The BCS Is A Total Frickin' Joke

[SoonerBorn68]

Mainly because when it's right it's a joke, & when it's wrong it's a joke. (Please excuse the Mackism)

Back in 2004 when LSU rightly won the MNC the AP voters, the crybaby power tripped, horses asses they are, decided to crown Usuc champions. Well, the BCS was right but since there was a split vote that wasn't suppose to be--complete joke.

Now in 2007 an undefeated Divsion 1A team is voted 5th in the final voting? 5TH? A number 2 finish should have been the lowest. Hey BCS/AP, your bias is showing. BCS completely wrong--complete joke.

Playoffs, now! :mad:

[yermom]

even though Boise State beat us, i don't think they would hang with USC, LSU or Michigan, and probably Wisconsin, Auburn or Arkansas

they would not have been undefeated if they had the schedule any of those teams did

[SoonerBorn68]

Maybe so, but that's still buying into the BCS theory. I didn't think Boise would beat us either, but they did. It's time for the championship to be won on the field, not some popularity contest amongst AP writers & television networks.

[yermom]

also, the BCS doesn't do a poll after the bowls, but the coaches do a final poll

the AP isn't related to the BCS at all anymore

and i'm not saying that about Boise because of sour grapes. i said before the game that we probably couldn't hang with the likes of Michigan, LSU and Florida this year, we weren't consistent enough to beat any of the top 5 teams

[BIG_IKE]

Truth be told...

Had OU,Texas, Texas A&M, or Texas Tech had Boise States Schedule they would be undefeated too...

But the WAC did show some people some things.
Hawaii blew Arizona State out
and Boise beat us..

[batonrougesooner]

I didn't think Boise would beat us either, but they did.

That statement sums up everything that is wrong with the BCS. We need a playoff. Limited in scope to preserve the meaning of the regular season, but a playoff nonetheless.

[BIG_IKE]

Opinons should have nothing to do with championships....if that was the case, then if the world have more Purdue fans voting then guess who would always be #1? It's stupid..

[yermom]

ASU just fired their coach, so it's not like they were amazing or something, and Hawai'i is like the only team that can compete with Tech on passing yards :)

i think that QB throws touchdowns in his sleep

i have no excuse for Boise :D i guess we were pretty evenly matched

[jk the sooner fan]

boise state has no business ranked #2......in any poll, anywhere

[colleyvillesooner]

ditto.

It should be

1. Fla
2. LSU
3. USC
4. tOSU
5. Boise State.

[yermom]

tOSU's one loss is to the National Champs and you put them below two teams with 2 losses?

[SoonerBorn68]

boise state has no business ranked #2......in any poll, anywhere

Using that opinion BSU shouldn't have been able to play in a BCS bowl period. For that matter any "non BCS" conference shouldn't be able to be ranked in any poll. It's a system of haves & have nots. I'm aware that Boise St. plays in the WAC, but I wonder if any BCS conference would invite them in?

[KABOOKIE]

Well, no one here can say Florida would have beaten Boise St. in a playoff. Just a month ago all the talking heads were saying how Michigan and Ohio St were the two best teams ever in the history of college football and they both got their panties exposed. PLAYOFF. PLAYOFF. PLAYOFF.

[yermom]

they belonged in the expanded BCS, probably more than Wake or ND did

[jk the sooner fan]

Using that opinion BSU shouldn't have been able to play in a BCS bowl period. For that matter any "non BCS" conference shouldn't be able to be ranked in any poll. It's a system of haves & have nots. I'm aware that Boise St. plays in the WAC, but I wonder if any BCS conference would invite them in?

that doesnt make sense to me.......there are 5 BCS bowls.....which means 10 teams......they cant ALL be #1....the non championship BCS bowls are really meaningless in terms of determining #1

[KABOOKIE]

they belonged in the expanded BCS, probably more than Wake or ND did

They belonged period.

This type of thinking is why ND is in the BCS EVERY year.

[KABOOKIE]

that doesnt make sense to me.......there are 5 BCS bowls.....which means 10 teams......they cant ALL be #1....the non championship BCS bowls are really meaningless in terms of determining #1


Huh? We're determining who should have been rightly #2.

[jk the sooner fan]

Huh? We're determining who should have been rightly #2.

well 68 says that BSU should have been #2 at least, which translates (at least as i read it) they could have been #1 in his eyes

i think you have to evaluate the teams schedule, the whole body of work, who they played.......really, beating OU is not what some here are making it out to be....we arent the giant beast in college football we've been before...

i dont think BSU can come close to hanging with anybody thats ranked above them....and frankly on most nites, i dont think they can hang with anybody in the top 10......they had to pull out the entire trick play book to beat an OU team with issues

[MarylandSooner]

As far as Boise State being invited to join a BCS conference, maybe the Big 12 should invite them in they would be much better than some of the crap teams and programs that we currently have.

[KABOOKIE]

well 68 says that BSU should have been #2 at least, which translates (at least as i read it) they could have been #1 in his eyes

i think you have to evaluate the teams schedule, the whole body of work, who they played.......really, beating OU is not what some here are making it out to be....we arent the giant beast in college football we've been before...

i dont think BSU can come close to hanging with anybody thats ranked above them....and frankly on most nites, i dont think they can hang with anybody in the top 10......they had to pull out the entire trick play book to beat an OU team with issues


But, without a playoff we'll never know. Saying BSU is #2 isn't that much of a stretch. If they played Florida next weekend there's no one here that can say without a doubt that Florida would win. Trickeration or not.

