Why I Hate The BCS Even More Tonight

[Pedro Cerrano]

The BCS actually got it right this year. They have the two best teams playing each other.

Roll Tide.

[BaltimoreTerp]

The BCS actually got it right this year. They have the two best teams playing each other.

Roll Tide.

Great. What happens if Alabama wins?

[ShaneDawg85]

LSU is by far the best team in the country. BUT, if Bama pulls out the win, and lets say it's a close one, and Oklahoma State wins the Fiesta Bowl against Stanford, what kind of odds are we looking at for a split title?

[Pedro Cerrano]

BTW I love that it's not OK for Alabama to have another shot at LSU (who they lost to by 3 points) but people would be fine if OK State was in the game who only lost a game they were favored by 4 touchdowns to win.

[Pedro Cerrano]

Great. What happens if Alabama wins?

Alabama is the National Champion because they won the BCS Title Game.

[BaltimoreTerp]

Alabama is the National Champion because they won the BCS Title Game.

But they will have split with the team they played, who is also the champion of the conference the two teams share. How is that a valid outcome?

[BaltimoreTerp]

BTW I love that it's not OK for Alabama to have another shot at LSU (who they lost to by 3 points) but people would be fine if OK State was in the game who only lost a game they were favored by 4 touchdowns to win.

Oklahoma State didn't lose that game to LSU.

[Pedro Cerrano]

Oklahoma State didn't lose that game to LSU.

I understand that, but why penalize Alabama for having the one team as good as they are in the same division. If Alabama played Iowa State and Oklahoma State played LSU with the same outcomes, you'd be OK with Bama in the title game?

I just don't see how the fact that Alabama played LSU already is relevant. The whole idea of the BCS is to pit the two best teams against each other and it has been determined that Alabama and LSU are the two best teams. If you disagree and think Oklahoma State is BETTER than Alabama, fine, you have a legit beef. But I'll never understand the people that agree that Alabama is one of the two best teams but also believe they shouldn't be in the BCS title game. That doesn't pass the smell test IMO.

[mweb]

The old system would have actually been better for this year imo.

That would allow LSU to play a team other than Alabama because they shouldn't have to play them again to justify a title unless there was an actual playoff that resulted in those two teams facing off.

[Pedro Cerrano]

The old system would have actually been better for this year imo.

That would allow LSU to play a team other than Alabama because they shouldn't have to play them again to justify a title unless there was an actual playoff that resulted in those two teams facing off.

I know it's the NFL and not college but didn't the Pats have to beat the Giants again to justify their title in 2008? Something they failed to do....

If you want to say that the NFL has playoffs I'd argue that every game for Alabama after the LSU game was basically a playoff because if they had lost any of those they would have been out.

[ShaneDawg85]

I actually think some of the more frustrating aspects of the BCS is the other major bowl games. Prime example, you have Michigan and Virginia Tech playing in the Sugar Bowl. I get why they did it, or at least I think I do, because there's no way the BCS and the Sugar Bowl are turning down a resurgent Michigan team that has a gigantic fan base, had a great season, and will rake in the cash. But, Virginia Tech? I mean, the Hokies have a good following too, but even still, Virginia Tech? The same team that just lost its conference title game and did so in a really bad way? I'm guessing neither South Carolina or Arkansas were picked because of the two SEC teams in the title game, but even still, is VT really going to draw that much better than either of those two, Arkansas in particular? Then of course we have West Virginia in the Orange Bowl because the Big East has to have a representative. Meanwhile, teams like Arkansas, South Carolina, Baylor, K-State, and even Boise and TCU get snubbed, and yes, I know none of these teams save for TCU won their conferences, but they all had higher BCS rankings than VT and WVU. It's maddening, by and large.

[mweb]

I know it's the NFL and not college but didn't the Pats have to beat the Giants again to justify their title in 2008? Something they failed to do....

If you want to say that the NFL has playoffs I'd argue that every game for Alabama after the LSU game was basically a playoff because if they had lost any of those they would have been out.

Hey, I would be all for a playoffs. I'm just saying that the old system would have been more fair to LSU in this instance.

Obviously the NFL is drastically different than college. But if you want to use the NFL as your example, there's no way two teams from the same division could play each other in the championship game.

As far as your last comment, what kind of playoff matches up a top team against a mediocre team, a team that is not even eligible to compete for the same title, and a team ranked in the 20's and then the #1 team for the title? They were must win games for sure, but I wouldn't say it was basically a playoff for them.

[BaltimoreTerp]

I know it's the NFL and not college but didn't the Pats have to beat the Giants again to justify their title in 2008? Something they failed to do....

If you want to say that the NFL has playoffs I'd argue that every game for Alabama after the LSU game was basically a playoff because if they had lost any of those they would have been out.

You'd argue a poor point, but you can still argue it if you want. That's not a playoff; its still the regular season.

If they had to go through, say, Southern Mississippi and Boise State and Oklahoma State to get to LSU, that is a completely different thing than going through Mississippi State, Georgia Southern (seriously?), Auburn, and Bye.

[mweb]

I actually think some of the more frustrating aspects of the BCS is the other major bowl games. Prime example, you have Michigan and Virginia Tech playing in the Sugar Bowl. I get why they did it, or at least I think I do, because there's no way the BCS and the Sugar Bowl are turning down a resurgent Michigan team that has a gigantic fan base, had a great season, and will rake in the cash. But, Virginia Tech? I mean, the Hokies have a good following too, but even still, Virginia Tech? The same team that just lost its conference title game and did so in a really bad way? I'm guessing neither South Carolina or Arkansas were picked because of the two SEC teams in the title game, but even still, is VT really going to draw that much better than either of those two, Arkansas in particular? Then of course we have West Virginia in the Orange Bowl because the Big East has to have a representative. Meanwhile, teams like Arkansas, South Carolina, Baylor, K-State, and even Boise and TCU get snubbed, and yes, I know none of these teams won their conferences, but they all had higher BCS rankings than VT and WVU. It's maddening, by and large.

Yeah, that's a really good point. I don't really care that much about these bowl games unless they're great match-ups like Ok St vs Stanford, but some teams really got the shaft here. Boise St got a horrible bowl game rather than a BCS game that they deserved according to the standings.

[Pedro Cerrano]

BTerp, do you believe Alabama is the 2nd best team in the country?