VeeshanVault

As we left the last season I was lobbying for USC to get a shot at the title. A horrible thing for a Notre Dame and UCLA fan to do, but it was the correct thing. This year despite the new changes we are left with the same thing again. 3 good teams battling for 2 positions.

The fact that USC started at number one and remains there is stupid. The number 1 ranking was based on guesses and returning players. Their claim to number 1 is no more viable then Oklahoma's or Auburn's. In fact I would say that Auburn has been the most impressive team this year, followed by USC and then Oklahoma.

I know there are a number of games left and this could shake out, but the fact that we again stand in this position proves the BCS is crap. Auburn has by far the toughest challenge to get to the Championship. Oklahoma is virtually a lock in both their games and SC should win, but Notre Dame has gotten up for the big games this year. Even if only 2 teams make it to the end undefeated we are left with a crappy system that does not work. Oh and let Utah in a BCS game if they win out. I am sure some 2 loss team can deal with the Holiday Bowl for a change. I honestly believe they would have won the Big East this year and that conference is getting a bid.

i agree with you, but Auburn's AD is to blame for this. He only scheduled 10 Div 1 games. He had The Citadel on the schedule and didnt add another game to compensate.

they didnt anticipate being in the national championship hunt, or if they did, they essentially wet their pants and didnt understand how the big dogs run.

I hate the BCS...it ruined college football for me on day one.

Honestly, who really cares if you have a split national champion? We all forget about them the next year anyways.

Also, since schedules are pretty set 3 years in advance...I would go with Auburn not expecting to be in this position.

The BCS isn't any better or worse than the system (or lack thereof) that was in place before. Without a playoff system, the national champion will always be determined in large part by opinion.

Kluden wrote:\
Also, since schedules are pretty set 3 years in advance...I would go with Auburn not expecting to be in this position.

that should be your goal every year, period.

While I agree it is your goal every year, you just don't get the quality choices for match ups until you have a season like Auburn is having this year.

So, in three years, their schedule should reflect

Of course Cal is a better team than Oklahoma even with their one loss.. and Auburn is better than Oklahoma..

Auburn picked up the Citadel game this year after Bowling Green (OU's season opener) backed out of their scheduled game. I'm not sure what options AU had when filling the sudden vacancy, but it's definitely cost them big time. If they manage to beat Tennessee a second time this season in the SEC championship game, they may get enough of a boost on the computer rankings to overtake OU, but it will be tight.

Kelshara wrote:Of course Cal is a better team than Oklahoma even with their one loss.. and Auburn is better than Oklahoma..

Yes and I'm sure in your eyes there are a plethora of teams that are better than OU, but there is one team that year in and year out Oklahoma thouroughly dominates and embarrasses.

Year in and year out? Check the record (55-39-5), plus I'll take a loss and a trip back to Austin any day over a win and one to Norman .

Well Cal and Auburn get the big "Fuck Off" from the brilliant BCS system. This is so much better then a playoff.

1 USC
2 Oklahoma
3 Auburn
4 Texas
5 California
6 Utah
7 Georgia
8 Virginia Tech

That would give us a first round playoff of

USC Vs Virginia Tech - Tech is on fire and gave USC a tough game earlier. This would be a great game.

OU Vs Georgia - Ou would have to face a tough pass game, a very interesting matchup

Auburn vs Utah - How would Alex Smith match up against that defense. Could the Utes contain the Auburn run game

Texas vs California - another intriguing game.

Imagine the money this would generate for the NCAA. Instead we are going to get a bunch of crappy bowls. I know the NCAA loves the drama that the systems sparks, but could you imagine the GREAT press these firt round games would generate? Instead enjoy the people arguing over what idiots you are.

Cal and Auburn got screwed.

Hopefully this will help bring the demise of the BCS.

I wouldn't say Cal got screwed, because Texas had just as difficult (if not more) of a schedule and played just as well. (Except against Kansas! But that was a pretty amazing finish once they decided to show up and play.)

Xouqoa wrote:I wouldn't say Cal got screwed, because Texas had just as difficult (if not more) of a schedule and played just as well. (Except against Kansas! But that was a pretty amazing finish once they decided to show up and play.)

Cal definitely got screwed. They came into this last weekend ahead of Texas in the standings. They won on the road while Texas sat at home watching TV, and Texas went ahead of them.

Additionally, someone tell me what the fuck, Pitt is doing with a bowl game berth?

The is one major reason Cal isn't in the Rose Bowl: That is the hurricane that made them postpone the So.Miss. game. Back in Sept. Cal was favored by 7 points, but in Dec. they were 24 point favorites. Failing to play that game in Sept. cost them the #4 spot in the BCS.