[BIG_IKE]

Opinions are opinions...let fooball be settled on the field. Not by some geeky voter who never touched a football.

IF we KNEW who was better da in and day out what would b the point of playng? OU could play Boise State next week and could beat them 36-6 for all we know. It is very possible. Thats why you play the game.

[jk the sooner fan]

well of course its all prognostication..BSU has a fine football team, i just dont think they're on the same level........they caught us in the perfect storm

hats off to them

[bellefay1]

have y'all always been pro-playoff?

[jk the sooner fan]

i'm not pro-playoff......

[SoonerBorn68]

well 68 says that BSU should have been #2 at least, which translates (at least as i read it) they could have been #1 in his eyes

Why not? The AP voters shafted LSU in 2003. What's the difference?


i think you have to evaluate the teams schedule, the whole body of work, who they played.......really, beating OU is not what some here are making it out to be....we arent the giant beast in college football we've been before...

i dont think BSU can come close to hanging with anybody thats ranked above them....and frankly on most nites, i dont think they can hang with anybody in the top 10......they had to pull out the entire trick play book to beat an OU team with issues

See, that's the key. It's the perception a team has no ****tin' business on the field. I'm sure many people agree with you. Who thought UF was going to prison rape tOSU like they did? Who thought UF even had a chance in that game? Not giving BSU their due in crashing the BCS party is pretty crappy. You just used said the Big XII Champions were not that good. So I guess the argument could be made that the WAC is superior to the BIg XII & they should have an auto invite.

See, it's just easier to exclude teams like Boise from the equation since they are in a "weak" conference. Ya'll keep the BCS faith & watch deserving teams get shafted year after year because tOSU, UF, Texas, OU, etc. have big fan bases & travel better. It's all about the t-shirt money.

[yermom]

they were worthy of crashing the party, but they shouldn't be in a discussion of National Champions

[jk the sooner fan]

who got shafted? the #2 team throttled the #1 team......really, after #1 does it really matter what rank you are? we dont get trophies for being #5 or #11

and ALOT of people thought florida had a chance in that game....

as for the Big 12 Champions.......i'll go back to the year KState won it, nuff said....

and why are you such a Boise supporter all of the sudden? they dont have to remain in the WAC, if they want to play with the big boys, they can paint their field green and look around for another conference......

LSU got the crystal football.....thats what counts......does the AP hand out a pretty trophy like the BCS does?

the college teams can cry about the BCS all they want but its the system THEY SIGNED UP FOR

[yermom]

They belonged period.

This type of thinking is why ND is in the BCS EVERY year.

what does that have to do with ND?

the only reason they have special rules is because people will watch, i think they should follow the same rules as everyone else, their beating up of the service academies isn't all that impressive

[jk the sooner fan]

when does ND's contract with NBC end?

[yermom]

Why not? The AP voters shafted LSU in 2003. What's the difference?

i still don't see how they shafted LSU...

i can see a claim that the BCS shafted USC, but not the other way around

it's not like they had been ranked lower than LSU before the bowl games

would you really expect them to drop #1 USC after they beat the #4 team by two TDs?

it was as valid a split title as i can think of

[FroggyStyle22]

the college teams can cry about the BCS all they want but its the system THEY SIGNED UP FOR

I'm pretty sure Boise didn't sign up for the BCS and neither did any team not in an autobid conference.

[SoonerBorn68]

I'm not personally making an argument for them to be National Champs. I'm just pointing out there's a huge Bronco in the room & nobody in the BCS is going to address it. It's going to be status quo & nothing's going to change. The rich will only get richer.

I am curious to see if BSU tries to schedule some more BCS teams in the OOCS. I'm even more curious who turns them down. :)

[jk the sooner fan]

i think Boise would be smart to start scheduling top 20 teams......i'm sure it would only help their program reach the next level

[yermom]

that would be an easy way to keep them out of the party ;)

[SoonerBorn68]

and why are you such a Boise supporter all of the sudden? they dont have to remain in the WAC, if they want to play with the big boys, they can paint their field green and look around for another conference......

I'm not as much a fan of BSU than "it's time to have a real NC via a playoffs" kind of guy. BSU only gives me a springboard to validate the argument that the MNC should die.


LSU got the crystal football.....thats what counts......does the AP hand out a pretty trophy like the BCS does?

Usuc got a piece of paper but that paper states they are the AP national champion. ABC & ESPN acknowledges it so they must be MNC in '03. I don't agree with it, but because the BCS didn't work (even though it was suppose to not have split championships) it's time for a play off.


the college teams can cry about the BCS all they want but its the system THEY SIGNED UP FOR

It was the system the NCAA came up with & it was sign it or you can't participate.

[TUSooner]

Opinions are opinions...let fooball be settled on the field. Not by some geeky voter who never touched a football.

IF we KNEW who was better da in and day out what would b the point of playng? OU could play Boise State next week and could beat them 36-6 for all we know. It is very possible. Thats why you play the game.

