apparently it does not mean a whole lot when a team can lose their biggest game at home nonetheless and still get into the championship game and not win their conference.
no one is disputing that alabama is better than lsu, they prob are, but unfortunately for them, they lost to them at home, and that should have been enough to not allow them to play in the title game.
i dont know how that proves the college football has the best regular season, because again a team lost their biggest game of the year by far, at home nonetheless and still hoisted the trophy at years end, so it showed that even if u do lose the biggest game of the year u can still win it all, hence the regular season means a lot in college football.
i dont get the argument how this is the best system. thats whats supposed to make sports so great, that any team if given the chance can win.
the patriots in 07 as we all know lost in the superbowl after going 18-0, and they played the 1 team that had the ability to give them trouble and lost to them, but if it was bcs style, they would have played the cowboys and most likely one the superbowl.
i can go on and on, but i disagree with the bcs system 100 percent, as do many, and that is why the ratings for these bowl games blow because their is no excitement. once they go to a playoff, if they ever do, the ratings will go up big time. i understand ur going to defend alabama, because ur a bama fan, but i disagree with this whole system.
I'm not defending Alabama. The SEC is built for a playoff anyway. We would've had LSU and Alabama in the national championship game no matter what system was in place because they were the two best teams by a significant margin. Alabama and the SEC is going to kick a** no matter what system these conference commissioners and scholarly university presidents agree to. The SEC already proposed the +1 to the other conferences a few years ago and they didn't like it, so they can live with the results.
Alabama was afforded the opportunity to play in the national championship because everybody else that was a viable candidate lost. After Bama lost to LSU in November, Oklahoma St. passed them and was sitting at #2 in the BCS, LSU was #1. All Oklahoma St. had to do was win their games and they get in. Instead, they went out and lost to a 4 TD underdog in Iowa St. Case closed.
I don't think the current BCS structure is the BEST system, but it's not nearly as flawed as you think it is either. The only tweak that needs to be made is a +1 game, which is the exact same thing as a 4 team playoff. The #5 team in the country NEVER has a legitimate case to be considered for the national championship.
Furthermore, an "NFL style" playoff consisting of 12 teams or so simply isn't feasible in D-1 college football. Where are all these playoff games going to be played? Students and fans would have to sell their houses in order to afford being able to follow their team around the country playing playoff games.
Just because the NFL does it, doesn't mean it's the only way to do it and above reproach either. The fact that an NFL team can win it's division with a losing record and make the playoffs, while a 10-6 team from a tougher division gets left out is completely flawed.
NFL teams lose their biggest games of the season at home all the time and end up playing for the trophy. The Patriots already lost to the Giants earlier this season. Should they have been eliminated from being able to play the Giants again in the Superbowl because of that?
The NFL playoffs are designed to get the best team from the NFC to play the best team from the AFC in the superbowl. It's not designed for the two best teams in the league to play each other. The two best teams in the league might both be in the same conference. The Packers were the best team all season, but they ran into a hotter team in the playoffs, not necessarily the better team. Speaking of which, the Giants had already lost to the Packers earlier in the regular season, should they have been eliminated from being able to play the Packers again in the playoffs? Nobody complained about a rematch in either scenario.
The Patriots were the best team in the league the year they went 18-0. They didn't win the superbowl, but there's no doubt that they were still the best team in the league. One flukish play in the superbowl allowed the Giants to win. The Giants hoisted the Lombardi Trophy, but the Patriots were the best team in the league that year, and were still the better team after the superbowl in my opinion.
Nobody is ever going to agree on the perfect system, but the point is, everybody in college football was playing by the same rules when the season began, and Alabama benefited from those rules. Those rules were in place because nobody liked the SEC's proposal of a #1 playoff. The SEC already knew that 2 teams from their conference were going to play for the national championship under the current structure and tried to avoid it.