A secondary factor was Mack Brown crying on national television for a BCS bid. What a fucking crybaby, if he wants a BCS bid, beat Oklahoma and win the Big Twelve not cry on television.

noel wrote:Cal definitely got screwed. They came into this last weekend ahead of Texas in the standings. They won on the road while Texas sat at home watching TV, and Texas went ahead of them.

Additionally, someone tell me what the fuck, Pitt is doing with a bowl game berth?

Cal played like 5 teams with winning records this season, and THREE of those teams were only one game above .500. The other two teams were USC and ASU, and those were also the only two ranked teams they played.

Big deal if they were 10-1.

Xouqoa wrote:Cal played like 5 teams with winning records this season, and THREE of those teams were only one game above .500. The other two teams were USC and ASU, and those were also the only two ranked teams they played.

Big deal if they were 10-1.

I'm sorry, I thought we were criticizing the BCS, in this thread, not the football teams. The simple fact is, that if the BCS put them in their final rankings based on what you posted, Cal shouldn't have been ahead of Texas in the first place and Texas should never have moved ahead of Cal in a week where Cal won away, and Texas sat at home.

For the record, I don't like Cal, but the BCS is fucking stupid.

noel wrote:I'm sorry, I thought we were criticizing the BCS, in this thread, not the football teams. The simple fact is, that if the BCS put them in their final rankings based on what you posted, Cal shouldn't have been ahead of Texas in the first place and Texas should never have moved ahead of Cal in a week where Cal won away, and Texas sat at home.

For the record, I don't like Cal, but the BCS is fucking stupid.

Well, we are. I just don't think Cal got robbed because I think they should have been #5 all along. The BCS sucks, definitely. (More than the Packers sucked this weekend in Philly.)

So, clearly the BCS sucks even MORE for putting Cal ahead of Texas as long as it did, and then dropping them to #5 at the last second. That, I think, everyone can agree on.

BCS sucks. End of story.

WE WANT A DAMN PLAYOFF!

I completely agree with Kelshara.

Cal definitely got screwed. They played a season virtually identical to that of Texas and don't have an opportunity to play for the same prize. It has nothing to do with Texas-- if Cal had gotten the spot, Texas would have been screwed.

The same goes for Auburn. Auburn didn't lose a game this season. To go undefeated and not have a chance to play for the championship is fundamentally unfair and against the very nature of sports. Utah and Boise State should also get that chance.

No other NCAA sport is resolved in a manner even remotely similar to this. Nothing other than a playoff is acceptable.

The main objections to a playoff are:

1. Money. So fucking what. It's college football, it's about the players.
2. Extra strain on players due to more games. This is somewhat true, although championship games (idiotic) would be eliminated. The season might have to be shortened slightly. Claiming that it's ok to expand the entire regular season to 12 games, but morally wrong to allow a small number of teams to play a slightly expanded playoff schedule is questionable.

In conclusion: Fuck any system that is not a full, meaningful playoff.

Clearly Penn State should be in the NC game. Someone messed up their win loss record.

Basketball has a month long tournament that seems to work fine in regards to student class obligations.

Every other division of college football has figured it out. A playoff system could be put in place that would start Dec 17th and finish January 1 and could implement the BCS bowls.

Rotate the bowls like they do today. 1 Bowl is the Championship Game, 2 are the Semifinal games and 1 would be a first round game. You would have to add a few bowls to the mix, like the Cotton Bowl for first round games, but keep the main 4 bowls as the only ones that could host the title. You could also maintain the antiquated bowl system for the other teams not included in the final 8. The NCAA would own all of December and the payouts would be astronomical. If you want to argue that it dilutes the other bowls, I would argue that only the participants, their fans and the bowls give a crap who plays in the Motor City or Outback Bowls even today.

Just my thoughts.

2. Extra strain on players due to more games. This is somewhat true, although championship games (idiotic) would be eliminated. The season might have to be shortened slightly. Claiming that it's ok to expand the entire regular season to 12 games, but morally wrong to allow a small number of teams to play a slightly expanded playoff schedule is questionable.

Yeah like March Madness or the pre-season tournaments for basketball teams don't take up time? The teams go to Hawaii for a fuckign week!

Any team thats capable of going undefeated in the SEC should have a shot at the championship period. Year after year its either the toughest or one of the better confrences. I have seen some people say the SEC is down this year but damn they have 5 teams still ranked and before the championship game they had 4 in the top 15. Both USC and OU have good teams I'm not putting them down but I still think Auburn has the better team and had the toughest games. I wonder how many times the BCS has to fail before they go with some sort of playoff.