This "settle it on the field" talk is kind of simplistic: Opinions will always play a part in determining the national champ, unless the number fo D-1A teams is cut by more than half and totally reorganized into conferences and divisions like the NFL. In a word: NEVER. Even then, opinions would decide who goes where and who's in or out.

Opinions COULD be made to count for less with a 4 to 8 team playoff.

And beating OU does NOT entitle BSu to a #2 ranking. We were not "great" this year, and we played a crappy and disappointing game for 55+ minutes and STILL almost beat themn.

Put BSu in a playoff and they might win a game against an opponent who played as badly as we did, but BSu would NOT get past LSU USC tOSU or even Louavul.

[TUSooner]

i think Boise would be smart to start scheduling top 20 teams......i'm sure it would only help their program reach the next level
IF they beat them.

[SoonerBorn68]

And beating OU does NOT entitle BSu to a #2 ranking. We were not "great" this year, and we played a crappy and disappointing game for 55+ minutes and STILL almost beat themn.


No, but 13-0 should get some consideration & respect.

[jk the sooner fan]

#5 is respectful :)

[SoonerBorn68]

I think that's as far down as they could put them without being obvious.

[jk the sooner fan]

i wont speak for BSU fans, but i would think they'd be estatic with their ranking....

[yermom]

i think expecting much more would be greedy

i wonder how their SOS compares to BYU in '84

[soonervegas]

Put me in the BCS ISN'T a joke camp. It seems they are doing a pretty good job of putting some tough teams in those games. Through the entire BCS history there has yet to be a team win it twice.

Miami 1-1
FSU 1-1
OU 1-2
USC 1-1
OSU 1-1

Pretty impressive if you ask me.

[yermom]

i'd agree that it's not the end-all be-all solution, but it's nice to not have two undefeated teams at 1 and 2 in the polls and not playing each other

[TUSooner]

[BSu scheduling Top-20 teams] would be an easy way to keep [BSU] out of the party ;)

Heh. Yep!
And I think a #5 ranking is plenty respectful for BSu

[yermom]

heh, no i meant it the other way, but that works too

if no BCS team would schedule them, they couldn't get the computer rankings

[sanantoniosooner]

I think that's as far down as they could put them without being obvious.
you actually think that the #5 was selected to cover up a conspiracy?

[RedstickSooner]

Sucky undefeated teams from bogus conferences frequently end the year ranked lower than real teams from real conferences with 1 or 2 losses.

The fact that we no longer benefit from extended preperation time, and that Boise State played their hearts out to beat us (yet still would've lost with last year's clock rules when we wore 'em down) doesn't make them suddenly worthy of a #1 or #2 spot.

Those spots are for real teams that did something meaningful in their bowl AND during the regular season. Boise State's regular season was meaningless - at least 10 other teams would've gone undefeated with that schedule.

[RedstickSooner]

Oh, and why don't we talk to Arizona about letting us hire Mike Stoops during the weeks leading up to our bowl game, through the game itself?

[yermom]

we tried that once :O

[FroggyStyle22]

Sucky undefeated teams from bogus conferences frequently end the year ranked lower than real teams from real conferences with 1 or 2 losses.

The fact that we no longer benefit from extended preperation time, and that Boise State played their hearts out to beat us (yet still would've lost with last year's clock rules when we wore 'em down) doesn't make them suddenly worthy of a #1 or #2 spot.

Those spots are for real teams that did something meaningful in their bowl AND during the regular season. Boise State's regular season was meaningless - at least 10 other teams would've gone undefeated with that schedule.
Let's not call a team that beat us sucky. We are better than that.

[stoopified]

ASU just fired their coach, so it's not like they were amazing or something, and Hawai'i is like the only team that can compete with Tech on passing yards :)

i think that QB throws touchdowns in his sleep

i have no excuse for Boise :D i guess we were pretty evenly matchedCall it sour grapes if you want but BSU didn't beat OU,OU Did.

[yermom]

yeah, 3 times this year ;)

[SoonerBorn68]

you actually think that the #5 was selected to cover up a conspiracy?

Wow, apparently you've read in way too much on my statement. There's no "conspiracy", just good ol' boy politics.

Look at the coaches poll. BSU is ranked #6 behind Wisconsin. I think if they (the coaches and media) could have ranked them 7-9 they would have.

[sanantoniosooner]

Unless a team is your favorite team, I think you look to see who you "could" put ahead of them. It's how it works.

If they are your favorite team, then you look to see who you could put behind them :D

[sooneron]

But, without a playoff we'll never know. Saying BSU is #2 isn't that much of a stretch. If they played Florida next weekend there's no one here that can say without a doubt that Florida would win. Trickeration or not.
You're crazy, that UFla team would have beaten them by 5 tds.

[sanantoniosooner]

You're crazy, that UFla team would have beaten them by 5 tds.
I think you called a person that you agree with crazy.

[sooneron]

i think Boise would be smart to start scheduling top 20 teams......i'm sure it would only help their program reach the next level
But they scheduled OREGON STATE!!!!!


They seriously need to take the Freson State approach and start playing any major team that will take them.

[sooneron]

I think you called a person that you agree with crazy.
Well then, you're crazy.

I meant to quote. I was replying to something on the first page.

[sooneron]

By the way, for all the people pumping Boise and an 8 team playoff, BSU would be left out as they were 9th!

[sanantoniosooner]

Well then, you're crazy.

