BCS
 

BCS is dissappoint this year. Pittsburgh will probably end up playing in one of the four big bowl games from their automatic bowl bid, being the Big East champion. They are a 7-3 team. They will possibly end up playing Utah. Auburn will most likely end up playing either Miami (FL) or VTech. Oklahoma will play USC in the national title game. Michigan will square off with Cal in the Rose Bowl.

These are basically what the four big money games will end up being if Pitt, Cal, and Oklahoma don't lose this week. Funny thing, if Oklahoma loses the title game to Colorado, they will become an at-large team and not play in BCS at all considering both at-large bids would have been claimed by Cal and Utah.

Opinions?

I wish Louisville got in one of hte BCS games, not the freakin Liberty Bowl!

That's funny. I am a Boise State fan :)

We have a higher BCS ranking than you do and we got stuck with the Liberty Bowl as well.

We play one more game this weekend vs. Tulane, that may be hurting us in the computer rankings. As for the Liberty Bowl, I think its gonna come down to defense, Boise's seems to be questionable. Offensively we know its gonna be big time.

It will be one of the more memorable games of the year. I'd like to see over 1500+ yard of combined offense and over 140 points scored. I'm dreaming but it's awesome to think about it. They should just have both team's defenses stand around and see who can score the most points in the time alotted. :-P

It's a travesty that the BCS is cutting either Cal or Texas out of a berth. Let's just hope the bears rep this weekend and seal the deal for the rose bowl.

I say get rid of the BCS. Its only there to make money. If every other conference in the NCAA can have playoffs, so can 1-A.

NCAA, Hyprocrites, Personified

I tried to refigure these bowls with the old formula and bowl alignments, and this is what I came up with:

Rose Bowl - USC vs Michigan
Sugar Bowl - Auburn vs Utah
Orange Bowl - Oklahoma vs California
Cotton Bowl - Texas vs Georgia
Fiesta Bowl - Boise State vs Miami

Are these really any better than what we're going to get?

What's wrong with Utah?

There is a one-word answer to solve this mess, and I think we all know what it is.

FWIW, I don't have any allegiance to either Boise St. or Louisville and I'm looking forward to the Liberty Bowl. It should make for compelling ... and looooonnng ... television.

And, as for the BCS, I still don't understand how we can't just consider the conference season and conference championship games a de facto tournament. Combine that with the BCS and ... presto ... quickie pseudo-tournament.

Simple: the championship is not truely decided on the field. If you have a bad game late in the year, you will most likely finish behind the team that had their bad game early in the year, which is not the way to do things. The polls are much too fickle to use for a real championship.

Interesting idea for a playoff that I take only partial credit for:

Eight teams
No automatic bids
Selection committee selects the top eight teams and seeds them.
Start on December 18th every year, go three weeks with championship game on New Years' Day.

Yeah, some of these automatic bowl bids are getting ridiculous :cough: Big East :cough:

You can't spell BCS without BS!

Ironically, you can apprently spell it without BC. Hehe. :)

The BCS wasn't really made to help decide the championship. The big conferences wanted to be sure that there would be a constant flow of football dough every year, and we see why in the case of the big east, and maybe even the acc and big ten this year. If the best 8 teams got the big money, i'm not sure any of those conferences would receive a large paycheck. instead, the pac 10 and big 12 would get two checks each, the sec would get one, and so would the wac, the mountain west, and maybe conference usa. To ensure the constant redistribution of wealth (sorry for the tax lingo, i was just on the politics board), they've devised the current system. Not only does this lock out mid-major conferences, it ultimately hurts the big conferences that are the best. Luckily for the big conferences, they'll have up and down years, so it will even out for them. I'm surprised the BCS hasn't been sued by the mid-majors--they've got legitimate gripes.

They should scrap the whole system.

However, since that is not going to happen, they should put in a stipulation that the conference champion from one of the big conferences has to be ranked in the top 10, 12, or something else reasonable. This would keep an average team like Pittsburgh out and put a more deserving team like Texas or Boise State in.

