# MWC fans should just learn to like the BCS...



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Written with a BCS slant. :roll: 

I want an explanation why Division I college football is the ONLY college/pro sport that doesn't have some sort of playoff to determine the champion. 

"Fairness Index", talk about fuzzy math! :?


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Written with a BCS slant. :roll:
> 
> I want an explanation why Division I college football is the ONLY college/pro sport that doesn't have some sort of playoff to determine the champion.
> 
> *"Fairness Index", talk about fuzzy math!* :?


That is what I was thinking, it figures though coming from a guy who has a Doctorate Degree in Statistics. You can massage any numbers you want. In fact, I am working on coming up with a bull**** index. :lol:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

DOn't get me wrong, I LOVE statistics, but to rationalize giving several very solid football teams ZERO chance at a national title each year is beyond inane. In fact it is either full blown arrogance, or biased ignorance.


----------



## Chaser (Sep 28, 2007)

I agree Pro. Regardless of these "experts'" index, I still think its more fair to let a team decide their own fate through winning or losing in a post-season playoff.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

fatbass said:


> The author's arguments are simply free of "victim mentality".


No, his arguments are simply full of elitist mindsets. AND, you failed to answer my question; Why is Division I college football the *ONLY* college/pro sport in America that keeps all but a select few programs from a shot at a national title? No "victim mentality", just an honest question. What are the BCS schools so afraid of? If they are vastly 'superior', they should be WILLING to PROVE it on the field. Are they men, or are they mice?


----------



## The Janitor (Jan 23, 2009)

fatbass said:


> The author's arguments are simply free of "victim mentality".


 Those things are easy to say for those who like to disassociate with their own.
Now I know you're a good guy, but face it man, you're not a southerner. :?

Oh, I wish I was in Dixie, hooray, hooray....


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> fatbass said:
> 
> 
> > The author's arguments are simply free of "victim mentality".
> ...


I think the answer is quite obvious, why give up the guaranteed big money just to be fair to all? 
If I understood the thesis correctly, they are simply comparing the so called champion as deserving it. If correct, then in no way does it consider how fair it was for Utah in 2004 at 11-0 to not have a single chance to be the champion even though they have the same 11-0 record as the #1 and #2. 2006 BSU at 13-0, 2003 season when no one was undefeated and only three had less than two losses, ... Their narrow choice of figures are very misleading, making it to the playoffs does not cheapen the regular season, as has been said, when you have a strong opinion you can always find someone who agrees and find some statistic to support it.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

fatbass said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > fatbass said:
> ...


Wrong. The NCAA tourney allows the best team to win. Will a Cinderella team emerge, yes, but they never win. They may get one or two upsets, but they never win the whole thing, but at least they have a chance. Even the best teams have an off day, why should that one day determine their whole outcome, it shouldn't. I use to agree with the whole extra game theory, but I don't think it would be that big of deal. Have one less non-conference game and don't take a month off before bowl games, I think that hurts teams as much as anything.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

fatbass said:


> There are none so blind as those that will not see. Hello pot, I'm kettle. Read the article again. The point is that because there is no huge playoff, the regular season games mean that much more. Right, home field advantage/a higher seed, mean nothing. :? The 64 team field used in college basketball allows a mediocre regular season team to actually have a chance to win the championship simply because they may have sandbagged during the regular season just to get into the playoffs with fresh starters. Name the last "mediocre" team to win the NCAA basketball title. In the NFL, all the teams want is to "make the playoffs" and it allows BAD teams a chance at winning the Lombardi. Not true, they battle for a bye the first round, and home field advantage through the play-offs.
> 
> College, by definition, is all about preparing young people with the skills for success at the next level. It's not supposed to be the finale. So why go through the sham of crowning a team "champions"? More games added to the CFB season only add risk of injury to possible future NFL players and cheapen the meaning of the regular season. Funny how Division II and Division III teams are able to manage. And again, the regular season is NOT cheapened, it just means EVERY Division I team has a chance at a national title at the beginning of the season. As it is now, all but a SMALL handful of teams are eliminated before they ever play a single game.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

I am coming to realize that college football is strikingly like MLB Baseball. Teams with the highest budgets will nearly always win. And with no salary cap in place, that will continue to be the case. This year was the prime example in baseball - New York, Philadelphia, Los Angeles (2 teams) were the top teams. And top paying teams. And the highest paying team won the world series. There are on occassion when a low-money team makes a run - like the Tampa Rays last year. But year in and year out, it is the teams with the biggest budgets that win.