I meant to quote. I was replying to something on the first page.
what you quoted said Boise would lose easily to UF.

You called him crazy and said Boise would be killed by UF.

Perhaps you commented on a part you didn't quote.

[yermom]

well, we'd need a 65 team playoff system with a play in game

;)

[TUSooner]

heh, no i meant it the other way, but that works too

if no BCS team would schedule them, they couldn't get the computer rankings
Then I owe you a red one! :D

[sooneron]

what you quoted said Boise would lose easily to UF.

You called him crazy and said Boise would be killed by UF.

Perhaps you commented on a part you didn't quote.


You're wrong.

He didn't say that. I CAN say with out a doubt that UFla would beat Boise.

[sanantoniosooner]

You're wrong.

He didn't say that. I CAN say with out a doubt that UFla would beat Boise.
I had to read it over again. He threw in enough double negatives to cloud it up.

So, he's crazy.

I'm confused.

You're whatever.

[sooneron]

I win!

[RedstickSooner]

Let's not call a team that beat us sucky. We are better than that.

Er, sorry - I was trying to generalize. Boise showed they're pretty good for a sucky team -- how about we call them cowardly, instead, for scheduling such gawd-awful opposition?

:D

[jk the sooner fan]

by and large, the BCS does exactly what it was designed to do......ensure that two undefeated teams arent playing somebody else in a bowl game.......it works as it was designed to do so

while there have been the Auburn and USC/LSU situations, less those, its been fairly free of any REAL controversy....nevermind what the pinheads at ESPN gem up for the pure sport of ratings

[Scott D]

Besides you playoff advocates. You know Schiano ranked Boise like 20th more than likely. ;)

Smellsofbourbon probably didn't even have them ranked ;)

[jk the sooner fan]

great point......you still have to seed the teams in the playoffs.........same problem, its done by human opinions......

[Sooner_Bob]

Put me in the BCS ISN'T a joke camp. It seems they are doing a pretty good job of putting some tough teams in those games. Through the entire BCS history there has yet to be a team win it twice.

Miami 1-1
FSU 1-1
OU 1-2
USC 1-1
OSU 1-1

Pretty impressive if you ask me.


I don't think the championship game of a playoff would be much different than that . . . I don't think there's a Mt. Union at the highest level of NCAA football.

[Stoop Dawg]

by and large, the BCS does exactly what it was designed to do......ensure that two undefeated teams arent playing somebody else in a bowl game.......it works as it was designed to do so


:confused:


while there have been the Auburn and USC/LSU situations, less those, its been fairly free of any REAL controversy....nevermind what the pinheads at ESPN gem up for the pure sport of ratings

:confused:

[yermom]

it was designed so that teams like 97 Michigan and 97 Nebraska would play each other, or 94 Nebraska and 94 Penn State

2004 and 2003 had some fluke situations, but they would have been worse without the BCS.

without the BCS in 2003 OU probably wins the Orange Bowl, LSU wins the Sugar Bowl, USC wins the Rose Bowl. then what?

similar things happen in 2004, only it's worse because there are 3 undefeated teams at the end

[Stoop Dawg]

My point was, it certainly WASN'T designed to ensure that two undefeated teams play each other in a bowl game. And it DOESN'T do that. See: This year.

It also isn't "fairly free of any REAL controversy". There's controversy about half the time.

What it's designed to do is create four (now five) "premier" bowl games and ensure that the vast majority of teams playing in those games are from one of six conferences. And it works very well.

[yermom]

the majority of the teams in those bowls should be from those 6 conferences

Boise State deserved to be there as much as Utah did a couple years ago

Boise State being undefeated after beating up on the WAC is a lot different than someone going through one of the AQ conferences and being undefeated. i don't see any controversy in them not being number 2 even if they haven't lost

[jk the sooner fan]

i should have said "its intention was to put the #1 and #2 teams together in a bowl game".....as long as those teams come from the conferences contractually obligated to the BCS......and thats exactly what its done......yermom stated it better than i did

LSU won the game and got the crystal football

auburn was left out...ok, so the rare occurrence that you have 3 undefeated teams......you still have to have a 3d seed among those teams...somebody is going to get left out by a human poll

i'm not saying the BCS is without fault by any means.....its not perfect, but all in all, i think its pretty good........can it be improved? absolutely

the controversy is created when a GOOD football team totally tanks in a bowl game where it has higher expectations (see last nite, or the OU/usc orange bowl)

[Texas Golfer]

All those complaining about a playoff just like to complain. It won't happen in our lifetimes and, really, it's not needed.

Only once since the beginning of the BCS was the #1 team arguable prior to the "championship" game (USC or LSU). The BCS puts the #1 and #2 teams together for the championship game. THAT is the only important poll (to determine who plays in the game). After the game, there's a champion and all the rest regardless of where they fall in the opinion polls.

Arguing where do team belong is moot because it doesn't mean a damn thing. You either get the trophy or you settle for trying to get a bowl trophy. After the bowls, the polls are meaningless.

[sanantoniosooner]

After the bowls, the polls are meaningless.
agreed with most of it but this.

Post bowl rankings are useful as propaganda.

Propaganda gets used by recruiters. Ours and Theirs, whoever they are.

It's not worth much, but it effects perception.