Bullshit Championship System


There's a reason why football doesn't have a playoff system. And just so you all know, the BCS championship isn't a real national championship...its not recognized by the NCAA as a national championship, its a paper championship.

as i've stated all along: "If college football were to have a playoff system it would look too much like a sport"

as you can infer, college football is a business and they make more money with people bickering about who the champ is. think about it people want to spend more money to support their club to show the world they're number 1 and everyone wins, the tv networks, the colleges (bcs money and paraphenalia), and ultimately the university presidents.

Even so, I still prefer watching NCAA football. I'm one of those people feel that the NFL has been "tainted."

Btw: Thursday is awesome, wish I could go see their NJ show coming up.

I'm not knocking the sport of college football, I LOVE college football. My all-time favorite sport. I just think the people who run it are a bunch of jackasses and its horrible that there's no playoff system.

I live in Boise and am a huge a Boise State fan and I'm not sure we belong in the BCS the way it stands. We are a small school without the flash of the schools with 40,000 students. I am sure that the big bowls would rather have a UCLA that is 6 and 5 than Boise State that is 11 and 0. They could eliminate all the controversy with one of the many good playoff systems that various people have devised. The school presidents say that they don't want to hurt the football players education. Hellllooooo. Basketball has many more games than football and what does March Madness do for education. Basketball players must be better students than football.

Well, the ESPN/USA Today Coaches' Poll has an agreement w/the BCS that they'll put the winner of the championship game as the national champions, and the winner of the Orange Bowl is going to get the trophy. The AP poll could choose to split again like last year, but I doubt they'll do it again this year (who cares if Auburn beats Va. Tech?). I wonder if the coaches' poll will stop aligning itself w/the BCS now that ESPN's momma won't get to show all of the games after 2006.

who knows. all we can hope is that enough teams get screwed where we get the presidents to agree to a playoff....sadly I don't think that's going to happen in my lifetime (and i'm only 18.)

I used to live in Boise as well, I took classes at BSU for a semester. While BSU isn't that big, it's quickly gaining fame and what-not with their multiple ESPN appearances. I'm sure BCS wouldn't mind having them in a year or two.

Personally, if anyone goes undefeated in the SEC and then wins their bowl game they should be national champions. period. too bad there's all this contraversy. USC vs OU isn't going to prove anything. Auburn would beat them both. (and I pull for 'bama)

16 team playoff would be the answer and have various rounds owned by different companies and teams get money for how far they travel into the tournament. This way you cannot complain you deserve to play for a national championship when you are not in hte top 16. This way Pitt would be playing in a bcs game because they won, easily the world conference in football. More teams tied for the title and then don't tie. Utah is going to destroy them, and hopefully Auburn crushed Va-tech to make the Ap pole interesting again

Stevo22,
I think you are full of it. Auburn showed some of the same weaknesses saturday, the others have shown during the season. The SEC has some good teams, but please don't tell me "the SEC is superior". I ain't buying. Georgia (is the 2nd best? compared w/ Tennessee with a 3rd string QB) vs Texas or California would probably be a mismatch (by the way I'm a Georgia fan) I do believe OU and Auburn would be the best matchup, but the pollsters have decided if you are #1 and don't get beat you aren't going to be moved! USC got a free pass.

I just wish they would set up some interesting games. For instance Auburn vs Utah. Lets' see if Utah can play with the big boys and the allure of 2 unbeaten teams. Or Texas vs Auburn, you want to stir up controversy that could do it. Va Tech , though I like them, isn't a compelling match up. I figure AU by 14.

Someone explain why Utah gets a game with Pitt? Compelling, no way, snore corps! They deserve a shot at a real BCS team! Let Pitt and VA tech or Michigan play. Texas also got a raw deal in terms of opponent. But the trip is one the UTers won't forget. The Rose is an awesome place to visit.

BSC GO AWAY!! A playoff will solve all of this even if it is only a 4 team deal!

Georgia vs. California or Texas would not be a mismatch. All 3 teams are worse than their records show.