College football is nor different. When you see the budgets spent on football, it becomes very clear why Florida, Texas, Oklahoma, Ohio State, and USC are consistently in the top 5. Sure, there are years when Utah, Boise State, or this year, TCU can make a buzz - but not on a super consistent balance. As long as the financial disparity exists among college football programs, that will remain the case. 

And I gotta say that as one who is more conservative leaning in my economic views - I certainly don't want government intervention, financial socialization, or forced profit-sharing to occur. And much as I hate the New York Yankees, I can think of no better example of American capitalism at work, and if that means they win more titles than anyone else - so be it. What is more American than buying the best there is?

Where the comparison breaks down is that in theory, every MLB team CAN play for a title. And in the reality of college football, not every NCAA team can. In theory though - it is possible - meaning it is not prohibited. But reality and theory are two different things all together.


----------



## The Janitor (Jan 23, 2009)

GaryFish said:


> And I gotta say that as one who is more conservative leaning in my economic views - I certainly don't want government intervention, financial socialization, or forced profit-sharing to occur. And much as I hate the New York Yankees, I can think of no better example of American capitalism at work, and if that means they win more titles than anyone else - so be it. What is more American than buying the best there is?


American capitalism is fine for professional sports, but I don't think you can draw a valid comparison between the New York Yankees and public learning institutions. What is going on in the BCS is corrupt and should have no place in the college setting.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

The Janitor said:


> American capitalism is fine for professional sports, but I don't think you can draw a valid comparison between the New York Yankees and public learning institutions. What is going on in the BCS is corrupt and should have no place in the college setting.


Thing is - college football has very little to do with institutions of higher learning. The line between college football and professional sports is oh so very thin.

I am a big fan of the University of Utah - as a university. I have very high levels of respect for it and would have no problem if my children choose to attend there. They will get an outstanding education at the U. But I do hate the utahutes football team! That has nothing to do with the university.


----------



## The Janitor (Jan 23, 2009)

fatbass said:


> That small handful of teams (like Boise and TCU) don't have the strength of schedule to justify playing the big dogs, it's just that simple.


Remember that butt kicking alabama recieved last year by one of those teams that can't justify playing the "big dogs"? That butt kicking that was severe enough to prove it wasn't a fluke. The whole SEC has non-conference schedules filled with teams that you say have no justification to play them. Or is it only justified when you know you won't lose to that team(most every school in the SEC's OOC schedule), but if a smaller school that has the potential to beat you, then it isn't justified? It is justified for the SEC to pad their win loss schedule with the worst of the worst, but not justified when a smaller school knows they can compete against this so called big dog, because there is a possibility that the smaller school will win and their is good money on the line? :roll: How libertarian of you...


----------



## The Janitor (Jan 23, 2009)

GaryFish said:


> Thing is - college football has very little to do with institutions of higher learning. The line between college football and professional sports is oh so very thin.
> 
> I am a big fan of the University of Utah - as a university. I have very high levels of respect for it and would have no problem if my children choose to attend there. They will get an outstanding education at the U. But I do hate the utahutes football team! That has nothing to do with the university.


 So would you be okay with half of the division 4a high schools in Utah deciding, without the say of the other half, that they can't compete for the state title every year no matter how the season goes?


----------



## The Janitor (Jan 23, 2009)

Also Gary, the Yankees, Dodgers, Red Sox, so forth, never created a system that by rule makes it so half of the teams in baseball can't compete for the title. They will play anybody, anytime, anywhere, and rely on their own merits to prove it on the field. I can't grasp how some on here can hate the Yankees and then support the BCS anti-trust breaking bull crap.


----------



## The Janitor (Jan 23, 2009)

I also think that those who are involved with the BCS should revoke their schools exemption from federal income taxation and other such exemptions and benefits they recieve if they are going to be engaging in shady set ups like the BCS.
There is more than a fine line between professional and college sports Gary.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Answer this simple question then. Is it technically possible for a non-BCS school to play in the BCS championship game?


----------



## The Janitor (Jan 23, 2009)

GaryFish said:


> Answer this simple question then. Is it technically possible for a non-BCS school to play in the BCS championship game?