[Stoop Dawg]

the majority of the teams in those bowls should be from those 6 conferences

That, of course, is a matter of opinion. I tend to agree, but then it's difficult to rationalize that the other conferences should actually be Div 1A teams. If a team has no chance of "winning" the D1A national championship, then should they really be a D1A team? I'm not literally suggesting that all teams from non-BCS conferences go "down" to D2A football, I'm just pontificating about the rationality of a system where certain teams have absolutely no chance at all of obtaining the brass ring. Such a system doesn't make logical sense to me.

Let me ask you this. If BSU goes undefeated again next year - against the same crappy competition - do you think they'll get a shot at the NC game?

[Stoop Dawg]

[FONT="Comic Sans MS"][SIZE="3"]All those complaining about a playoff just like to complain. It won't happen in our lifetimes

Really? You're just about the only one left that thinks so.

Then again, maybe you're just really old. :D

[Stoop Dawg]

i should have said "its intention was to put the #1 and #2 teams together in a bowl game".....as long as those teams come from the conferences contractually obligated to the BCS......and thats exactly what its done...

Really? Then why are there FIVE BCS bowl games?

Don't kid yourself. The primary intention of the BCS is to make money. Putting #1 vs #2 just happens to be a big money-maker.

[sanantoniosooner]

Really? Then why are there FIVE BCS bowl games?

Don't kid yourself. The primary intention of the BCS is to make money. Putting #1 vs #2 just happens to be a big money-maker.
Can you get me a discount on foil hats?

[jk the sooner fan]

Really? Then why are there FIVE BCS bowl games?

Don't kid yourself. The primary intention of the BCS is to make money. Putting #1 vs #2 just happens to be a big money-maker.

of course its for money, i never said it wasnt

thats why teams want in the other "bcs bowls" - for the payout.....but the championship game is as yermom described

[yermom]

That, of course, is a matter of opinion. I tend to agree, but then it's difficult to rationalize that the other conferences should actually be Div 1A teams. If a team has no chance of "winning" the D1A national championship, then should they really be a D1A team? I'm not literally suggesting that all teams from non-BCS conferences go "down" to D2A football, I'm just pontificating about the rationality of a system where certain teams have absolutely no chance at all of obtaining the brass ring. Such a system doesn't make logical sense to me.

Let me ask you this. If BSU goes undefeated again next year - against the same crappy competition - do you think they'll get a shot at the NC game?

i think the BCS and the computer component solves a lot of that, if you look at the opponent's records, and the opponent's opponents you can see what someone's record is worth. if the human polls have someone many spots lower than the computers do, then i think there is a case, but it's not like that

i'm not really sure where the breaking point is though. at what point does a 1-loss team with a tougher schedule become the same as an undefeated team from a mid-major conference? i'm not sure, but i don't have a vote, so it doesn't matter :D

there is going to be a ranking system regardless, if it's not computers there would be some committee somewhere making the choices, there is always going to be some controversy

maybe one day the WAC or the MAC will replace the Big East or something, there are rules about it if they suck like they did this year for long enough

[sanantoniosooner]

The concept of the BCS was not PUT FORTH as a money making scheme. You can bet that it's built into ever aspect of it, but it was not the reason it was formed in the first place.

No fans or coaches were screaming that they needed to generate more funds.

[Stoop Dawg]

Can you get me a discount on foil hats?

How 'bout I send you some of these instead?

http://images.usatoday.com/life/_photos/2004/2004-07/08-smartpills-inside.jpg

;)

[jk the sooner fan]

interesting question, if bsu goes undefeated again next year, then i think their AD has to get them out of that conference and into another......until the BCS contract is restructured, they get the same treatment they got this year

[Stoop Dawg]

The concept of the BCS was not PUT FORTH as a money making scheme. You can bet that it's built into ever aspect of it, but it was not the reason it was formed in the first place.

No fans or coaches were screaming that they needed to generate more funds.

You seem to be under the impression that fans and coaches are in control of college football. I'll expedite those pills!!!

[yermom]

maybe them and the Vandals can join the PAC 12

[sanantoniosooner]

You seem to be under the impression that fans and coaches are in control of college football. I'll expedite those pills!!!
even the media was looking for an "on the field" solution to the rankings issue.

Money is a huge side effect, but it wasn't the original topic.

[Stoop Dawg]

interesting question, if bsu goes undefeated again next year, then i think their AD has to get them out of that conference and into another......until the BCS contract is restructured, they get the same treatment they got this year

Well, logic would certainly dictate that if everything plays out again next year just like it did this year that you would get the same result. I'm not so sure that would actually happen, though.

[jk the sooner fan]

well.....i agree, there's always the possibility that the bcs selection committee says "hey bsu was no fluke"

they're always good to fill that last spot anyway! but i sure as hell woudlnt want to see them in the championship game

[Stoop Dawg]

there is going to be a ranking system regardless, if it's not computers there would be some committee somewhere making the choices, there is always going to be some controversy

True enough. But I would like to minimize the amount of controversy. My opinion is that an 8 team playoff would accomplish that. But everyone knows what my opinion is worth.

[Desert Sapper]

Let me ask you this. If BSU goes undefeated again next year - against the same crappy competition - do you think they'll get a shot at the NC game?