I must say, being from Pittsburgh, that I'm one of the few people who can say the BCS actually struck gold for me.

I'm pretty psyched they're going to be in the Fiesta Bowl. That allows me to turn a blind eye to the fact that Texas isn't going to be in a BCS game. *weird*

I agree completely...they really could have made better bowl games. There's no reason for Auburn to play Va. Tech. They gain absolutely nothing from that win, and Va. Tech doesn't get much from a win either. Auburn vs. Utah is a very compelling game.

It seems like the bowl selection committees are afraid to match the best of the small conferences vs. the best of the big conferences because the small schools might win. Boise St. vs. Louisville is a huge cop-out--let one play Cal, for goodness sakes! In a perfect world, I would have loved a bowl season with these games:

USC vs. OU (I give up on Auburn)
Auburn vs. Utah
Boise St. vs. Texas
Louisville vs. Cal
Michigan vs. Va. Tech
Pittsburgh vs. Florida (in a $10-prize bowl game because neither team is good)

The first 4 games have my personal top 8, and although the small schools would be underdogs, they would all be interesting games.

First off, Utah is going to get beat by Pitt. and Auburn-Utah? That would be a blowout. What would Auburn gain from playing Utah? nothing. It doesn't matter anyways because the tigers are going to beat VT and the AP is going to vote them #1 and there'll be a split championship yet again. The AP poll is going to want to balance out the coach's poll just like they did last year with USC.

I can't believe you (quicksteal) think Boise St. and Texas is a good matchup. what have you been smoking? I have news for you. Louisville is going to embarrass boise st so bad in the Liberty bowl that they're gonna wish they lost a few games earlier in the season. And if they cant hang with the cardinals there's no way they can hang with the horns. Texas is going to send Michigan back home too, they're a lot better than people on this board have been giving them credit for.

I'm glad Cal got sent packing. They didn't deserve to be ranked so high all year to begin with. If they never played (and lost to) USC they never would have been in the top 5.

As far as USC vs OU, I think the sooners have this one.

not quite true that college football doesn't have a playoff system, as football in division 1-aa, division 2, and division 3 have playoff systems!
your statement should read, "if division 1-a college football were to have a playoff system, it would look too much like a sport"

but i do agree with the sentiments of what you wrote. ;)

usc whooped auburn's ass last year 23-0 in auburn!

auburn's non-conference opponents this year:
the citadel, not even a division 1-a team
louisiana monroe
louisiana tech
and auburn played all of them at home!

usc's non-conference opponents:
virginia tech (winner of the acc)
colorado state
byu
notre dame (beat tennessee and michigan).

i do think some of the match ups you proposed would be excellent, but alas, the bcs doesn't really care what us fans think, lol.

My mistake uncle_el. I knew that, I should be thinking of these things, I'm going to a 1-AA school. :(

Maybe I'm one of the few, but none of the teams really looked to completely dominant this year. Oklahoma pulled off some lucky wins this year. LSU could have easily beat Auburn this year. I'm sure alot of people think they should have beat them and it was luck that Auburn one. Auburn also played pathetic against a beat up Alabama team. USC vs. California probably should have had a different outcome as well. Several other teams played USC close as well. Similar things happened with Oklahoma and they definitely showed huge weakness in several games.

Oklahoma was very very impressive in most games last year save the final two where it really mattered. In my opinion, Oklahoma, USC, and LSU all seemed dominate the league more than the USC, Auburn, and Oklahoma of this year. Teams each played weak games last year just at the championship teams did this year. For example, LSU played weak against Georgia the first time and almost lost to Ole Miss. However, even though each of the 3 teams lost a game last year, they seemed to actually play more dominantly than any of the undefeated this year. Watching USC and LSU's attack on the quarterback in their bowl games was amazing. In the SEC championship LSU's talent really showed.

