Thoughts on the BCS Bowl line up

I think most folks are waiting for the USC-Oklahoma match-up. Beyond that, the BCS bowls are not very extra-ordinary. Texas backed into the Rose Bowl; just hope they don't follow their past lackadaisacal(sp) approach to bowls. Would have loved to see Utah really tested.
WallyGator

 

Sorry, but the whole BCS is a fiasco. Cal doesn't go to a BCS game? Pitt goes to a BCS bowl? Auburn gets locked out of a national championship opportunity because they began the season rated something like 17th. That was a huge hurdle to overcome, too huge with Southern Cal and Oklahoma staying undefeated.

I wish 1A college football would either have a legitimate playoff system or scrap the BCS and go back to the bowls picking the best teams available.

BTW, USC and Oklahoma deserve to be playing in a championship game, but something is desparately wrong for Auburn to have practically no chance for a national championship. Going undefeated in the SEC is no small achievement.

 

Auburn didn't get locked out because they started teh season 17th. Auburn got locked out because they loaded up on Lousiana Monroe, Lousiana Tech, and the Citadel. We BaptistBoarders could probably put together a team that may beat those guys. You can't complain about getting the shaft when you schedule Creampuff U. for your non-conference games.

Cal got the shaft by going to Ole Miss (was it??), winning, and losing the Rose Bowl. But even then, they knew what they had to do. Everyone knew going into the season what the criteria was. For Cal to take a knee rather than scoring hurt them.

But in the end, it is clear that USC and OU are the two best teams in the country. They deserve to play in that game. Auburn doesn't.

The problem with tournaments and playoffs is that they do not always give you the best team at the end. If the National Championship is supposed to be about the "best team," then this is how you go about it, IMO.

 

IMHO, the "best" team when? beginning of season, midway season, end of schedule, after bowl game, after playoff? They say on any afternoon, the best team could be off and lose. Same with bowl games, best team could have off day and lose. Playoffs, like college baseball, double elimanation? No, IMHO, when the smoke clears, the last one standing is the best team. BCS is a flawed system, an eight-team playoff, like II-A or III-A would be better.

 

I think the answer to the "when" question is "the year." The poll system as it now stands usually has a decent consensus on who the best two teams are. The BCS may be flawed, but going to an 8 team playoff or 16 team playoff doesn't help any because there is always the 9th and the 17th (or the 33rd or 65th or whatever) team.

You could take all the conference champions and play them in a tournament. That way, everyone has an equal shot, but even then, the two best teams may be in the same conference. I don't think a tournament shows anything other than the tournament winner, which is the best team on a given day, not the best team.

 

Obviously, there is no perfect system. If you're going to have some sort of a playoff, though, at least have something more than the foolishness of the BCS. Southern Cal got shafted last year, and Auburn, as well as Cal, got it this year. At least Southern Cal was able to be declared national champ in one poll. Auburn has no chance. Please, someone justify Pitt going to a top-rated bowl.

If you take the top sixteen teams, as I-AA does, no one seriously gripes about no. 17 not making it. I've followed I-AA since they've had a playoff system (a Georgia Southern grad), and I can't think of any year it's been a big issue. Surely all agree that no. 17 is much less likely than no. 3 to win the championship. The BCS is a compromise between a playoff system and the traditional bowls, and it has created more problems than it has solved.

Somehow, though, I suspect this is not the last word!

 

Then are you in favor of getting rid of all playoffs in any sports on any level?

 

No, but I think college football is a different animal and part of the intrique of it is the debate about who is better. I just don't seen any need to have a playoff.

I do think the college presidents are disingenuous claiming it about about class time and going into the second semeseter.

If you were bent on playoffs, you could keep the current bowl system and do it this way. Right now, the season for most teams ends in teh middle to end of November. Bowls begin the end of December leaving four weeks of nothing. Bowls are usually bad to start becuase teams haven't been in game shape for a month. You could take those four weeks and play off the top 16 teams and designate one bowl a year as the championship game (similar to the BCS). Teams who lost in the playoffs would fill the other BCS bowls.

I just don't think it is necessary.

 

BTW, I don't think USC got shafted last year. Every team, going into the season, knew what the rules were. USC should have played by those rules just as Cal should have this year. When the rules encourage big scores, you can't take a knee and then complain that you got shafted. You can say "character" matters more, but you can't complain you got shafted. You knew what you had to do and you didn't do it.

 

Larry,

Weren't the rules changed a few years ago to discourage running up scores? Somewhere in the back of my cluttered and dysfunctional memory I recall a reaction to the gaudy scores by some schools seeking to enhance their poll position.

Bill

 

It was to some degree, but margin of victory I think is still somewhat of a factor, but not as much as before. Don't they call it "quality wins" or something? I don't know how they figure it all out. I think it does play a factor for sure in human polls.

 

It was Southern Miss! Please do not insult mine and Brett Farve's alma mater that way. We may not be in a BCS conference but we are the largest school in Mississippi! I know you are from Michigan so you are forgiven. ( I'd have to do a lot of praying before I forgave a southerner for calling us Ole Miss!)
It was classy for Cal to take a knee against us, and we appreciate it. But it was so STUPID!

 

Actually, my apologies ... I am a southerner who couldn't remember who they played. I am originally from the South, and have lived in the north for about 11 years now.

 

1) Yes, they did. If Auburn had started the season 1st or 2nd, they would be playing in the BCS (non)Championship Game.

If USC or Oklahoma had started 17th, then that team would have been left out of the BCS (non)Championship Game.

2) That is not true. The SEC is harder to go undefeated through than the Big 12 or the PAC 10, regardless of a team's three non-conference games.

Since we are going to have to continue with this BCS mess for another five years, maybe non-conference games shouldn't count in the BCS standings.

 

I don't think so, Ken. Auburn started 17th for a reason. Going undefeated in teh SEC is good. But when you schedule creampuffs in your non-conference schedule, you can't complain when you get locked out of the BCS championship game. If Auburn had started first or second, they probably would have fallen because of their non conference wins. They are not "quality wins."

USC or OU didn't start 17th because of last year. Auburn doesn't have that privilege. Chances are, they will start higher next year because of their success this year.

But all that being said, the two best teams are playing in the championship game and that is what the BCS was supposed to do. IT was not supposed to cover up for weak non-conference schedules. Auburn should go out and schedule some decent teams to play.

 

Cool, another Golden Eagle! BS (math), 1987.

Taking a knee in that situation is the right thing to do, IMO. Sometimes you do the right thing and it costs you. I don't think it was stupid.

And you would think people here in SEC country would know better, but I get that "Ole Miss" thing all the time around here.