In an unnecessarily burdensome fashion, maybe. But we are yet to see if they will actually put one of these teams in the title game. What happens when two or three non-bcs school have the same legitimate claim to play for the title in the same year?

Now answer my question, would you be okay with the same type of set up being implemented among Utah's 4A schools?


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> Answer this simple question then. Is it technically possible for a non-BCS school to play in the BCS championship game?


Yes, but you have a better chance of drawing a premium elk tag with no points than a non-BCS team getting a shot at the NC.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

The Janitor said:


> Now answer my question, would you be okay with the same type of set up being implemented among Utah's 4A schools?


No.

I must have mixed up a messege or something here. I didn't say I approve of the BCS system for determining a "national champion" in college football. I only said I think there is a parallel to MLB because money dominates the scene. Teams with the money win. Period. Do I like it? Nope. Would I rather see a play-off? Absolutely. My preference would be a 16 team, power-protected tourney - 11 conference champs get an automatic invite, and the next 5 highest ranked teams - regardless of conference. Games played regionally in NFL stadiums through December with championship on New Year's Day. All the 30+ crapola bowls can still go on, letting another 60 teams get one more game out of the year. (kind of like the NIT in hoops).

Now that being said, I look at what the BCS is now, how it came to be, and what the system was before. When it was formed, each of the original 4 conferences each brought something to the table. They gave up their traditional bowl ties, in order to get the two highest ranked teams playing one another - something that was nearly impossible before. A few years into it, the Big-10 and Pac-10 decided they should finally join up too. A few years later, they added the 5th game - instead of just playing the BCS "title" game in one of the existing bowl games. And it continues to be tweeked. It is far from perfect. But for those of us who remember the older system - it certainly is better. As a BYU fan, our national title is and always will be tainted because contracts determined that BYU play an unranked, 6-5 Michigan team in the Holiday Bowl. In the BCS system, BYU would have played Oklahoma for a real battle that year. At least under the current system, Utah did get to play in the Sugar Bowl. Under the old system, they would have been playing Arizona in Las Vegas!


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Let me ask this. Has there been a year where you could honestly say, that a non-BCS team should have played in the BCS championship game instead of the two teams that were selected?


----------



## The Janitor (Jan 23, 2009)

GaryFish said:


> The Janitor said:
> 
> 
> > Now answer my question, would you be okay with the same type of set up being implemented among Utah's 4A schools?
> ...


Okay thanks for the clarification. It was starting to sound otherwise.


----------



## The Janitor (Jan 23, 2009)

fatbass said:


> A true Libertarian knows that one should be able to associate with whomever one wants, not whom the government decides one must. :idea:
> If you don't like the current BCS, start your own college football championship series. If the competition is good enough, you'll attract fans. _(O)_


That's fine if the big 6 conferences were the ones who created college football and the national title, and the other schools then decided they want to be apart of it. Well they didn't. It was something that existed long before the BCS. The six conferences simply colluded to exclude others from having access to something they previously had. Why should the excluded schools then say that the BCS had a right to do this and simply leave the endeavor they were already engaged in. Especially when a much more just and equitable play off could be implemented? A true libertarian doesn't collude, and doesn't try to limit the competition, and doesn't feel entitled to things without proving their merits.


fatbass said:


> That butt kicking was one quarter of great football against a Tide that had just had its NC dreams dashed by the eventual winner of the NC. Note that Bama outplayed Utah the remaining 3 quarters. 5 more minutes and Utah loses.
> Again, That was Utah's biggest game EVER and it was against the #4 team in the country. Bama was playing "Podunk U" for WHAT? Once you've had a NC (or 12  ) it's hard to get excited to play against a team like Louisiana Tech or Utah. 8)


Excuses, excuses. Utah was better than alabama plain and simple. Oh too bad for bama that they didn't get protected from being exposed by the BCS.  Maybe the tide should've held a klan rally after that, and even reinstituted some more Jim Crowe laws to compensate that they didn't get to discriminate against the non-bcs team that year that kicked their butt.


----------



## The Janitor (Jan 23, 2009)

fatbass said:


> The Janitor said:
> 
> 
> > GaryFish said:
> ...


If it were solely their budgets and fan pools that they were relying that would be fine as well. But it isn't the whole story, their still is this anti-American, elitist, collusion based system known as the BCS they ar using. I think the BCS is an entirely inappropriate system for Institutions of public education to be using. They are inherently different by nature and purpose than the business enterprise teams that make up professional sports. You cannot justify the BCS and college sports by comparing apples to oranges with the professional sports model.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

The Janitor said:


> The six conferences simply colluded to exclude others from having access to something they previously had.