They will probably start the season in the top 25 (unless the polls don't like all the people they lose to graduation). That, an undefeated season, and maybe a few more games with competition from BCS Conferences will get them in the BCS Championship game (considering they will have the nation's longest winning streak until they lose).

I don't see it happening because:

a) they lose their QB, Zabransky, they lose their top 3 receivers, their starting Center, the TE that caught the TD in OT, their FB, their starting 2 DTs, one of their starting DEs, two of their starting LBs, and their starting SS -- that's a lot to lose

b) they won't play much more than UW (in Seattle) next year from BCS conferences

c) they can't really leap into the top 5 until they are undefeated going into the bowls -- that probably won't happen, and it may be too late by then

[SoonerBorn68]

Can you get me a discount on foil hats?

They'll cost more if it's got the official BCS logo on it. :D

[FrostySooner]

I agree with 68. Boise State won all of their games and they should be #2. They can't help that they are in the WAC. They have to play their schedule out and they have no control over the teams they HAVE to play. So, if Ohio State would have played the schedule that Boise played, would they have been #1 at the end of the year. I think they would have. These polls are more geared towards storied programs, not legit, good teams. I can almost bet that Ohio State or even our beloved Sooners would be in the top 25 at the beginning of the year, no matter who we had on the schedule. For BSU to finish 5 in the poll means that the system once again is keeping small schools below the rest of the pack even if they go undefeated and conquered their ENTIRE schedule. BUT, if you lay a goose egg in the NC game, we will still award you a second place finish. That is partiality at its finest.

[jwlynn64]

I agree with 68. Boise State won all of their games and they should be #2. They can't help that they are in the WAC. They have to play their schedule out and they have no control over the teams they HAVE to play. So, if Ohio State would have played the schedule that Boise played, would they have been #1 at the end of the year. I think they would have. These polls are more geared towards storied programs, not legit, good teams. I can almost bet that Ohio State or even our beloved Sooners would be in the top 25 at the beginning of the year, no matter who we had on the schedule. For BSU to finish 5 in the poll means that the system once again is keeping small schools below the rest of the pack even if they go undefeated and conquered their ENTIRE schedule. BUT, if you lay a goose egg in the NC game, we will still award you a second place finish. That is partiality at its finest.

No, tOSU would not have been ranked #1 if they played the same schedule as BSU did.

Also, if we are ranked #10, how can you justify putting BSU at #2 since they only reason they won that game was they won the coin toss in OT. If OU would have gone second, the outcome of that game was very much in doubt. Even Petersen said that his team was gassed and they had to win it then. Also realize that this was on a night that OU played like crap.

The only reason that they are ranked as high as they are is because their schedule contained 5 teams ranked in the bottom 25 of Div. 1. Not only does this give you easy wins but it allows you to prepare for the one or two teams on your schedule that might be a problem all year long.

I remember Jimmy Johnson talking about coaching at Miami. He said that they were so much better than the other teams in his conference that they prepared all season for FSU and whatever other team might have been considered dangerous all the time.

OU would have easily been undeafeated playing BSU's schedule.

By the way, no one forced BSU to join the WAC and they are in complete control of who they play the first four weeks of the season. They don't get an out for poor scheduling.

[goingoneight]

ditto.

It should be

1. OU
2. Tulsa
3. Arkie
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
110. Texass
111. Okie Light


every gawdamm year!!! :mad:

:D

[OklahomaSooners]

by and large, the BCS does exactly what it was designed to do......ensure that two undefeated teams arent playing somebody else in a bowl game.......it works as it was designed to do so

while there have been the Auburn and USC/LSU situations, less those, its been fairly free of any REAL controversy....nevermind what the pinheads at ESPN gem up for the pure sport of ratings

? what ?

[jk the sooner fan]

Um... it seems to me that BSU and OSU were the only two undefeated teams. they didnt play did they?

oh geez......yeah i think we've already established that the WAC is not a part of the BCS contract

let me clarify it for you though

two undefeated teams from the conferences in the BCS contract, yadda yadda yadda

[OklahomaSooners]

THE FACT THAT WERE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION IS PROOF ENOUGH FOR ME THAT THE PRESENT BCS SYSTEM IS COMPLETE B******T !!! Well jk the sooner fan, can kick goingoneight's butt, why you ask? because its my friggin opinion!!! so that settles it. give him the friggin trophy.

[jk the sooner fan]

the fact that what?

spit it out

[OklahomaSooners]

oh geez......yeah i think we've already established that the WAC is not a part of the BCS contract

let me clarify it for you though

two undefeated teams from the conferences in the BCS contract, yadda yadda yadda

I jumped the gun and posted this and was in the process of editing it when u replied to it. lol Sorry

[OklahomaSooners]

the fact that what?

spit it out

Read it again, you may understand it then. ;)

[jk the sooner fan]

so you think BSU deserved to play ohio state?

[OklahomaSooners]

so you think BSU deserved to play ohio state?

Not sure, I can't tell u if they should or not, thats why it should be played out. What if I could tell you that they deserved it, My goodness, I would be rich. Mansions, Limos, Rv's to go to every game in lol etc...:)

[OklahomaSooners]

All I know is that until its played out in some way, we, me, you, all of us will never know.:pop:

[sanantoniosooner]

I thank God every March that there is no controversy over who makes the tournament and what seed they are.;)

It's the best post season in the world and it still gets people riled.