One of the biggest problems with rankings is that they give the teams preseason rankings. They should avoid rankings until at least 4 games into the season. This will keep teams that play poorly but win from riding the top spots to the bowls. It will also allow teams like Utah and Boise St a shot at higher rankings earlier. Also they need to expand the Coaches poll to allow every Division I coach to have vote. Right now only about half get a vote and they probably just look at previous rankings adn see who won or lost. I doubt very few actually watch any of the games. I could see dumping the Coaches poll entirely or maybe make it the AD poll instead.

Instead of just making the BCS bowls into a tournament, why not make all the bowls combined into a 32 team tournament. There are 28 bowl games now, so you'll need to add 3 more to make it 31. The first round would take place the first or second weekend of december (probably a good idea to make spread the 16 games out over 3 days) with the final four the weekend before new years and the championship the weekend after new years.

Teams for the tournament are selected similar to the basketball tourney, with each of the 11 conference champs getting automatic bids, and the remaining 20 spots are at large (using a BCS-like rank or selection committee...i don't really care).

---------

Pros:
Regular season is still important because the only guarantee of a tourney bid is to win your conference. On average, you'll get about 3 teams per conference in the tourney, with a slight edge to the better conferences. Let's face it, the NFL
takes about 37% of its teams for the playoffs, and they still manage to have a meaningful regular season. Football as a sport is very healthy.

You cut the number of teams in the bowls in half, so you won't have your Notre Dame's (etc.) at 6-5 going to a bowl game.

Bowl sponsors are happy, especially the smaller bowls, because every bowl game is meaningful. People may actually want to watch the GMAC bowl if Michigan is playing Cal (for instance) in the first round. Larger bowls can still keep all the pomp and circumstance (parades, etc.).

Schools can collect bowl game checks from up to 5 bowls.

Fans are happy because we have a playoff and 5 more weeks of meaningful college football.

-----------

Cons:
Big schools/conferences may not like the risk that they are a #1 and get knocked off by a cinderella in the first round, and therefore get a miniscule bowl check.

BCS bowls/TV do not get to choose their matchups, so they won't be able to maximize their audience like they do now.

Teams may not travel well to the smaller bowls...regionalization could help this, but that would mean that the 3 new bowls would have to be in northern climates (preferably in domes) to help balance the distribution a little. Even if the stadium isn't packed (which it should be anyway from local interest alone), the TV ratings would be astronomically higher for the smaller bowls.

America will have to deal with the possibilty of no bowl games on new years day.

--------

I didn't list "strain on the players" because colleges typically give kids from Thanksgiving to New Years off...and any kid on a team that wouldn't want to give up his winter break for a chance at a national title doesn't belong on the team.

that's just my hair-brained scheme....regardless of how they do it, they need a tournament.

XunilTlatoani wrote:...because colleges typically give kids from Thanksgiving to New Years off...

really? not in my experience, but then again I didn't go to a sports powerhouse college...

well, most of them i know did...or if it wasn't from thanksgiving, then finals would be the week after thanksgiving...either way it was around a month.

even if it isn't, i still don't buy that excuse because most other NCAA sports have tournaments (including Div II football).

I didn't list "strain on the players" because colleges typically give kids from Thanksgiving to New Years off...and any kid on a team that wouldn't want to give up his winter break for a chance at a national title doesn't belong on the team.

Not true. Most colleges have an extra few weeks of class after Thanksgiving and then finals, letting out about a week before Christmas. Because it's finals week and all it's usually the most academically stressful part of the semester.

Ok, it may just be some schools that get that much time off, but again I bring up the fact that Div-IAA, Div-II and Div-III have their playoffs during this same time frame we're talking about:

Div-IAA playoffs from November 27 - December 17
Div-II playoffs from November 13 - December 11
Div-III playoffs from November 20 - December 18

So, unless all the schools in those divisions have final exams outside those date ranges, I'm just not buying the argument that the players can't balance their academics with football in December.

The home stretch of the fall semester was usually from mid November to mid December, with finals the week before Christmas. It wasn't unusual to pull all nighters from Thanksgiving to Christmas.

Keep in mind this was a Division II school, Southern CT State University.

However the one varsity athlete (basketball center) in my Physics class showed up five times from September to December and passed with a B. What was up with that?

Yeah, it's definitely a stupid argument regardless. Concern for the athletes welfare has nothing to do with this.