That really wasn't the case. Prior to the BCS system, there was NO system for a college football champion. There was only the bowl system, and each conference was on their own to make a bowl championship deal. For example, the Rose Bowl was ALWAYS the Pac-10 and Big-10 champions. The SEC champ was in the Sugar Bowl. The SWC to the Cotton Bowl, and Big-8 to the Orange Bowl. The only promise of conference champions meeting was in the Rose Bowl. So unless your #1 and 2 teams were from the Big-10/Pac-10, then for all reality, there was no way the top two teams would meet. The WAC in those days had the contract to send their conference champion to the Holiday Bowl every year - with no outs. So in '84 when BYU was ranked #1, they were contractually bound to the Holiday Bowl - as was the Big-10 to send like their #5 team that year. The big bowls like the Orange, Cotton, and Sugar typically had a spot for an "at large" team they could select - but with the champions of every conference committed to another bowl, there was no way to get them into the same game.

Then the ACC, SEC, Big East, and the newly expanded Big 12 got together and said "hey, what if we relax on our traditional bowl ties and put the two highest ranked teams from our four conferences together on one bowl game - with that game rotating between the Orange, Sugar, and Fiesta Bowls." It certainly seemed better because there was a better chance to get the top two teams to play. The Big-10 and Pac-10 held out - wanting instead to keep the traditional Rose Bowl match-up going. For after another "split national championship" with Michigan and Nebraska (97), thee Rose Bowl finally decided to give up the promised traditional conference ties and join in.

At the time the BCS was formed - the lesser conferences had nothing to bring to the table. They didn't have a big time bowl game to bring. They didn't have huge money teams that travel 50,000 people to a bowl game to bring. They really had nothing of value to add to the business arrangement so they were not invited. As it has evolved, it has gone from impossible for non-BCS teams to qualify like in '96 when BYU should have qualified, to now - with a non-BCS team getting an invite nearly every year. Utah was clearly the front-runner. And since Utah broke in for the first time in '04, the standards for a non-BCS school to qualify have become even looser (which shows the level of respect for that '04 team to make it with the tighter standards).


----------



## hyperduc (Sep 18, 2009)

fatbass said:


> '08 Sugar Bowl...A fluke, one-time win that will never happen again and wouldn't have if Andre Smith had played.


Short of Jesus himself lining up in the backfield for bama, they had no business even being there. The Utes beat them in EVERY single facet of the game, one guy on the field would not have changed that.

Your 11 point loss to the eventual national champion Florida looked respectable compared to the two touchdown margin that the lowly MW opponents laid on you. There is no excuse for looking that bad, none, period.

BTW, as long as you chipping off about your fantastic team...you might want to wait until you actually beat Florida when it matters.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

I pretty much hate the utahutes, so it pains me to say this. But last year, they WERE better than Alabama. This year is different. But last year, they schooled Alabama on the field. No questions. No excuses. Nothing. They whooped bama. Also - and this also pains me to say it - but until Bama actually wins a BCS game, I wouldn't be talking too much smack at a team that has won two of them. 

Bama is 0-2 in BCS games (2000 Orange Bowl loss to Michigan and the 08 Sugar Bowl to utahutes). Sure, they won titles in the past. But so did Yale, Army, Princeton, Harvard, Cornell, Lafayette, Navy, SMU, TCU, Minnesota, Kentucky, and yes, even BYU. In fact since the title in '92, you have to go back to '79 for another Alabama title. Just sayin'! :wink:


----------



## The Janitor (Jan 23, 2009)

Gary, the way the BCS was formed still does not give justification to deny teams access to a national championship. Sure, the lesser conferences will rarely produce a champion team, but when they do make a good case for a championship run, they deserve the opportunity to prove it. That is only right. A playoff would ensure this and leave no excuses. Until there is a playoff system, there will never be a true champion period, because it is all speculation, whether good or bad speculation is used is beyond the point, a true champion is proven, not voted for.

