Why I Hate The BCS Even More Tonight

[Sports Guy]

So, what is going to happen now?

It looks like we are in for an LSU/Bama rematch...thrilling! (i say that but agree that if they are the 2 best teams, they should play again)

However, what happens if Arkansas or GA beat LSU? Does that mean that LSU will not be OUT of the title game and Bama will be in, even though LSU beat them head to head?

And what is Arkansas wins out? Can you have LSU in the title game over Arkansas?

BTW, speaking of USC, that is a loaded team and if Barkley comes back next year, they will be one of the top teams in the country.

I also think it is pretty foolish to say, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the 2004 Auburn team was better. The one thing the SEC usually has over everyone else is a combo of talent, speed and size...USC had those things as well. They matched up with anyone for a decade and still are, even without Carroll.

[mweb]

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.

I prefer 6 teams, but agree that the 7th or 9th ranked team being left out is not an issue. That will cause some debate, which will be good for the game, but it won't cause the same outrage of a team like Auburn from 2004 getting denied a shot at the title.

[mweb]

So, what is going to happen now?

It looks like we are in for an LSU/Bama rematch...thrilling! (i say that but agree that if they are the 2 best teams, they should play again)

However, what happens if Arkansas or GA beat LSU? Does that mean that LSU will not be OUT of the title game and Bama will be in, even though LSU beat them head to head?

And what is Arkansas wins out? Can you have LSU in the title game over Arkansas?

BTW, speaking of USC, that is a loaded team and if Barkley comes back next year, they will be one of the top teams in the country.

I also think it is pretty foolish to say, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the 2004 Auburn team was better. The one thing the SEC usually has over everyone else is a combo of talent, speed and size...USC had those things as well. They matched up with anyone for a decade and still are, even without Carroll.

If Arkansas can somehow beat LSU, then things would be really screwed up. ARK would have beaten LSU, who beat Bama, who killed ARK. yet, those would be the primary options along with OK ST if they beat OU. Not sure what you do with that.

VaTech could even get in the picture if they win out and if Auburn can upset Bama and Oklahoma can beat OK ST.

And of course you're right about that last part of your post.

[Pedro Cerrano]

The one thing that has always driven me absolutely crazy about the BCS, and it was mentioned earlier, is that you can go undefeated and not have a shot to win the title. On what planet does that make any sense? A coach can literally say before the season starts "kids it doesn't matter how hard we play, we simply cannot win it all."

[mweb]

The one thing that has always driven me absolutely crazy about the BCS, and it was mentioned earlier, is that you can go undefeated and not have a shot to win the title. On what planet does that make any sense? A coach can literally say before the season starts "kids it doesn't matter how hard we play, we simply cannot win it all."

Well I think it makes sense in a case like Houston because they've played no one.

But in a case of a team like Boise State, I think the coach's line would be more like "we can win it all if enough teams lose and the BCS breaks our way." Obviously not ideal.

[Pedro Cerrano]

Well I think it makes sense in a case like Houston because they've played no one.

But in a case of a team like Boise State, I think the coach's line would be more like "we can win it all if enough teams lose and the BCS breaks our way." Obviously not ideal.

Wouldn't you like to see Houston's offense go up against, say, Alabama in a 2-7 matchup? That's one way we can find out if Houston can hang or not.

[mweb]

Wouldn't you like to see Houston's offense go up against, say, Alabama in a 2-7 matchup? That's one way we can find out if Houston can hang or not.

Not really. Again, I'd limit it to 6 teams, but even with 8, I'd rather see either of the teams ranked right after Houston in the BCS (Oklahoma, Oregon) play against Alabama than Houston. That would likely result in a much better game imo.

[BaltimoreTerp]

I don't see the need at all to completely reorganize college football if there was a 4, 6, or 8 team playoff. The bowl system would need to be reorganized, but that's about it imo.

That's because you have a bias towards the "name" programs. That's the genesis of the whole problem with the polls and the bowls and the BCS.

An honest system would be one where literally every single team has a chance to win a championship at the beginning of a season. If you can win your conference, you should have the opportunity to make a playoff. Even if there are a few years of early blowouts of terribly inferior teams, the exposure and opportunity will create a true "mid-major" group like in the NCAA that become powers in their own right and dangerous to face in a playoff. Plus, there will always be a "gimmick" team like this season's Houston that could give a "top" team fits.

[BaltimoreTerp]

Not really. Again, I'd limit it to 6 teams, but even with 8, I'd rather see either of the teams ranked right after Houston in the BCS (Oklahoma, Oregon) play against Alabama than Houston. That would likely result in a much better game imo.

Until there is a real opportunity for these teams, the answer will remain in each person's opinion.

[Pedro Cerrano]

So make a formula that is similar to RPI in college hoops - take the human element out of it as much as possible. I know a lot of people on here (especially those that went to non-power conference schools) hate my idea, but I've always felt the top 64 RPI teams should make the tournament and be seeded accordingly.

