There is absolutely nothing wrong with the BCS

[Rooster]

The BCS doesn't match the human polls! The computers are the problem! Get rid of the computers!

Ignorance. The human polls were wrong. USC didn't deserve to be in the title game. They beat no one this year. Even the Michigan win (too little, too late) was dubious at best. Does anyone remember the last time Michigan beat a PAC-10 team on the road? As well as a loss to Cal? Cal? Cal? The computers were dead on. USC skated on a soft schedule and some lucky breaks. They got far more than they deserved, and its a damn shame everyone is so scared of being labled as east-coast-biased to speak up and tell USC they were a soft team playing in one of the worst conferences in college football.

Long live the computers! Long live the BCS! Death to ignorant sportscasters who are far too self important to admit they backed a crap team.

[cphilip]

I kind of agree really. I think the top two teams did play. I believe LSU probably is the best team in the nation. But even if you agree USC is... then the system worked! Let me explain...

Long ago before the BSC we had split title years. No one could agree. So whats wrong with that? It didn't hurt anyone then! Why cannot there be two top teams? I mean they do not play many of the same people so no ones going to want to admit their people they played were inferior.... so you gonna have ties because people do not want to give on that. So it worked AS WELL if not better than it used to. Its just as perfect as anything can be.

However if you look at strength of schedule then....well... LSU.

[wish-had-a-mag]

Re: There is absolutely nothing wrong with the BCS

Originally posted by Rooster
The computers were dead on. USC skated on a soft schedule and some lucky breaks. They got far more than they deserved, and its a damn shame everyone is so scared of being labled as east-coast-biased to speak up and tell USC they were a soft team playing in one of the worst conferences in college football.

Finally someone understands me.....

But I dont care about bias, we(LSU) won hands down.

Go NorCal at AO Ca day!!!

[LittlePaintballBoy]

Re: Re: There is absolutely nothing wrong with the BCS

Originally posted by wish-had-a-mag


Go NorCal at AO Ca day!!!

Um, what?

[grw4w34]

Hey, Cal beat VT, which was ranked pretty high at the time of Cal's victory over USC. I think a UCS-LSU game would be the best way to decide who really deserves it.

GO BEARS!!!

[MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata]

Despite the fact that the two best teams probably played this year

The BCS is still inferior to a playoff system, because a championship can't be decided in a single game, no other major sports do it that way, not even other college sports

March Madness always seems far superior to me then Bowl Week to me, and I'm a bigger football fan

It just gives smaller teams a chance who didn't get to play a bigname team, because the big name team wanted a stronger schedule, and also it seems more fair, so a team can't win the national championship on one fluke game.

end ramblings

[Rooster]

So a team can't win the championship in one fluke game?

Most championship games have at least one undefeated team, and one that has only one loss. How is winning 14 games considered having one lucky game? The strength of schedule system works. Should an undefeated mid-major play for a championship? No. And they never will. A playoff system opens the door to streaky teams going on a run and winning a championship far more than the BCS does.

[TigerMan]

The BCS needs to be dumped, or heavily modified. The problem with the BCS lies in how they rank everything and what they take into account to get all of it. Games that had nothing to do with the national championship actually played into who got to go to the national championship. That's not right when Boise St. vs. Hawaii and other smaller games came down to deciding whether or not USC or LSU got to play. And this crap on even if you don't win your conference, yet you still get to play for the national title? That's not right at all. If you can't even win your own conference why should you play for the title? It's has happened twice now with that, Nebraska first, then Oklahoma (oddly enough two Big 12 teams) and both went on to get spanked in their title games (though the score doesn't show it in Oklahoma's even though LSU dominated them). And USC didn't have a cake walk of a schedule by preseason standards. Had the teams they played not bombed there seasons, USC would've had one of the toughest schedules in the country. They had Auburn, Washington, Notre Dame, and Arizona State, all top 25 preseason teams, on their 2003 schedule. It's not USC's fault that these teams didn't live up to their expectations. And Oklahoma's schedule wasn't that great either, as the Big 12 isn't that strong. The teams they spanked got beaten in most their bowl games.

Simple fact is, USC deserved to go to the national title, and Oklahoma didn't. USC spanked Michigan, Oklahoma got spanked by LSU. We now have a split national title. Simple fact is, the BCS needs to be dumped, or heavily (HEAVILY) modified. First things first, put a rule in in which in order to get to the national championship, you must win your conference.

[Rooster]

What does winning your conference have to do with winning the national championship? What about split conference titles? What about conferences without a championship game? It might not be USC's fault they played a weak schedule, but then again, who's fault was it? Did someone do USC's scheduling for them? USC played sad, weak teams. And by beating them, they only proved they were the best of the sad,weak teams.

[logamus]

well if i was in charge this is what i would do. i would keep the bcs rankings but at the conclusion of the regular season those would be the rankings i would use. that way the bogus money scam conference championship games wont be a factor. then i take the top 8 teams in the bcs rankings and seed them 1v8, 2v7, etc. you keep the 4 bcs bowls and you work out a rotating schedule. all four are used the first weekend of the playoffs, then two on new years (semi-finals) and one for the championship. so sometime mid december would be the first round of the playoffs, one game on a friday night 3 on saturday. most likely the 2v7 primetime on friday and 1v8 primetime on saturday. then the winners of those games meet on new years day at two of the pre-determined sites. the two winners meet for the championship on the saturday prior to the super bowl.

i think if you use the top 8 in the rankings you will get a clear champion. sure the number 9 team throws a fit, but with 8 teams in i think that is fair. doing it this way should not impact any of the other useless bowls either, just the ones that also play on new years. the would most likely be moved up a day or perhaps move the semis to play prime time after the first. the scheduling can be worked out later but all in all i think this is the most fair and simpliest system to get a real champion. it can even be made to allow the rose bowl to have its normal new years game assuming its not hosting the semis.

[TigerMan]

Originally posted by Rooster
What does winning your conference have to do with winning the national championship? What about split conference titles? What about conferences without a championship game? It might not be USC's fault they played a weak schedule, but then again, who's fault was it? Did someone do USC's scheduling for them? USC played sad, weak teams. And by beating them, they only proved they were the best of the sad,weak teams.

Winning your conference should weigh the most. If you can't be the best out of a group of 10-12 teams, then why should you be considered the best in the whole lot? Sure, some teams have conference championship games and some don't. That's not those schools faults who don't, rather the dumb NCAA who deams you must have so many teams to have the con. championship game (and they hold them for the wrong reason, money). If those conferences were allowed, they'd have the games for the purpose of the money. Why do you think te ACC expanded?

Sure the BCS has done its job most of the time. But 2 national championship controversies in the BCS short life span leave it to be flawed to me. If there's been this much controversy in the BCS' short life, its bound to get worse. Fact is, it will probably stay. The chance of NCAA I-A converting to a playoff system and dumping the bowls is like .001% of a chance because the bowl games are huge cash gains. It's all about money in college football.

[logamus]

thats why my plan will work. it doesnt dump the other worthless bowls. as far a the conference champ goes, if some conferences dont have "champ games" then its not "fair" to use those games to favor or hurt teams in conferences that do.