Bcs

[Alex44]

no one knew that at the time though. its easy to look back on it after Oklahoma got the **** kicked out of them. if we as people couldnt see that Auburn was better than oklahoma, how the hell is a computer suppose to?

I saw auburn was the best team in the country

I dont blame the computer I blame the human voteing for falling into the hype of teams

 

[Agent51]

if there is 3 undefeated teams, and the top 2 go to the National Championship, how is that a screw up by the BCS?

wasnt USC-Oklahoma 1 & 2 before the national championship last year?

Because it's not always the top 2 that get there when there are more than 2 undefeateds. Hence the "split" national championships, which are ridiculous, if you are going to have co-champs, hell, have THEM play a game for the sole title.

 

[Alex44]

Because it's not always the top 2 that get there when there are more than 2 undefeateds. Hence the "split" national championships, which are ridiculous, if you are going to have co-champs, hell, have THEM play a game for the sole title.

Thats how I felt about LSU and USC, they should have played, because IMO LSU would have won that game

 

[kastofsna120]

meh i guess i'm the only one that doesnt really care about co-championships

 

[Nappy Roots]

Because it's not always the top 2 that get there when there are more than 2 undefeateds. Hence the "split" national championships, which are ridiculous, if you are going to have co-champs, hell, have THEM play a game for the sole title.

how is that the BCS's fault? BCS doesnt decide not to play +1

 

[Alex44]

meh i guess i'm the only one that doesnt really care about co-championships

well we kind of want to know who the best team is

co-champs just leaves us wondering if LSU could beat USC

 

[Agent51]

how is that the BCS's fault? BCS doesnt decide not to play +1

I didn't neccessarily say it was the BCS' fault, which is kind of the point of my thread. My question is why does everyone bash the BCS every single year because someone deserved to play for it and isn't, but the one year that there is absolutely NO QUESTION who should be playing for the title everyone praises them for getting it right. They DIDN'T "get it right" because there was nothing to get wrong. Had there been another team 12-0 or everyone 11-1 or just one 12-0 and a bunch of 11-1s then you better believe the "experts" and fans would ALL be in an uproar over SOMETHING right now.

well we kind of want to know who the best team is

co-champs just leaves us wondering if LSU could beat USC

Exactly. People don't play in the Super Bowl or World Series or fight for a title belt only to come out SHARING the title, they have a clear cut champ at the end. It should be that way in college too. Personally I don't have the die hard hatred for the BCS that some people do (although I'm sure I would if my Longhorns ever got screwed over bad by it) but I WOULD prefer to see a playoff system like Division 1-AA does. I just think it leaves less questions in people's minds.

 

[Alex44]

Exactly. People don't play in the Super Bowl or World Series or fight for a title belt only to come out SHARING the title, they have a clear cut champ at the end. It should be that way in college too. Personally I don't have the die hard hatred for the BCS that some people do (although I'm sure I would if my Longhorns ever got screwed over bad by it) but I WOULD prefer to see a playoff system like Division 1-AA does. I just think it leaves less questions in people's minds.

Exactly the superbowl winner never has to share a title with a team that has the same record, they are the best, I agree that college should have a playoff system although not as large as Divison 1-AA or 2 A whatever the correct name is

It should just be 1 vs 2 and if there is another undefeated team after the bowls they play eachother

Its much more simple and less of an injury risk for highly ranked players comeing out of college

2-A can afford a bigger playoff because if the players get hurt no offense but they arnt #1 draft picks or even in the draft most the time

 

[kastofsna120]

i just don't want a "plus one" game. that sucks. give me a full playoff or just leave it alone

 

[Nappy Roots]

I didn't neccessarily say it was the BCS' fault, which is kind of the point of my thread. My question is why does everyone bash the BCS every single year because someone deserved to play for it and isn't, but the one year that there is absolutely NO QUESTION who should be playing for the title everyone praises them for getting it right. They DIDN'T "get it right" because there was nothing to get wrong. Had there been another team 12-0 or everyone 11-1 or just one 12-0 and a bunch of 11-1s then you better believe the "experts" and fans would ALL be in an uproar over SOMETHING right now.

