BCS makes reg season less important IMHO

[Collier11]

cus almost every 1 or 2 loss team is automatically out of the race and it only matters who loses first in most cases.

A complete and hopeful hypothetical but just think if we end the year 11-2 by beating ut, @ku, @tech, @neb, osu, and the big 12 title game. Why shouldnt we be in the discussion, hell we were without our QB for both losses. But we all know any team with 1 loss will be ranked ahead of us.

This is the same for every team, the regular season means nothing in cfb cus no matter how good you are playing, it all depends on the timing of your loss

[Blues1]

AMEN ~ Our only Chance is for at least "four or five top teams" to have 2 Loss's each - That's why we need lots of upsets *RIGHT Now*....Yes it would be nice to play a undefeated Kansas or whoever,- But this year the faster undefeated teams go down the better for us....(Example ~ This Week) - We need ND to knock off usc suck and then ND lose to someone else real soon.
If there are 4 to 5 One Loss teams at the end of Confernece Play we will be in a Lesser Bowl even IF We Win out.....JMHO....~~!

[PDXsooner]

actually, the one silver lining with being "out of the race" at this point is this: boise state will not lose a game. every 1-loss team behind them is going to pray week in and week out that they lose a game, and it's going to be a slow painful process to watch boise state win out and very possibly (but undeservedly) play in the title game.

[PDXsooner]

and then ND lose to someone else real soon.


very unlikely. their schedule is HORRIBLE.

10/24 Boston College
10/31 Washington State
11/07 Navy
11/14 @ Pittsburgh
11/21 Connecticut
11/28 @ Stanford

[Collier11]

@pitt and @ stanford wont be easy

[Collier11]

There are many more reasons but I just cant stand the fact that these rich folks that have no clue keep justifying the BCS by saying how meaningful it makes the regular season, BS.

The reg season means nothing, when you lose and where you were ranked preseason are the only things that matter under the bcs, and what coaches you are buddies with that will vote for you

[General Applewhite]

....this after a year in which the BCS elevated Oklahoma to a conference title game over a team that beat them.

[badger]

Everyone else loses = Boise State vs. OU in the championship game.

ESPN would cry tears of unfathomable sadness.

Ratings would plummet to all-time lows.

The Statue of Liberty herself would cower in shame.

Bob Stoops would lift another crystal football... so despite the rest of the crap melting down, all is well :D

[Blues1]

....this after a year in which the BCS elevated Oklahoma to a conference title game over a team that beat them.

BCS didn't elevate us last year - The Big 12 Rules de-elevated the horns....

More Like ~ The Year Texas Blew it...... :)

[yermom]

if anything, the BCS fixes the earliest loss problem, less now than it did in the beginning though

we'll see about Boise State once the first BCS comes out

[VA Sooner]

Boise State isn't as polished as of late... the game last night against Tulsa showed it to be so and the game last week against UC-Davis, the same. Lost style points on a Wednesday night game when no other was playing so the attention of quite a few fans were on them last night to show something.

Nothing.

I think the games against Pitt and Stanford will be difficult... show the weakness.. which is their secondary and especially biting on the run and leaving guys wide open in the backfield.

All things considered... would rather not see us play them again for a bit until we know we have our mojo in bowl games back. Or could a Fiesta Bowl against Boise State be exactly what we needed? (did I just say that?????)

BCS is tough to overcome... coaches and players are worried what the extra few games would do to kids and potential injuries... Imagine going from a 11-14 (considering conference championships and bowl games) to 14-17 games and the risk of injury goes up exponentially.

If NFL, no problem... you've got a salary and a disability package to cover you financially. College... no such thing... unless you play for USC. :-)

[PDXsooner]

....this after a year in which the BCS elevated Oklahoma to a conference title game over a team that beat them.

thank god. otherwise it would have elevated texas over a team with the same record that beat them!

[yermom]

am i crazy or did they get rid of the Notre Dame rule, and they are just like any other non-BCS team now?

and if so, teams like Boise State could be in trouble if Notre Dame is back to winning games...

[BoulderSooner79]

The BCS has been kinder to OU than any other team by far. There was controversy in the selection in all 4 years OU got to the title game. Only in '07 when OU was one of several 2 loss teams did they not get selected and it wasn't a big controversy as I recall (mild controversy?). If winning a conference title or beating your rival isn't interesting enough for fans, then 90+% of the teams have no further reason to play after the first few weeks of the season.

