BCS Race

[cincy jacket]

There are only 3 teams with legitimate gripes if left out of the BCS title game. They would be an undefeated UL (or undefeated rutgers if they beat them). A one loss Michigan, if a one loss Notre Dame got in over them. Or a one loss OSU if Texas got in over them. Everyone knows going in what the system is. If you win all your games and your in a power conference, most times you will get in the title game (sorry 2004 Auburn). If you don't, then its up to a bunch of journalists and coaches with their own agendas to decide your fate. Fair? Not really ,but neither is the fact that Boise State could win all their games from here til 2020 and never get close to the title game under this format. With all that bein said I personally think this is much more exciting than a play-off. It can keep us talking for months about how we would of won the titles if it wasn't for the computers.

[Caveat Emperor]

The whole point of the BCS system in to ensure the top two teams in the country play for the title. If Rutgers isn't one of the two best teams in the country (and clearly they're not) then there's no reason for them to be in the title game.

I don't worry about the whole rematch aspect. There have been rematches in the title game before, just not last week rematches like Ohio State/Michigan would be. The whole point is to get #1 vs. #2. If they're two schools that have played before so be it. If it's a school that's lost a game so be it. If it's a school from a weaker conference so be it. All that matters is that #1 plays #2.

Then why even look at the records, strength-of-schedule, opponents, etc.? If the only thing you're concerned about is getting the matchup of the two best teams, then just get everyone to figure out who the most talented teams are and match them up at the end of the year. So what if they have 1 loss or 2 losses.

At that point, it becomes a fantasy-football exercise and has nothing to do with determining who has had the best year on the football field.

There are only 3 teams with legitimate gripes if left out of the BCS title game. They would be an undefeated UL (or undefeated rutgers if they beat them). A one loss Michigan, if a one loss Notre Dame got in over them. Or a one loss OSU if Texas got in over them. Everyone knows going in what the system is. If you win all your games and your in a power conference, most times you will get in the title game (sorry 2004 Auburn). If you don't, then its up to a bunch of journalists and coaches with their own agendas to decide your fate. Fair? Not really ,but neither is the fact that Boise State could win all their games from here til 2020 and never get close to the title game under this format. With all that bein said I personally think this is much more exciting than a play-off. It can keep us talking for months about how we would of won the titles if it wasn't for the computers.

Why should OSU or Michigan have a gripe about being left out of the title game? Each team controls it's own destiny. We're not talking about an Auburn situation, where they did everything asked of them and still got left out of the dance -- each team (OSU and Michigan) has a chance to be the national champion if they win the games in front of them. If the loesr of their game doesn't make the national championship, they have nobody to blame but themselves for not winning and advancing to play for the title.

I've got zero sympathy for the loser of that game. If those kids want the glory, they can go earn it on the football field. The loser shouldn't get a second bite that is denied to other schools.

[registerthis]

I would be in tears of CFB went to a playoff.

CFB is the most unique sport out there because every Saturday is the super bowl in many ways. Imagine if Michigan vs Ohio State this year was just a game for seeding?

It's a game of tradition and it needs to stay that way, IMO.

Ah, the good old "tradition" argument. You are aware of how the polls first came to be, right? They were never meant to be taken seriously. The AP poll started in 1934 as a way to encourage debate among football fans, since college football didn't have any way of determining its champion. Fans, however, began viewing the team at the top of the AP poll at the end of the season as the "champion," and that perception carried on through until the creation of the idiotic BCS.

But, yes, any system that can deliver "split championships," unnecessary controversy and effectively shuts out half of Division 1-A teams from championship contention is certainly better than a playoff system. It makes you wonder why Division 1-A football is the only sport in the world that determines its champion in such a manner...

[Chip R]

I would be in tears of CFB went to a playoff.

But it already does have playoffs. Divisions 1-AA, II and III have had playoffs for years and the sun still comes up in the east.

[Roy Tucker]

IIRC, the main argument against a playoff system is the additional games that would be played.

Which conveniently ignores the fact a playoff system could be fit into the existing bowl games.

Which also conveniently ignores the fact there is a new "Super Bowl" BCS championship game this year.

And also ignores the fact that college football is played on every day of the week now, i.e. college presidents have *****d themselves to get on TV. Well, maybe not Monday, but every other week.

[Roy Tucker]

IMO, if Michigan loses, they won't play in the championship game.

If OSU loses, I could conceive of a rematch. Particularly if both Louisville and Rutgers lose.

I think it would be a hoot if Rutgers went undefeated. The contortions that BCS would go through to screw them out of a title slot would be monumental.

[registerthis]

IIRC, the main argument against a playoff system is the additional games that would be played.

Which conveniently ignores the fact a playoff system could be fit into the existing bowl games.