[square634]

So make a formula that is similar to RPI in college hoops - take the human element out of it as much as possible. I know a lot of people on here (especially those that went to non-power conference schools) hate my idea, but I've always felt the top 64 RPI teams should make the tournament and be seeded accordingly.

And then you'd be on a similar slippery slope as the BCS. IMO, the NCAA Tournament is made much more special by having the conference champions in it. Then coaches in every conference can literally tell their teams that they control their own destiny.

What would pro sports leagues be like if they operated this way? Oh, sorry Rangers, you won your division, but the AL East is just a stronger division with a harder schedule, so we are going to rank the Red Sox ahead of you. While we're at it, no AFC West teams in the playoffs.

[mweb]

That's because you have a bias towards the "name" programs. That's the genesis of the whole problem with the polls and the bowls and the BCS.

An honest system would be one where literally every single team has a chance to win a championship at the beginning of a season. If you can win your conference, you should have the opportunity to make a playoff. Even if there are a few years of early blowouts of terribly inferior teams, the exposure and opportunity will create a true "mid-major" group like in the NCAA that become powers in their own right and dangerous to face in a playoff. Plus, there will always be a "gimmick" team like this season's Houston that could give a "top" team fits.

No, I have a bias towards good football teams. I'm also biased towards retaining much of the importance of the regular season by having fewer teams make the playoffs.

An honest system attempts to give the best teams a chance to win a title.

If you want to have the teams from the weak conferences play for titles, I'm fine with having things reorganized so they play for a different title as you mentioned.

However, an 8 team playoff does give everyone a chance that schedules some decent games and wins out. Houston and Boise State would make it if the season were to end today, even with Boise losing and Houston's toughest game being at home against UCLA.

[BaltimoreTerp]

And then you'd be on a similar slippery slope as the BCS. IMO, the NCAA Tournament is made much more special by having the conference champions in it. Then coaches in every conference can literally tell their teams that they control their own destiny.

What would pro sports leagues be like if they operated this way? Oh, sorry Rangers, you won your division, but the AL East is just a stronger division with a harder schedule, so we are going to rank the Red Sox ahead of you. While we're at it, no AFC West teams in the playoffs.

Great response.

When it comes to the postseason, there is delicate balance that must exist between making sure the best teams get in, and making sure that each team has a real honest shot at a championship. If you go too far in the first direction, you end up with the BCS; too far the other way, and the whole thing sucks.

I don't think blowouts and superior versus inferior teams are a problem. Out of thirteen BCS Championship games, four have been won by a margin of more than 16 points. Twelve of the total BCS bowls between AQ conference champions have had that same margin. So even if a couple first-round games suck, oh well. Its the games that don't suck that everyone will care about and love.

[BaltimoreTerp]

No, I have a bias towards good football teams. I'm also biased towards retaining much of the importance of the regular season by having fewer teams make the playoffs.

Sixteen of 120 teams (plus more coming in) is 7.5 percent. That's barely more than college basketball (around five percent of Division I schools make the playoffs) and well behind any professional sport.

Plus, again, the regular seasons only matter for the teams that have a chance. If the goal is to win a championship, then this entire season has been a waste for Houston, for example. A playoff would make the regular season matter for everyone.

An honest system attempts to give the best teams a chance to win a title.

Which is what a playoff does. Under essentially any suggested system, that chance is infinitely better than the BCS.

If you want to have the teams from the weak conferences play for titles, I'm fine with having things reorganized so they play for a different title as you mentioned.

That would at least be a more honest attempt at a better system. If college football doesn't want to give those schools a chance, they should be given their own level.

However, an 8 team playoff does give everyone a chance that schedules some decent games and wins out. Houston and Boise State would make it if the season were to end today, even with Boise losing and Houston's toughest game being at home against UCLA.

True. But what about a team like Southern Mississippi? If they win out, they'll be 11-2 and have defeated Houston and won Conference USA. What do they get for that?

[Flosman]

No, I have a bias towards good football teams. I'm also biased towards retaining much of the importance of the regular season by having fewer teams make the playoffs.

An honest system attempts to give the best teams a chance to win a title.

If you want to have the teams from the weak conferences play for titles, I'm fine with having things reorganized so they play for a different title as you mentioned.

However, an 8 team playoff does give everyone a chance that schedules some decent games and wins out. Houston and Boise State would make it if the season were to end today, even with Boise losing and Houston's toughest game being at home against UCLA.

I really do not understand the thinking that 8 is what we need when the difference between teams ranked 8 and 16 is a lot smaller than 2 and 3. There are usually a few teams that appear much better than the teams ranked from around 5 through 20. The difference in records with these teams is usually a combination of injuries, missed kicks and turnovers. I just don't see what is gained by not letting the top 24 teams in. I think the teams that have a real chance of winning a 24 team playoff would be very small, but what is the problem of actually making those power teams win 4 games to prove it on the field?