[Collier11]

Just cus the BCS has been good to OU doesnt mean that the system is any good

[PDXsooner]

these rich folks that have no clue keep justifying the BCS by saying how meaningful it makes the regular season, BS.



i actually think that the current system DOES make the games more meaningful, but that's not a reason why the presidents support it. it all comes down to $$$.

for example, the miami game was huge in that it eliminated us from NC contention, and i knew that as i watched it. if we had a playoff we'd have a decent shot at playing our way back into the final 8, or certainly 16 regardless of our 2 losses.

[Leroyt]

I agree PDX. Though i think 8 is enough (had to), Any college fball fan in his right mind would want to see Texas and OU in the playoffs, as well as teams like LSU, VTech, and maybe Ohio State (an extra couch burning holiday). It would also give non-bcs teams a chance to prove they can hang, or more likely that they can win the odd big game here and there but are not ready to tangle three weeks in a row.

[Curly Bill]

Actually, I'm a college football fan in his right mind and I have no desire to see a playoff system.


...and any team with two losses deserves no shot at the title.

[silverwheels]

...and any team with two losses deserves no shot at the title.

So in 2007 it should have been Ohio State and Hawai'i? I would have rather seen that, actually, than see LSU get to play in New Orleans for a BCS title again.

[I Am Right]

Yes, I like---same with play off, ruin regular season.

[Leroy Lizard]

Bob Stoops would lift another crystal football...

I think you're forgetting something.

[Leroyt]

...and any team with two losses deserves no shot at the title.

Doesn't that get us where we are now though, with teams not scheduling as many tough games (at least on purpose)? With a playoff, two good teams can play without knowing one of them is likely out of the race (or still in with a tremendous amount of help) at the end of the game.

[VA Sooner]

So in 2007 it should have been Ohio State and Hawai'i? I would have rather seen that, actually, than see LSU get to play in New Orleans for a BCS title again.




Agree. That was tough to watch... no excitement for a "lucky" LSU team to get to the National Championship.

[beer4me]

am i crazy or did they get rid of the Notre Dame rule, and they are just like any other non-BCS team now?

and if so, teams like Boise State could be in trouble if Notre Dame is back to winning games...


Eight wins and ranked in the top 12 they automatically get a BCS berth.

I hate the BCS. yes I know it has been very kind to OU but still hate the jaskassery of the system

[Collier11]

Actually, I'm a college football fan in his right mind and I have no desire to see a playoff system.


...and any team with two losses deserves no shot at the title.

makes no sense at all, the hypothetical I posted earlier is a perfect example of how a team could deserve a shot and not even have a chance cus of this fudged up system

[yermom]

the hypothetical about OU winning out and how we should be ranked above 1-loss teams because Bradford was hurt?

that's more homerism that a real argument...

the rich people aren't worried about the regular season, they are worried about the bowls

Jerry Palm answers this question pretty well here:

http://www.collegebcs.com/why.html

it's kinda old with the Pac 10/Big 10 stuff (i think he wrote it late in 2006) but it doesn't change that much

[Statalyzer]

Actually, I'm a college football fan in his right mind and I have no desire to see a playoff system.

That's a contradictory statement.


So in 2007 it should have been Ohio State and Hawai'i? I would have rather seen that, actually, than see LSU get to play in New Orleans for a BCS title again.

Ohio State and Kansas? Kansas and Ohio State were both 11-1 with similarly weak schedules, the only reasons the Buckeyes were ranked higher was 1)big name and 2)higher in preseason.


Just cus the BCS has been good to OU doesnt mean that the system is any good

Exactly.

When the BCS was unkind to Texas in 2003 and 2008, it sucked. When the BCS was great for us in 2004, it still sucked.

[yermom]

That's a contradictory statement.


i'm pretty anti-playoff

it sounds like a great idea if your idea of college football is watching from your couch

and really it was more the Big 12 last year than the BCS that screwed you guys :D

[silverwheels]

I'm pro-playoff even though I realize it's not the perfect postseason. I just think the pluses outweigh the minuses. Really, with the way college football is set up and given its history the postseason will be a cluster no matter what.