[OklahomaSooners]

I thank God every March that there is no controversy over who makes the tournament and what seed they are.;)

It's the best post season in the world and it still gets people riled.

Your are right, but if you are number 52 or 65 in that bracket it really doesn't matter. If your not in the top 10 in Football I don't think it really matters then either. The thing is, I just think there needs to be a change, How we ask? Heck I dont know, just something as long as it improves the situation. We have been under the opinion based voting sytem forever and I think it has proved itself to be flawed almost every year. And yes there will still be disagreement no matter what the change is.

[sanantoniosooner]

Your implication was that there is a major problem just because we are discussing it at all.

That one gets discussed every year and you couldn't do much to make it any better.

[Stoop Dawg]

That one gets discussed every year and you couldn't do much to make it any better.

Except, you know, abandon the tourny and just vote on the champion. ;)

[colleyvillesooner]

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/penguincult/_images/ThisThreadSucks.jpg

[sanantoniosooner]

Except, you know, abandon the tourny and just vote on the champion. ;)
The point is........since thinking is hard......that changing the system does not eliminate controversy as some seem to think. It's just a different set of problems. Some maybe better, some maybe not.

[OklahomaSooners]

Your implication was that there is a major problem just because we are discussing it at all.

That one gets discussed every year and you couldn't do much to make it any better.
You saying not much could be done about it is an opinion too my friend, and I may add it is my opinion also, but Im just saying that something needs to be done. I don't care what it is as long as the top ten or so teams get to play it out. At least then there will be no opinions because it will be proven on the field. Heck I swore up and down that my beloved Sooners were gonna blow out BSU. But boy was my opinion wrong. Im not sure who should even be in the top 10. :)

[SoonerBorn68]

I'm just so happy I finally had a 6 page thread! :D

[olevetonahill]

I'm just so happy I finally had a 6 page thread! :D
Ya dayum trouble maker ;)

[Stoop Dawg]

Lighten up, Sally.

The counter-point is that controversy over who is #65 is better than controversy over who is #2.

[jwlynn64]

The real question is whether you want to give the trophy to the team that wins the tournament or the team that is the best is college football?

If you want to crown the winner of the tournament, that's fine. If you want to crown the best team in football, that is entirely different.

Even in a tournament, there are going to be hard brackets and easy brackets.

Lets look at one scenario that clearly defines the difference. For the sake of argument, lets make this an eight team tournament. The two best teams end up in the same bracket. During their semi-final game, Team A (12-0 during the regular season) wins but lose their star player on the last play and their quarterback injures a finger on his throwing hand.

Team B (10-2 during the regular season) was #8 in the seedings at the start of the tournament but catches a few lucky breaks and ends up the winner of the second bracket. Team A and B are from the same conference and Team A won the first meeting on the road at Team B's stadium.

The two teams play and even with the star player out and the QB having trouble throwing, they take the game into overtime. During overtime, Team A's QB mishandles a snap and Team B recovers for the win.

So who won the tournament? The best team in college football or the team that happened to win the tournament? Team B never really looked good and made it to the final by beating sub par opponents. Team A, for 14 games (a game or two less if you decide to shorten the regular season) was the best in the game. It was only the second best on the last week.

This is not far fetched and could happen.

[olevetonahill]

May i have the readers digest version of that statement ? thanks

[yermom]

i think it was something about the '88 Sooners being the better team but losing the rematch against Kansas

[sanantoniosooner]

Lighten up, Sally.

The counter-point is that controversy over who is #65 is better than controversy over who is #2.
no. there is also controversy on the seeding of the ones that do make it in.

Personally, I'd be happy with seeding the top 4 into the top bowl games and playing one more game at the end.

getting screwed at 5 isn't as bad as at 3. I don't care to expand it further though.

[olevetonahill]

i think it was something about the '88 Sooners being the better team but losing the rematch against Kansas
Thanks yermom , 7 paragraphs to say one line . Is the dude a lawyer , or politician :pop:

[Stoop Dawg]

The real question is whether you want to give the trophy to the team that wins the tournament or the team that is the best is college football?

If you want to crown the winner of the tournament, that's fine. If you want to crown the best team in football, that is impossible to determine.

Fixed.

[Stoop Dawg]

no. there is also controversy on the seeding of the ones that do make it in.

Personally, I'd be happy with seeding the top 4 into the top bowl games and playing one more game at the end.

getting screwed at 5 isn't as bad as at 3. I don't care to expand it further though.

Fair enough.

I prefer 8. No biggie, really.

[jwlynn64]

So you are a proponent of making college football just like every other college sport. You aren't interested in determining the best team throughout the course of the season, only the team that wins the tournament. Thats fine.

I like the current system because it tries to reward the team that had the best season.

[jwlynn64]

Thanks yermom , 7 paragraphs to say one line . Is the dude a lawyer , or politician :pop:

Sorry, thought that you were interested in having a legitimate conversation about the system. Didn't know it was a one liner contest.

[olevetonahill]

Just yanking your chain , lightin up francis :D

[jwlynn64]

Guess I needed my own smiley. ;)

[olevetonahill]

Guess I needed my own smiley. ;)
Smileys are required for nOObs and such , till we get to know your sense of humor .
Course mines so warped I have to place smileys :eek:

[jwlynn64]

No problem. Always enjoy your posts. Besides it doesn't pay to be too thin skinned on this board.