However, the BCS system is messed up no doubt. An SEC undefeated team should be in the national championship. I think most people would agree that the SEC is the most physically demanding conference in the nation. However, while I am a big fan of SEC football, there are definitely several things Auburn could have done differently. They knew how the polling system worked yet they still did some shitty planning on schedule as well as playing some bad games at the end.

What also seems strange about the current situation is that Auburn has no chance to be the national champion. With the old system, Auburn could still have been the champions with Oklahoma and USC bowl losses.

Well, I'm returning a little late to the thread, but my original idea of only conference champions getting in would only work if every conference had a championship game. Then you'd have your built-in tournament right there.

But the truth is, I-A needs only look to every other division of football to see how a playoff would and could work.

I don't understand your post. Auburn beat LSU 10-9, what do you mean they LSU won? And I think you underrate Alabama, rivalry games are always played tough. I do agree with your SEC is the toughest conference though...

I'm not underestimating the Alabama team. Alabama did very well for what they had. They WERE a beat up team though. Look at their offense. With Brody Croyle, they were a BCS team. Without him, they barely managed to get into a bowl game. Hudson was out for the season. T. Castille was gone and a third string tight end was in I believe. Their offense was gone and their defense was exhausted and worn down. I remember hearing that S. Castille was playing hurt as well.

I understand the pride and tradition of the iron bowl very well. I know that it is the biggest rivalry in college football and neither team should be underestimated going into the game regardless of their record. However, it was obvious that Alabama was hurt. It was obvious that they had no depth. I'm sure pollsters took that into consideration as well when they saw Auburn's performance.

SEC wasn't that good this year. If Auburn were to go undefeated in the SEC in previous years, I would whole-heartedly agree with you. Tennesee wasn't as good as previous years. They only beat 2-9 Kentucky 37-31 and 4-7 Mississippi 21-17. Georgia did OK this year but it was nothing to compared to earlier years. Florida.. Florida just went down the drain this season. Meyer has a good chance at restoring the franchise next year though. LSU didn't look like a national title team this year either..

Well. I guess we'll all see the truth in the sugar bowl. Too bad they wont be playing USC or OU though.

Its not really too bad at all. I don't agree with the BCS on most occasions and I don't think it should be the LAW in college football. But I think it got it right this year. You've got three teams from big conferences all undefeated. They all have about equally watered down conference opponents, if you want to argue SEC supremacy...you don't have a HUGELY successful argument this season. Auburn gets a marginal advantage in having the tougher conference schedule. If they want to blame anyone for being left out in the cold, blame themselves. While Oklahoma and USC were facing games against opponents that were acutally tough (less so for Oklahoma than USC, USC did play the eventual ACC champ and won convincingly) while Auburn scheduled games against *drumroll* Louisana Monroe, Louisana Tech and Division 1-AA's very own 3-7 Citadel Bulldogs.

Hell, Utah played a tougher OOC schedule then Auburn:

Texas A&M
Arizona
Utah State
North Carolina

I think whats missing here is that no conference was that good this year. They all seemed middle of the road. People just naturally consider SEC competition to be very tough. Teams seem just a tad more physical. However, what other conference could you really say was better than the SEC? I definitely do not see any.

Arkansas had a rough finish to their season, but they could have won other conferences. Also, why are people being so hard of Florida? Sure, they weren't what people are used to seeing, but they never lost by more than a touchdown. They should have beat Tennessee. LSU, Georgia, and Mississippi State were all games that could have easily gone the other way. Sometimes a solid team can just be caught by surprise. Just ask Arizona State.

Yes, but you don't see 3 top 20 teams on their schedule. Not to mention having to play one twice. In fact, not even one.

SEC was the best conference this year. if you go thru it undefeated, u should get in the mnc game. look at the sec.

auburn/lsu/georgia/florida/tennessee.

why does OU deserve mnc game? big xii south is the toughest division in the nation this year. ou/tx/tx-tech/aTm/oSu were all ranked at some point in the season.

pac10? cal/usc then who? :rolleyes: i'd have loved to see ou/auburn,but ou/sc aint a bad matchup.

as for all the cinderalla non-bcs teams, .................... they dont deserve it one bit. utah beat aggy and that's it :confused: i wish utah got paired with auburn/tx/michigan so everyone could see once and for all how pathetic these teams are. we all know what happened to the horny toads last year :P

Dont worry about Utah. they'll get beat solidly by Pitt.

