| FTBL BCS poll = Joke

[jaycoach]

What good is the BCS poll if some of the top teams get passed over in BCS bowls. (Arizona St left out).
I guess people forgot that LSU, who is so great according to espn, is the same team who lost at home just 1 week ago to Arkansas. I dont care what people say, If you lose the last week of the season, SEC championship or not, you dont deserve the opportunity at a NC. Especially when you lose it at home. :evil:

 

[ghice]

Just take it for granted that ESPN and other media outlets know SOOOO much more than the common man about college football. After all they have a staff dedicated to the analyzis of every big game week end and week out with a former National Championship coach leading the way (I'm lookin' at you Coach Holtz ;sal ). It should be painfully obvious that LSU (that lost twice) and OSU (that only beat 1 ranked team when they played) should be playing for the crystal football. I mean nobody wants to see USC vs Georgia in the Championship game I mean heaven forbid the best playing teams at the end of the year ACTUALLY play.


As a side note if anyone takes this post seriously we deserve the BS Series :roll:

 

[MECU]

Even losing in 3OTs? In a season where everyone (Hawaii doesn't count) has lost at least 1 game?

There are only so many BCS games and therefore, only so many teams can get BCS slots.

Polling is hard. An argument could be made for most of these teams (including Hawaii). That's why the polls look like the pre-season, it's hard to pick just one. The fact is: The BCS calculation is the way that we determine the National Champion (sans AP Poll), and if you want to be the NC: you must play in the BCS NC game. It's the system we have, it's the system everyone goes into the season knowing and agreeing and understanding this is how it works. To complain at the end that the system is bad isn't any good.

 

[ghice]

Even losing in 3OTs? In a season where everyone (Hawaii doesn't count) has lost at least 1 game?

There are only so many BCS games and therefore, only so many teams can get BCS slots.

Polling is hard. An argument could be made for most of these teams (including Hawaii). That's why the polls look like the pre-season, it's hard to pick just one. The fact is: The BCS calculation is the way that we determine the National Champion (sans AP Poll), and if you want to be the NC: you must play in the BCS NC game. It's the system we have, it's the system everyone goes into the season knowing and agreeing and understanding this is how it works. To complain at the end that the system is bad isn't any good.

My only complaint is that we do not have a playoff system like every other Division in college football.

 

[MECU]

My only complaint is that we do not have a playoff system like every other Division in college football.

Why do we have to have a playoff?

 

[bama4life]

Why do we have to have a playoff?

Are you serious about that question? ;scr

 

[ghice]

My only complaint is that we do not have a playoff system like every other Division in college football.

Why do we have to have a playoff?

So we don't have to argue over who is the true #1 at the end of the season.

It's easy, have an 8 team playoff.

6 BCS conf. champions
2 At large

Playoff would be seeded based on BCS rank
(IE #1 would play #8, #2 would play #7, and so on)

The 4 main bowls will have a rotation from quarter finals and semi finals. The other two quarter final bowls would be rotated between 2nd tier bowl games.

How would this not be better than "Mine team is better than your team, because your team only beat so and so by x points, while my team beat the team that beat so and so by y # of points, thus making us supirior"?

 

[MECU]

Because the best team always wins the playoffs of course. And excluding the other "non-BCS conferences" isn't smart either, but I agree that more than 8 teams isn't helpful.

One can rarely argue that there are more than 4 deserving teams that should have a chance. This season is perhaps an exception. However, if we took 8 teams, we would argue about who got left out of the top 8 (we do it with March Madness, who gets left out of the 65 teams). And in the end, the teams that win the March Madness are roughly the top 8 teams anyways, so including the other 57 teams doesn't help.

But really, there is no rule that says we have to have a playoff. If you want a playoff, go to a sport/division that has one. Go to the NFL, DI FCS, DII, DIII, Canada, Europe (not anymore). Love the sport for what it is: The regular season matters. Bowl games are special.

 

[AlaphaMale]

To complain at the end that the system is bad isn't any good.

You're not suggesting people only complain at the end? . The complaints never stop. They start with the pre-season polls and progress to the BCS title. Anytime someone references the National Championship on a message board it's MNC, not NC. I don't know how you could express more clearly and repeatedly that the system is bad.

 

[ghice]

Because the best team always wins the playoffs of course. And excluding the other "non-BCS conferences" isn't smart either, but I agree that more than 8 teams isn't helpful.

One can rarely argue that there are more than 4 deserving teams that should have a chance. This season is perhaps an exception. However, if we took 8 teams, we would argue about who got left out of the top 8 (we do it with March Madness, who gets left out of the 65 teams). And in the end, the teams that win the March Madness are roughly the top 8 teams anyways, so including the other 57 teams doesn't help.

But really, there is no rule that says we have to have a playoff. If you want a playoff, go to a sport/division that has one. Go to the NFL, DI FCS, DII, DIII, Canada, Europe (not anymore). Love the sport for what it is: The regular season matters. Bowl games are special.