Exactly. People don't play in the Super Bowl or World Series or fight for a title belt only to come out SHARING the title, they have a clear cut champ at the end. It should be that way in college too. Personally I don't have the die hard hatred for the BCS that some people do (although I'm sure I would if my Longhorns ever got screwed over bad by it) but I WOULD prefer to see a playoff system like Division 1-AA does. I just think it leaves less questions in people's minds.

ohh alright. then i agree

 

[Agent51]

Exactly the superbowl winner never has to share a title with a team that has the same record, they are the best, I agree that college should have a playoff system although not as large as Divison 1-AA or 2 A whatever the correct name is

It should just be 1 vs 2 and if there is another undefeated team after the bowls they play eachother

Its much more simple and less of an injury risk for highly ranked players comeing out of college

2-A can afford a bigger playoff because if the players get hurt no offense but they arnt #1 draft picks or even in the draft most the time

I semi-agree with this. The problem with that is this:

Say there are 3 undefeateds going into the bowl games. Two undefeateds have to play each other because the BCS thinks they are the top 2, and one undefeated has to play another team, which, while undoubtedly a good team, will not be an undefeated team and maybe not be the caliber of one of the 2 undefeateds playing in the BCS championship. That means that if there are "co-champs" and we have one more game to determine the "true" champ, the AP champ team that DIDN'T play in the BCS title game and isn't the BCS champ will have had the easier road to the "true" title. Does that make sense? It'd be like 1 team having to play an undefeated team to just get a SHOT at the title game, while the other only hads to play a mediocre team to get into the game and have a shot at the same title (thats an EXTREME example but I just used it to explain the scenerio I'm trying to put together) so there would STILL be doubts about who the true champ was because if the team that didn't play the BCS title game ended up winning the "true" title in that game then people would say they had they easier route there.

Plus, all the "stars" in D1-A are going to the NFL anyway, where there IS a playoff, so it's something they might as well get used to. It's not like we can say "lets not have it because they could get injured in those extra games". Yeah, they could, but it'd STILL be less games than an NFL season, and it would give us a clearer cut champion as opposed to leaving us with all the questions that the BCS system USUALLY leaves us with.

 

[Nappy Roots]

meh i guess i'm the only one that doesnt really care about co-championships

how do you not care about it? would u want the dolphins to go to the superbowl one year and they decide to call it a tie?

 

[Alex44]

I semi-agree with this. The problem with that is this:

Say there are 3 undefeateds going into the bowl games. Two undefeateds have to play each other because the BCS thinks they are the top 2, and one undefeated has to play another team, which, while undoubtedly a good team, will not be an undefeated team and maybe not be the caliber of one of the 2 undefeateds playing in the BCS championship. That means that if there are "co-champs" and we have one more game to determine the "true" champ, the AP champ team that DIDN'T play in the BCS title game and isn't the BCS champ will have had the easier road to the "true" title. Does that make sense? It'd be like 1 team having to play an undefeated team to just get a SHOT at the title game, while the other only hads to play a mediocre team to get into the game and have a shot at the same title (thats an EXTREME example but I just used it to explain the scenerio I'm trying to put together) so there would STILL be doubts about who the true champ was because if the team that didn't play the BCS title game ended up winning the "true" title in that game then people would say they had they easier route there.

The only logic I can use to dispute that is this

1- yes the 1 and 2 undefeated teams play but the one that loses has already proven they arnt a true champion

2- The #3 team doesnt play an undefeated but still has to play the #1 team that the other team has already proven they cant beat

that make sense?

 

[Agent51]

The only logic I can use to dispute that is this

1- yes the 1 and 2 undefeated teams play but the one that loses has already proven they arnt a true champion

2- The #3 team doesnt play an undefeated but still has to play the #1 team that the other team has already proven they cant beat

that make sense?

Sort of, but then you have a case like the OU situation last year.

And what if the AP #1 team isn't as good as the BCS #2 team? then you have what SHOULD be a 3rd ranked team actually playing for a shot to win the title.

 

[kastofsna120]

how do you not care about it? would u want the dolphins to go to the superbowl one year and they decide to call it a tie?

college football isn't the NFL. time to figure that out