And as for Auburn's strength of schedule, they weren't supposed to be penalized for playing citadel...it wasn't there fault.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6632801/

how can aubrun not be penalized for playing the citadel when teams set up their own out of conference schedule?!?!? the citadel's not even a division 1-a team!

If you read the entire statement, it explained how Bowling Green opted out of a matchup with Auburn so Auburn had to find a team available to play and time was running out, so they had to play The Citadel.

I think it would be more fair to not blame auburn if we knew what the procedure of teams opting out of games. It doesn't seem logical to me that a team who is bound to playing another team can just say "oh sorry, we're not doing that anymore" seems to me the teams would have to agree or something to that effect in order for a team to opt out of a non-conference matchup. someone find out the rules and post them, then we'll decide who's fault it is. By the text alone, it sounds like Auburn allowed Bowling Green to buy their way out of the game, and if that's the case then its their own fault for not saying "no, eff you you're playing us."

Of course, they let BG out of the game, but they probably should have done some research first. They probably thought it wouldn't be that hard to find someone to play, but by then it was too late. I'm sure if they knew they had to play a 1-aa team they would never have agreed to let BG out of the game.

This would be true if you were dealing with kids and kickball. Unfortunately, Universities can't act that way. Auburn probably could have found a more difficult opponent, however, I can recall several instances where this happened in the past 10 years.

By the way, didn't Auburn buy their way out of playing FSU a few years ago?

well I know it sounds ridiculous but if people are going to defend them with "its bowling green's fault" then i'm going to offend them with "its their own fault for letting them out of the game." I doubt it says anywhere that if a team wants out of a game you have to let them.

I never said it was BG's fault, but you can't just go around saying Auburn should be punished for having a weak schedule and pointing out that they played citadel like they had scheduled it years in advance because they were too scared to play someone else. Believe me, they didn't want to play the citadel, they just got shafted.

and i'm just saying if they ALLOWED BG to opt out of the game by just paying them off, you can fault them.

Fair enough. Remember though that there is alot of things in life that you really do not HAVE to do. However, if you do not do those things, there could be very bad results. I'm sure there is alot of politics involved in this situation that most of us probably will never know of nor care about.

However, I think the discussion is getting off on a tangent that most people already believe anyway. The problem is not with bowling green nor is it really with Auburn. The problem is with the NCAA. Of course, the media does not help a whole lot either.

Yeah, they got beat by Boise State. :)

My Playoff Idea:
12 teams. 6 'major conferences champs' 6 'at large bids'
Commitee picks at larges. Utah and Boise St would have made it through a commitee with those undefeated seasons. This would also allow teams from the MAC and other mid-major conferences a chance.

Bracket: Seeds 1-4 get by-week the first week. 5-12 play normal bracket games. Winners from those 4 games play by-week teams. Winners from those play next game. Off Week. Those teams play for national championship.

Time frame: Start Thanks giving weekend. Play first three sets of games. Take time off over Christmas. Play championship game new years weekend.

TaDa, a true national champion.

Who decides who the "major conferences" are?

Fixed that up for you.

Go Utes!

Yeah. son of a bitch. that was one hell of a show. After seeing that performance I must say that I am impressed. That Utah has one hell of a football team.

And with that USC pounding of OU there really isn't any doubt on who the national champions are.

Good thing you nailed these predictions. Care to revise you stance on Auburn vrs Utah?

Yeah....Auburn-Utah would have been a good game, but the Auburn-VT game was good as well. Utah should have played a top 10 team at least. I thought OU would put up a fight at least since USC struggled against teams earlier in the year. USC just came to play a championship game and OU didn't even show up. The sad part about all this is that this is the part of the year where we are farthest away from college football. I wish it were september again.