Ok, since I'm not going to convince you it would be helpful to have a playoff (you apparently didn't like my idea of an 8 team playoff with Bowls intertwined). Explain to me why it's fair for a team like (Lord help me) Auburn or Hawii to go undefeated in a season without as much as a shot at the Championship game? I would hate to see a future day when Alabama goes undefeated and we don't get a shot the championship (see Bama's record in 1966).

 

[Guest]

My only complaint is that we do not have a playoff system like every other Division in college football.

Why do we have to have a playoff?

Are you serious? Name one other sport in the world that does not have a playoff system to decide who is the best. Any level, from high school up. Maybe swimming or gymnastics but they still have a championship match of several teams....

The regular season matters. Bowl games are special.

and Bowl games are not special anymore, unless you are in a BCS game. They mean no more now than they did before the BCS. They are used as extra practice time and money for the university.

 

[MECU]

Ok, since I'm not going to convince you it would be helpful to have a playoff (you apparently didn't like my idea of an 8 team playoff with Bowls intertwined). Explain to me why it's fair for a team like (Lord help me) Auburn or Hawii to go undefeated in a season without as much as a shot at the Championship game? I would hate to see a future day when Alabama goes undefeated and we don't get a shot the championship (see Bama's record in 1966).

Hawaii doesn't deserve it this year because they played a ridiculously easy schedule. If Notre Dame schedules 12 high school teams next year and goes 12-0, should they play in the NC game? What if they scheduled 12 DI FCS teams? Hawaii played an easier schedule than some DI FCS teams. And, they barely escaped two in overtime.

If Auburn went 12-0, I doubt they wouldn't be in the NC game. Strength of schedule has to matter when you pick the teams.

Are you serious? Name one other sport in the world that does not have a playoff system to decide who is the best. Any level, from high school up. Maybe swimming or gymnastics but they still have a championship match of several teams....

So, if ever other sport suddenly switched to the BCS system, you'd be okay with it? And just because everyone else is doing it, doesn't make it legit.

and Bowl games are not special anymore, unless you are in a BCS game. They mean no more now than they did before the BCS. They are used as extra practice time and money for the university.

Excellent point. I don't have a response to that. It used to be that getting in a bowl game meant a 9-win season (before the season expansion). Now it means you went .500, and this season that wasn't a guarrantee, but being 7-5 isn't anything to write home about either.

If the New England Pats go 16-0 and then lose their first playoff game, would you still say playoffs are the best? Does the superbowl really mean the best team won? Didn't the Pats prove that in the regular season going 16-0 and practically dismantling every team by 50 points?

True, we don't have that this season, but put it this way: Alabama goes 13-0. Then, they play Middle Tennessee in a playoff game and everything just goes horrible and the refs are biased (seriously) and Alabama loses. How is that anymore fair than Alabama just playing in the BCS NC game against Ohio State (again) and winning just that once to be NC?

The BCS is good for one reason: Before it, the #1 and #2 at the end of the season didn't play each other. Imagine no Texas vs. USC. At least now, we get a #1 vs. #2. We also get typically other top-10 matchups which also didn't usually happen. Maybe get a #3 vs. #24. That's not as exciting as a #3 vs #8. At the least, we get some good competition at the end.

Again, even with a playoff, we would still argue over who gets into the top-8 (or whatever).

 

[Guest]

The BCS sucks. The Bowls are meaningless except for one game. I'd rather go back to the old bowl system. At least with the old system 3 or 4 Bowl games could actually have a bearing on who won the MNC.

 

[ghice]

Ok, since I'm not going to convince you it would be helpful to have a playoff (you apparently didn't like my idea of an 8 team playoff with Bowls intertwined). Explain to me why it's fair for a team like (Lord help me) Auburn or Hawii to go undefeated in a season without as much as a shot at the Championship game? I would hate to see a future day when Alabama goes undefeated and we don't get a shot the championship (see Bama's record in 1966).

Hawaii doesn't deserve it this year because they played a ridiculously easy schedule. If Notre Dame schedules 12 high school teams next year and goes 12-0, should they play in the NC game? What if they scheduled 12 DI FCS teams? Hawaii played an easier schedule than some DI FCS teams. And, they barely escaped two in overtime.

See OSU's schedule.

If Auburn went 12-0, I doubt they wouldn't be in the NC game. Strength of schedule has to matter when you pick the teams.

See 2004 CF season

So, if ever other sport suddenly switched to the BCS system, you'd be okay with it? And just because everyone else is doing it, doesn't make it legit.

Yeah because playing on the field to decide who is the better team is SOOO overrated :roll:

If the New England Pats go 16-0 and then lose their first playoff game, would you still say playoffs are the best? Does the superbowl really mean the best team won? Didn't the Pats prove that in the regular season going 16-0 and practically dismantling every team by 50 points?

1st of all, every NFL team plays an NFL schedule. I hate to tell you this, but the ACC != SEC SoS. If someone goes undefeated in the WAC and then loses in the playoffs, I wouldn't feel the least bit sorry for them. On the other had if an SEC team when undefeated and then losing in the playoffs, I wouldn't feel sorry for them either. (same applys when an undefeated team loses in the BCS NC Game now to a 1 loss team See 2006)

The BCS is good for one reason: Before it, the #1 and #2 at the end of the season didn't play each other. Imagine no Texas vs. USC. At least now, we get a #1 vs. #2. We also get typically other top-10 matchups which also didn't usually happen. Maybe get a #3 vs. #24. That's not as exciting as a #3 vs #8. At the least, we get some good competition at the end.

Wouldn't a nationwide playoff against the top 8 teams in the country give us the #1 vs #2 at the end of the day? :roll:

Again, even with a playoff, we would still argue over who gets into the top-8 (or whatever).

This could be fixed if the AP and coaches poll actually rank the teams based on how they think they will perform. There were numous times this season when the #2 in the country was the underdog against a lesser ranked team. Why does this make sense in the current system. You tell me?

 

[MECU]

Wouldn't a nationwide playoff against the top 8 teams in the country give us the #1 vs #2 at the end of the day? :roll:

So the Superbowl always ends up with the best teams from the regular season, that get ranked #1 in the playoffs? If it always ends up with the #1 v #2, why bother with the playoff and just give the #1 v #2?

This could be fixed if the AP and coaches poll actually rank the teams based on how they think they will perform. There were numous times this season when the #2 in the country was the underdog against a lesser ranked team. Why does this make sense in the current system. You tell me?

You're asking me why the line makers think the higher ranked team, as picked by non-line makers, will win? That's easy: The pollsters don't care about who will be who and/or think who will win the next game(s) differently than the line-makers.

 

[ghice]

So the Superbowl always ends up with the best teams from the regular season, that get ranked #1 in the playoffs? If it always ends up with the #1 v #2, why bother with the playoff and just give the #1 v #2?

No, does the BCS National Championship game?

You're asking me why the line makers think the higher ranked team, as picked by non-line makers, will win? That's easy: The pollsters don't care about who will be who and/or think who will win the next game(s) differently than the line-makers.

Doesn't the polls reflect the Top 25 teams in the country?

If so wouldn't it be logical to assume the # 10 will beat # 25 on a neutral field?


BTW you forgot to answer a few of my other questions directed toward you.

 

[MECU]

If Auburn went 12-0, I doubt they wouldn't be in the NC game. Strength of schedule has to matter when you pick the teams.

See 2004 CF season

Yah, when there are 5 undefeated teams. Again: Strength of schedule matters! (and, I might be mistaken, but they still accounted for margin of victory then.) My statement assumed that there was 1 or 2 undefeated teams.

 

[Guest]

I still say the old bowl system was better than the BCS. At least more than one game mattered.
That's the main problem I have with the BCS. The bowl season just isn't exciting anymore. In the old days, 4 or 5 games could have an impact on who wound up as with the NC, so you payed attention to all of them. Now the only game that matters is the BCS NC Game. Even the 4 other BCS games don't matter other than paying schools a lot of money and giving extra practice time.

There are also WAY to many bowl games now. A bowl game used to be a reward for a great season. Now if you a re a big time school that fans travel well you get rewarded for breaking even.
I love Alabama, and I'm glad they are going to a bowl game. It means I get to watch them play one more time this season, and the extra practice will do the young guys good. But they don't deserve to go to a bowl game. IMO, the number of bowls need to be reduced, and the number of wins required to be bowl eligible needs to be raised to 8 since it is a 12 game season. If I'm not mistaken, the 6 wins was set back when most schools played 10 games.

[/rant off]

 

[Guest]

Are you serious? Name one other sport in the world that does not have a playoff system to decide who is the best. Any level, from high school up. Maybe swimming or gymnastics but they still have a championship match of several teams....

So, if ever other sport suddenly switched to the BCS system, you'd be okay with it? And just because everyone else is doing it, doesn't make it legit.

You still did not answer my question. If every sport did the BCS thing and it worked...HELL yeah everyone should use it. Playoffs work plain and simple. See high school athletics and every other sport under the sun and moon.

The BCS is good for one reason: Before it, the #1 and #2 at the end of the season didn't play each other.

Where you around in 1992 when #1 did play #2? No BCS. Three words for ya.... ROLL TIDE ROLL!!


It would be a complete season with teams finishing off at 13-0,14-0 or whatever...not starting the playoffs after 13 game.


BCS is used to make money. Period. Really does not matter what the majority thinks anyway.

 

[MECU]

To complain at the end that the system is bad isn't any good.

You're not suggesting people only complain at the end? . The complaints never stop. They start with the pre-season polls and progress to the BCS title. Anytime someone references the National Championship on a message board it's MNC, not NC. I don't know how you could express more clearly and repeatedly that the system is bad.

This article clarifies my view on this matter much better than I could ever articulate: http://deadspin.com/sports/dan-shan...ah-yeah-we-get-it-you-hate-the-bcs-329110.php