[birddog]

I like the current system because it tries to reward the team that had the best season.

describe "best season."

[jwlynn64]

Someone accused me a being a lawyer earlier but your question is what is wrong with lawyers today. You're trying to argue against my position by bringing semantics into it.

Very simply, you try and determine who won the most games while giving weight to who played the best schedule. The current system, flawed as it is, is what makes the college game as special as it is.

[olevetonahill]

Someone accused me a being a lawyer earlier but your question is what is wrong with lawyers today. You're trying to argue against my position by bringing semantics into it.

Very simply, you try and determine who won the most games while giving weight to who played the best schedule. The current system, flawed as it is, is what makes the college game as special as it is.
Heh
I didnt "accuse " Just asked if you were a Lawyer or politician .
Try to keep up :P

[birddog]

Someone accused me a being a lawyer earlier but your question is what is wrong with lawyers today. You're trying to argue against my position by bringing semantics into it.

Very simply, you try and determine who won the most games while giving weight to who played the best schedule. The current system, flawed as it is, is what makes the college game as special as it is.
now that's a little too subjective for me.

i think on any given year you will have 2,3, even 4 teams that can claim to have had the best season. michigan certainly had a claim to that this year, as much as florida anyway.

auburn had a claim to that a few years ago when they went undefeated. they got jobbed because in the end only 2 teams have a chance to play for it all. i think that's ridiculous.

and how about teams that are perceived by voters to be mediocre in the preseason. say they are ranked #23 and then go undefeated along with 2 other teams. they won't get a chance if the other 2 are ranked ahead of them to start the season.

so, you have 3 teams that can claim to have had the best season. one team gets screwed because some asshats think they won't be any good because they were a little rusty during spring drills.

plus






one.

for now.

[jwlynn64]

All of your arguments can be used in the seeding process of the tournament you are proposing.

If you are a school that is serious about winning the title, schedule quality opponents and win as many games as you can.

Also, increasing the weight given to computer rankings based on SOS and Quality wins would help determine the two strongest teams at the end of the year.

I also think that the opinion polls shouldn't come out until the 6th week of the season.

[yermom]

i totally agree about the SOS and computer rankings, but they ditched that because of the final BCS not matching the AP and people getting mad :rolleyes:

i think the system in 2001 was good, but it almost got Colorado in the championship game and shafted Oregon in the process. not that anyone would have probably beaten Miami that year

[jwlynn64]

That is when the BCS system started to sink. They gave in to the AP and the next year when the AP didn't match the BCS again, they threw another fit.:mad:

Since then, the system has been incrementially changed to make it better match the opinion polls. Why even have the BCS if all they want is another opinion poll?:confused:

Give more wieght back to the computers and let the facts of the season determine the two most worthy (until we have a tie for #2 that is!);)

[Stoop Dawg]

Very simply, you try and determine who won the most games while giving weight to who played the best schedule. The current system, flawed as it is, is what makes the college game as special as it is.

Who is the "you" that tries to determine this? What exactly constitutes the "best schedule"?

Your theory appears sound from 10,000 feet, but it breaks down when you take a close look.

"Best Schedule" - Conference alignments pretty much prevent an objective comparison between any two given teams. Everyone plays essentially the same schedule every year, with a few interesting non-conf games here and there. The only way to compare the schedules of two teams is by "team a beat team b who beat team c who lost to team d so team e - who beat team f soundly - must have a "better schedule"".

Furthermore, schedules are set YEARS in advance. Should OU's shot at "best schedule" be penalized because Miami has tanked and also hired a new coach the year before play them?? Should BSU be penalized for the weakness of their conference? I have heard comments about "well, join a better conference". Exactly which BCS conference would allow BSU to join? Which one? None of them.

No, I would much rather see a team back up their claim to being the "best" by beating the other contenders on the field. But that's just my opinion.

[SleestakSooner]

Someone accused me a being a lawyer earlier but your question is what is wrong with lawyers today. You're trying to argue against my position by bringing semantics into it.

Very simply, you try and determine who won the most games while giving weight to who played the best schedule. The current system, flawed as it is, is what makes the college game as special as it is.


As in riding the short bus home to your dysfunctional family kind of special. :cool:

[jwlynn64]

So were back to my original comment about what do you want?

1. Award the trophy to the team that wins the final tournament
2. Award the trophy to the team that has had the consensus best season (current system)

Just realize that they are different. I happen to think that our current system creates more interest in the games and makes every week important. Others think differently.

Stoop, I like your Bill Clinton approach to logic... "what do you mean by 'sex'?" ;)

[Stoop Dawg]

Stoop, I like your Bill Clinton approach to logic... "what do you mean by 'sex'?" ;)

And I like yours too.

"My business plan is to make money!"

There's no arguing with that!

[SoonerMachine]

But if the BCS only used the AP poll to force #1 vs. #2 in the MNC, then there couldn't be any split MNC right? (coaches would have to vote with the BCS) I'll go further and say the computers goofed in '00, '01, '03...

[jwlynn64]

And I like yours too.

"My business plan is to make money!"

There's no arguing with that!

I guess a playoff system wouldn't make money. :rolleyes: