Jump to content

Why I Hate The BCS Even More Tonight


BaltimoreTerp

Recommended Posts

Dude, you're a USC fan. Don't act like your an objective party.

I'm not even stating the case for USC or against Auburn, even though I certainly could. I'm just saying there were 3 teams that should have had a shot, but only 2 could, so those teams had to be chosen and there were legit reasons for the choice that was made. If Auburn was included, there would have been legit reasons for that too. I certainly understand why you were upset, but your issue should be more with the lack of a playoff than anything. If USC or Oklahoma didn't get to play for the title, that would have been just as big of a football travesty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 357
  • Created
  • Last Reply
They were a better team. They went unbeaten in the SEC. They played better teams.

Says who? Not the powers that be...

It's funny how everything is right with the world if the SEC is involved in the BCS Title Game, but when they aren't, it's some kind of unjust travesty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate USC (Kareem/UCLA and Notre Dame fan) but looking at the rosters and remembering those teams (especially that USC team) and I think it would be really hard to argue that Auburn was better than them last year.

I think the argument is that Auburn should have played USC. Auburn had a ton of NFL talent on that team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the argument is that Auburn should have played USC. Auburn had a ton of NFL talent on that team.

The argument can be made, but lets not sell Oklahoma short either. They had a QB coming off a Heisman winning season, Adrian Peterson, Mark Clayton, Jammal Brown, Chris Chester, Dan Cody, Davin Joseph, etc. 11 guys drafted in 2005, including 2 in the first round and 3 in the second. And that doesn't even include their Heisman winning QB or ADP who was just a freshman. 6 guys drafted in 2006, with 5 coming in the first 80 picks.

Auburn had 4 first round picks in 2005 (Brown, Cad. Williams, Rodgers, Campbell) and a 7th round pick. One second and 3 seventh's in 2006.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The BCS sucks.

But no matter how many teams are in the playoffs system (4, 6, 8, 12, 16) someone will feel left out and aggrieved.

Personally, I think an 8 team playoff would be the best for both length of the playoffs and making sure enough teams were given a shot. But 4 would be better than what we have now. I don't understand why a simple BCS change doesn't happen (the +1 system), take #1 and #4 to play in 1 BCS bowl, #2 and #3 in another. 1 week later the winners meet for the National title.

This would fix most problems, Auburn in 2004 would have had a chance to prove on the field they were better, as would USC the year before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why should Auburn have played over Oklahoma?
The argument can be made, but lets not sell Oklahoma short either. They had a QB coming off a Heisman winning season, Adrian Peterson, Mark Clayton, Jammal Brown, Chris Chester, Dan Cody, Davin Joseph, etc. 11 guys drafted in 2005, including 2 in the first round and 3 in the second. And that doesn't even include their Heisman winning QB or ADP who was just a freshman. 6 guys drafted in 2006, with 5 coming in the first 80 picks.

Auburn had 4 first round picks in 2005 (Brown, Cad. Williams, Rodgers, Campbell) and a 7th round pick. One second and 3 seventh's in 2006.

Personally, I think the BCS got it right that year. A case can certainly be made for Auburn, but leaving them out was the right move. That was worst-case scenario for the system, and Auburn fans will always be bitter, but dems the breaks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my mind, anything less than a sixteen-team playoff would require a complete reorganization of college football. Specifically, a large number of teams would have to be relegated to either Division I-AA or an entirely new middle ground of former I-A and I-AA programs. That is likely to be a problem, and would involve lawsuits at the minimum and possibly even end up in Congressional intervention (whether or not they should get involved is a separate question).

As it stands now, there are eleven conferences in I-A football. By the time the next BCS contract is up and change could actually occur, that number could drop, but it is what we would go with right now. Thus, I would make it a sixteen-team playoff: eleven conference champions and five at-larges. A selection committee would select the at-larges as well as seed the teams. Four rounds of playoffs, with the championship game planned for New Year's Day*, though that may not be possible.

*If the bowls stick around in some form, part of the agreement would be that the championship game of the tournament would be the final game of the season, though other bowls could play that day as long as they don't kick off later.

Now if, through whatever means come about, the number of conferences in the top division falls, the number of teams included can be curtailed as well. If you go with four super conferences, you could make it an eight-team playoff. Six or eight conferences could make it a twelve-team bracket. But if we want the fairest possible system under the current organization sixteen teams is best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you have a playoff of the top 8 teams then I don't really see the need to worry about the #9 team being upset. Usually if you are ranked as "low" as 9 in the BCS it's because you've blown a handful of chances.

The 4 quarterfinal games are the Rose, Fiesta, Sugar and Orange Bowl. Then, the two semifinal games are played in the home stadiums of the two higher seeds followed by the National Title game played at another NFL-type stadium, changing every year similar to the Super Bowl.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...