Which also conveniently ignores the fact there is a new "Super Bowl" BCS championship game this year.

And also ignores the fact that college football is played on every day of the week now, i.e. college presidents have *****d themselves to get on TV. Well, maybe not Monday, but every other week.

It also ignores the fact that, as Chip states, every other division in football has a playoff system.

A playoff would add more games? Cry me a river. It's borderline preposterous to me that an organization that operates as a professional sports league suddenly becomes watchful over the well-being of its so-called "student athletes" when the talk shifts to a discussion of a playoff system that would disrupt the flow of cash generated by the bowl system.

[registerthis]

I think it would be a hoot if Rutgers went undefeated. The contortions that BCS would go through to screw them out of a title slot would be monumental.

Yeah, just ask USC, circa 2003.

[Danny Serafini]

That blows the whole logic of the BCS out of the water, then. Rutgers plays in a conference that is, by definition, one of the top conferences in the country. It says so right in the BCS contract. What you're suggesting is for the BCS to simply ignore their own guidelines, and is no better than simply picking two teams out of thin air to play for this mythical Championship.

And when you have more than two teams from top conferences finish the season undefeated, you're left with using a series of complex and convoluted computer programs to determine your "National Champion" for you. How lovely.

No one, including those in the BCS, has ever said all BCS conferences are equal. Going undefeated in the Big East doesn't carry the same weight as going undefeated in the Big 10, because the Big East simply isn't as good. And let's take a look at who Rutgers has beaten on their way to 8-0:

North Carolina
Illinois
Ohio
Howard
South Florida
Navy
Pittsburgh
Connecticut

Combine both the AP and coach's polls, and those eight schools combined for one single vote. At this point, Rutgers has done nothing to earn a shot in the title game. If they do run the table they'll have wins over Louisville and West Virginia to help their case, but even then they're unlikely. Would they really deserve to go over a Florida team that had wins over Tennessee, LSU and Arkansas in the SEC title game? Would they deserve to go over a USC team that had wins over Arkansas, Nebraska, Oregon, Cal and Notre Dame? Even with a loss you can't make a case for Rutgers going ahead of those schools.

Rutgers is a wonderful story this year, and a pretty good team. But they're not title game worthy, and you don't need a computer to tell you that. Does anyone really think the voters would put Rutgers at #2?

[westofyou]

CFB is the most unique sport out there because every Saturday is the super bowl in many ways. Imagine if Michigan vs Ohio State this year was just a game for seeding?

Imagine them both ending up undefeated and one staying home.

Oh wait... that already happened.

It's been way worse before.

[registerthis]

No one, including those in the BCS, has ever said all BCS conferences are equal.

Actually, the BCS does. By naming 6 conferences as "BCS Conferences", the BCS has effectively stated that these conferences rise above the other "second-tier" conferences in Division 1-A, and that the champions from each of these conferences have--by virtue of playing in a BCS conference--earned the right to participate in the BCS and lay claim to being a better team. The BCS itself has stated--by virtue of the creation of this asinine system--that the teams that play in conferences such as the Big East are inherently better than teams in, say, the MAC.

If the argument is that some schools from these inherently superior conferences truly *aren't* superior--that they could, in fact, go undefeated and become the champions of their conference, and still have no realistic shot at a National Championship--then this whole BCS thing is a complete and total sham (which, by the way, it is.) Just call the BCS what it truly is--a way for the top 20 or 30 programs in the country to rake in the dollars, while leaving the "also-rans" behind.

You're saying Rutgers hasn;t played anybody--fine. But who's to say that the competition USC is blowing through out west is significantly better?

Going undefeated in the Big East doesn't carry the same weight as going undefeated in the Big 10, because the Big East simply isn't as good.

...

Rutgers is a wonderful story this year, and a pretty good team. But they're not title game worthy, and you don't need a computer to tell you that. Does anyone really think the voters would put Rutgers at #2?

That's the whole point here, though. I don't really know how good Rutgers is. So I have to resort to a complex and impossible-to-explain computer program to run some algorithms and spit out to me some random number like "8.975" that is supposed to give me an indication of how good Rutgers is?

The argument I'm making isnt necessarily that Rutgers is a championship caliber team--I, personally, don't think that they are. It's that using this idiotic subjective and arbitrary criteria as a means to determine your champion is flawed. If every other collegiate sport can determine their champion without the aid of algorithms and computer models, I fail to understand what sets Division 1-A football apart.

[NJReds]

No one, including those in the BCS, has ever said all BCS conferences are equal. Going undefeated in the Big East doesn't carry the same weight as going undefeated in the Big 10, because the Big East simply isn't as good. And let's take a look at who Rutgers has beaten on their way to 8-0:

North Carolina
Illinois
Ohio
Howard
South Florida
Navy
Pittsburgh
Connecticut

Disclaimer: I don't like the BCS, and I'd much rather see a playoff.

However, with all due respect...look at Louisville's schedule:

Kentucky
Temple
Miami (FL)
Kansas State
Middle Tennessee
Cincinnati
Syracuse
West Virginia

Up until West Virginia (who Rutgers will also get a shot at), their best win was a victory over a sub-par Miami squad.

West Virginia...who was #3 until their loss to Louisville built up their ranking by beating the following:

Marshall
Eastern Washington
Maryland
East Carolina
Mississippi State
Syracuse
Connecticut

If Rutgers beats Louisville and WV, they deserve the same treatment from the pollsters that those two teams would've received, IMO.

I'm not saying Rutgers is the second best team at that point, but under this system they deserve the same respect as WV or Louisville, which most likely would've been a shot at the Ohio St.-Michigan winner.

[Roy Tucker]

If every other collegiate sport can determine their champion without the aid of algorithms and computer models, I fail to understand what sets Division 1-A football apart.

To paraphrase, it's always been about the money.

[Danny Serafini]

Actually, the BCS does. By naming 6 conferences as "BCS Conferences", the BCS has effectively stated that these conferences rise above the other "second-tier" conferences in Division 1-A, and that the champions from each of these conferences have--by virtue of playing in a BCS conference--earned the right to participate in the BCS and lay claim to being a better team. The BCS itself has stated--by virtue of the creation of this asinine system--that the teams that play in conferences such as the Big East are inherently better than teams in, say, the MAC.

They do say the BCS conferences are superior to the others. And honestly they are. But they don't say all BCS conferences are equal. The Big East got put on probation a year or two ago because their performance was considered subpar. As poorly as the ACC has performed this year they may suffer the same fate. That's the BCS saying "You're not as good as other BCS conferences."

Just call the BCS what it truly is--a way for the top 20 or 30 programs in the country to rake in the dollars, while leaving the "also-rans" behind.

Well, yeah. No argument here.

You're saying Rutgers hasn;t played anybody--fine. But who's to say that the competition USC is blowing through out west is significantly better?

Pretty much everyone. USC has played a much better schedule. They've already beaten three teams that have been in the rankings (Arkansas, Nebraska, Washington St.) and have three more to go. They really do have a strong schedule this year.

That's the whole point here, though. I don't really know how good Rutgers is. So I have to resort to a complex and impossible-to-explain computer program to run some algorithms and spit out to me some random number like "8.975" that is supposed to give me an indication of how good Rutgers is?

The argument I'm making isnt necessarily that Rutgers is a championship caliber team--I, personally, don't think that they are. It's that using this idiotic subjective and arbitrary criteria as a means to determine your champion is flawed. If every other collegiate sport can determine their champion without the aid of algorithms and computer models, I fail to understand what sets Division 1-A football apart.

I'm not going to argue that the BCS is better than a playoff, because it isn't. A playoff would be a much better system for everyone involved. But if my choice is the old poll system or the BCS, I'll take the BCS. It's a least a small step in the right direction.

[Cedric]

Ah, the good old "tradition" argument. You are aware of how the polls first came to be, right? They were never meant to be taken seriously. The AP poll started in 1934 as a way to encourage debate among football fans, since college football didn't have any way of determining its champion. Fans, however, began viewing the team at the top of the AP poll at the end of the season as the "champion," and that perception carried on through until the creation of the idiotic BCS.

But, yes, any system that can deliver "split championships," unnecessary controversy and effectively shuts out half of Division 1-A teams from championship contention is certainly better than a playoff system. It makes you wonder why Division 1-A football is the only sport in the world that determines its champion in such a manner...

I'm sure a playoff would end that "unnecessary controversy? Get real.

All that would do is force people to complain about the seedings and the matchups. The arguement I hear for a playoff is that it will "prove" the best team won the title. Please tell me you don't agree with that line of reasoning?

The regular season is the playoffs in CFB and that's the way it should be. Every other sport has it wrong. If other sports were so worried about proving the best team they would do away with long crapshoot playoffs and rely on the long regular seasons, just like MLB used to. The only reason they don't is because of money and allowing the teams in other cities to actually believe they have a shot.

I'd argue that the best team in CFB wins the title much more than the best in other sports.

I also understand that sports are a business. I understand why MLB needs wild cards and such to keep fans in play, but arguing that it somehow helps prove the best team is just inane to me. People want a playoff in CFB to prove the best team and it just wouldn't do it.



Why should half of those 1-A teams deserve a shot at the title anyway? There has to be common sense in play here.