I also am convinced that TCU can beat alabama this year.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

The Janitor said:


> Gary, the way the BCS was formed still does not give justification to deny teams access to a national championship. Sure, the lesser conferences will rarely produce a champion team, but when they do make a good case for a championship run, they deserve the opportunity to prove it. That is only right. A playoff would ensure this and leave no excuses. Until there is a playoff system, there will never be a true champion period, because it is all speculation, whether good or bad speculation is used is beyond the point, a true champion is proven, not voted for.
> 
> *I also am convinced that TCU can beat alabama this year.*


+100000


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

fatbass said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > There are none so blind as those that will not see. Hello pot, I'm kettle. Read the article again. The point is that because there is no huge playoff, the regular season games mean that much more. Right, home field advantage/a higher seed, mean nothing. :? If there was a playoff, it would but since there isn't one, your point is moot. The whole article is "moot" since the 'index' it cites is fuzzy elitist math. Let's be clear, the article is slanted with a biased view that ignores reality. The 64 team field used in college basketball allows a mediocre regular season team to actually have a chance to win the championship simply because they may have sandbagged during the regular season just to get into the playoffs with fresh starters. Name the last "mediocre" team to win the NCAA basketball title. I can name many times when a top seed was upset by a cinderella that subsequently went down in flames, thereby cheapening the crown. Cheapened the crown by making one EARN it? Oh the humanity! What has "cheapened" the crown is when another UNDEFEATED team is left unable to prove it's 'worthiness' while a 'chosen' team is crowned. In the NFL, all the teams want is to "make the playoffs" and it allows BAD teams a chance at winning the Lombardi. Not true, they battle for a bye the first round, and home field advantage through the play-offs. So you'd like to see Texas have a bye and then play the rest of the playoff games in Dallas? :roll: It was YOU that brought the NFL into the discussion, not me. YOU stated that in the NFL teams just want to "make the playoffs", I simply pointed out another flawed point YOU made.
> ...


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

The Janitor said:


> Gary, the way the BCS was formed still does not give justification to deny teams access to a national championship


Much as I HATE the BCS system, I can only point to one year that the most deserving teams did not play in the BCS championship game. And that was in 2001 when Nebraska played Miami in the Rose Bowl - and they didn't even win thir own division, let alone conference. Oregon should have played in the title game agains Miami that year.

So - what DESERVING team should have played in the title game but was denied that chance? With all its warts, it has done what it set out to accomplish - and that is put the #1 and #2 teams in the same bowl game. All the rest is for entertainment purposes.

I would love to say that TCU DESERVES to be in the title game this year. A copule more weeks of play and we'll see how that pans out. But unless the Big 12 (Texas) or SEC champion lose a game between here and there(not going to happen) I don't know if it could be said that TCU deserves it any more than we could say that Texas or Florida/Bama deserve it.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

The point I think you're missing Gary is, EVERY team deserves a shot at actually competing for a national title. Look at this year so far, how many Top Ten teams have been beaten by large margins? It shows the rankings know less than the people give them credit of knowing. The ONLY reasonable way to decide who 'deserves' a shot at the crown is on the field. After Oregon's first game all the 'experts' wrote them off, then after a few solid games they were title 'contenders' again. USC has been worked by a PAC-10 team that has a non-conference LOSING record this year, yet they are still ranked in the Top 25. Rankings and polls are too subjective to be the deciding factor one what team(s) 'deserve' a shot at the championship. A company is successful or not based on it's performance, NOT by a ranking/title placed on it by a group of 'experts'. Why should college football be the ONLY money making enterprise that is exempt from this basic economic principle?

As for this year, under a playoff system, it wouldn't have to be debated whether TCU can defeat Texas/Alabama/Florida. It could/should be PROVEN on the field.


----------



## The Janitor (Jan 23, 2009)

GaryFish said:


> The Janitor said:
> 
> 
> > Gary, the way the BCS was formed still does not give justification to deny teams access to a national championship
> ...


You mean to tell me that Ohio State was really the number two team in their recent trips to the national title game? And that this was evidenced by a faulty system and an affiliation with a sub par big 10 conference? I can think of two years that I believed USC deserved yet another shot but got passed up by a lesser team like Ohio State. I think almost every year the system has screwed up and not placed the correct #1 and #2 teams in the game. You will never convince me that undeafeted teams don't deserve the opportunity to have someone try to expose them in a run for the national title via a playoff system.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> The Janitor said:
> 
> 
> > Gary, the way the BCS was formed still does not give justification to deny teams access to a national championship
> ...


