old system would very rarely accomplish that...it's not perfect...but it's better than what we had before. Why is it the worst way to decide a champ?

[schu1213]

Has it worked? No it hasnt. It has been a total crap shoot

[Adidas410s]

Originally posted by schu1213
Has it worked? No it hasnt. It has been a total crap shoot

Are you actually going to make a case for something here or just an idle statement with nothing to prove your case? Come on...let's at least TRY to have a discussion here...

[District303aPastPlayer]

Originally posted by Adidas410s
Are you actually going to make a case for something here

i dont think he's been taught that yet. . .

[Adidas410s]

Originally posted by District303aPastPlayer
i dont think he's been taught that yet. . .
poor guy...somebody needs to tell him that i live for "discussions"...or what some might term an "argument"

[TPlinebacker53]

i watched this thing on ESPN classic not to long ago and it was talkin about the BCS stuff and it said the only reason they didnt have a playoff system is becaus is would take away a lot of the money that the bowl games bring in

[TheTK56]

I'm to say the BCS isn't that bad. If they were to go to a play-off system then they would do away with bowl games. Bowl games are as much a part of football as anything else.

[JasperDog94]

Why would you have to go away from the bowl games? They could just be integrated into the playoff system.

[raider red 2000]

they should just go back to the way it was with the bowl tie ins.

no championship game.

just bowls.

[Adidas410s]

Originally posted by raider red 2000
they should just go back to the way it was with the bowl tie ins.

no championship game.

just bowls.

somebody's smokin' something STRONG over here! :smoker: :eyetwitch :crazy:

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by raider red 2000
they should just go back to the way it was with the bowl tie ins.

no championship game.

just bowls. That's insane...don't get me wrong. You're intitled to be a little bit crazy on this board, but this?:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

[big daddy russ]

Originally posted by raider red 2000
they should just go back to the way it was with the bowl tie ins.

no championship game.

just bowls.
I'm not for it, but the people who argue this side do have a good point. The reason the big wigs love the bowls is because they stir up controversy. You get more people in more passionate debates about their teams. This doesn't happen in this large of a scale in the NFL or in HS football outside of the South. That's one of the main reasons the college game is so appealing to so many people. It's the same reason the SI Swimsuit Issue is more popular than Playboy: it leaves something to the imagination.

On that note, I'm all for having a playoff system that incorporates the Bowls... and leave it to a 16-team field, all the leftover bowls go to the other teams who are Bowl Eligible. They get to play in the scrap games... the "NIT" of the football world.

[Butkus]

Originally posted by big daddy russ


On that note, I'm all for having a playoff system that incorporates the Bowls... and leave it to a 16-team field, all the leftover bowls go to the other teams who are Bowl Eligible. They get to play in the scrap games... the "NIT" of the football world.
Now I like the way he thinks.

[raider red 2000]

the Football NIT that is good.

what would be fun to watch is the winning teams getting to play 2 games a week.

WED and SAT.....screw scouting and just play.

hope nobdy gets hurt.

I LIKE IT.