But theres the problem, Texas, Florida and Bama will always be picked over TCU, Utah, BSU even if the latter are more deserving. Texas SOS is nothing impressive this year, but niether is TCU. As far as statistics they are nearly identical in most departments. The difference one is from a BCS conference and the other isn't. Game over for TCU based on no logic, that is what pisses me off.

TCU has beat two ranked teams, both of which were No. 16 at the time of beating them. If you count Clemson, which is now ranked, that makes three.

Texas has beat two ranked teams, an over-rated Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.

TCU is 4th in the country in Points per game, Texas is 2nd.

Texas allows 12.6 Points per game, TCU allows 12.9.

Defensively they are both stout teams. My point is they are nearly identical statistically, but Texas will always be picked first and that isn't right.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

> The point I think you're missing Gary is, EVERY team deserves a shot at actually competing for a national title. Look at this year so far, how many Top Ten teams have been beaten by large margins?


Every team started out undefeated and had a shot to go undefeated. Right now, there are five teams still without a loss. The remainder of the top ten are not being considered for the title game. In fact, that is a very short list right now - because Florida and Bama will play - so that will leave four undefeated teams. But every team started out and through the season, have fallen by the wayside.



> You mean to tell me that Ohio State was really the number two team in their recent trips to the national title game?


Yes. Ohio State played LSU at the end of the 07 season in the title game and lost. Every major conference champ that year had one loss before the bowls except Hawaii (lost to Georgia in the Sugar Bowl). IN fact, all but Ohio State and Kansas had 2 losses. Kansas didn't win their conference though, and after Nebraska snuck in the title game in '01, the rules changed to require that a team must win their conference title to play in the national title game. In '06, Ohio State played Florida in the national title game and lost. Ohio State was the only team from a major conference that was undefeated so yes, they deserved to be in the title game. The question that year would have been an undefeated Boise State, or the one loss Florida team. But Ohio State was the only undefeated from a major confernce so they certainly deserved to play in the game. Ohio State's other trip to the title game was in the 02 season. They beat Miami in that game. OSU and Miami were the ONLY undefeated teams that season -so yes - they deserved to be there.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

I like the comparison of TCU to Texas. Texas will have another ranked team in the Big 12 title game to consider. To me, this year compares best to the '04 year - where four teams finished the season undefeated. That year, remember that USC, Oklahoma, Utah and Auburn all finished undefeated. USC beat OU in the title game. But outside of Utah and Auburn fans, no one else in the nation thought that either team would have stood a chance against that USC team. Certainly no one made a case that USC and OU didn't belong in the title game. But if there ever would have been a sweet game for a play-off, that would have been it.

I think that this year, a case can be made why Texas, TCU, Florida/Bama winner all deserve to be in the title game. And I think it very hard to make a case why one of those teams SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED. And that doesn't consider that Cincinatti and Boise State will also finish undefeated. I have not watched enough of the many teams this year to even throw out who I think would be most deserving. I have watched more TCU than any of the others and I think they are one of the best teams I've seen play this year. I don't know who I've seen who is better. 

Outside the '01 BCS Title - Rose Bowl where Nebraska played Miami, I really don't see a BCS championship game that didn't match the top two teams.


----------



## The Janitor (Jan 23, 2009)

GaryFish said:
 

> Outside the '01 BCS Title - Rose Bowl where Nebraska played Miami, I really don't see a BCS championship game that didn't match the top two teams.


In the 2000-2001 series Washington was denied a shot to play because their only loss was to Oregon, yet thet year they beat Miami in Miami. I think they should've been there that year. (I hope RR doesn't read this)

In 03-04 USC would've beaten anyone same as in 06-07, but once again the best team was not in the championship game. In fact, it was poor refereeing that cost them the game against Texas in 05-06.

Everyone outside of Columbus Ohio knows the last two times Ohio State made it to the title game, they weren't the one of the top two teams. The big 10 has been horrible since the turn of the century. Look it up, their bowl history since 2000 has been one of the worst of all the conferences. Everyone knows they are going downhill for some reason. A playoff would have eliminated many of these problems.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

The Janitor said:


> A playoff would have eliminated many of these problems.


That is one thing I can totally agree with. No doubt about it - a playoff would be better than the BCS.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> > The point I think you're missing Gary is, EVERY team deserves a shot at actually competing for a national title. Look at this year so far, how many Top Ten teams have been beaten by large margins?
> 
> 
> Every team started out undefeated and had a shot to go undefeated. Right now, there are five teams still without a loss. The remainder of the top ten are not being considered for the title game. In fact, that is a very short list right now - because Florida and Bama will play - so that will leave four undefeated teams. But every team started out and through the season, have fallen by the wayside.


Apparently I wasn't clear on my point. Yes, every team started the season undefeated and had a shot to go undefeated, BUT every team did NOT have a shot at winning a national title even if they went undefeated. That is my point, and ny issue with this BCS scam! Utah, whom I HATE has has TWO undefeated seasons in recent years, yet they NEVER had a chance to compete for a national title either season. Boise State went undefeated a few years back and NEVER had a chance to compete for a national title. In all likelihood, TCU/BSU will not be given a chance to win/lose the crown on the field this year. How any rational football fan can say that is good for the sport is beyond me. And, as this year has shown, many teams with 1-2 losses can compete on any given Saturday with any of the undefeated teams. Why should 1-2 off days 'end the season' so to speak? That is what I like about EVERY other sport, a team can stub a toe and still be crowned champs. I wrestled in high school, and one of my most cherished moments was when I pinned a kid for the state title who had earlier in the year squeaked out a win over me, under a BCS like system my title dreams would have been over before Christmas. Instead I was able to work hard to improve and finish the year at the top. I got better as the year went on, how many college football teams are better now than 2 months ago, and how many who beat highly ranked teams have regressed but now are playing the soft part of their schedule?


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

This has made for a great read... thanks guys. 8)


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

fatbass said:


> It was fun to be a troll for a bit! :twisted:
> 
> Now that we have all given our best thoughts here, I'll show my hand and say that I am AGAINST the current BCS system and FOR a limited playoff. :mrgreen:
> 
> ...


My one thing with a playoff and I've seen this said by somebody else before (not sure who but I'm pretty sure it wasn't me)... if the MWC or the WAC or whatever other small champion isn't in the national championship game from the start... they won't win two or three in a row or whatever to get there, especially if they have to run the gauntlet of teams from tougher conferences that play tougher competition every year. Its not going to be like running through their conference schedule. The odds are probably astronomically against it. Will it mix up who actually is the national champion a little? Yeah, maybe.... is it cut and dried a better way to go to give the smaller conferences MORE of a shot at being a national champion? Realistically, I don't think so... but it would make for more fun football in December instead of just watching crap bowl games and it would hush up all this talk about so and so not being worthy. 8)


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Setting aside my own biases, (and you better believe I have them, go Utes!) there are two things about the BCS setup that drive me crazy.

1. As has been talked about at length, while the two teams picked ARE deserving, there are other deserving teams that get left out that are also worthy. Of the remaining unbeatens of 2009, all of them can make a case for worthiness. I have watched Cincinnati a couple of times and they are very good, and would also be legit IMO if they beat Pitt in a couple of weeks. The others have been talked about at length here and further discussion by me won't add much. 

2. The second thing that hasn't been talked about much here is the effect the BCS system has on scheduling by particularly the BCS schools. Whereas, many are afraid to have even the remote possibility of losing an Out-of-conference game, they schedule a perpetual diet of cupcake non conference games, gobbling up all of the Sun Belt conference, FCS, and Utah States they can get, but avoiding playing other BCS conferences or tough non AQ teams like the U, Boise, TCU, or BYU. Look at this week. Florida get to smack down Florida International, and Alabama gets to dine on Tennesee Chattanooga. Can't wait to see those games! _/O The system rewards this though because if they lose even once, they are done for a championship, so why chance it.

If there was a playoff, and entry was based on a selection process, like NCAA hoops, that rewarded playing a tough schedule, we would have better regular season games, as well as the excitement of a playoff.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

I think you make a really good point on the scheduleing thing. Which is one reason I have considerable respect for Ohio State, USC, and Texas. All have been typically top 5 teams the last several years and have put together home-and-homes with each other - very cool. The other side of that though - is Ohio State lost to USC, has two other losses, and still is a lock for the Rose Bowl. But to their credit - they have not been afraid to schedule top level teams like Texas and USC (and the same can obviously be said for USC and Texas). 

So throwing this out there - I see teams like Florida and Nebraska with 8-9home games every year. Their only away games are the required confernce games. All non-confernce games are home games for them. Granted, they play the worst of the worst. But their fans get that many more home games, which translates into that much more revenue. BYU and the utahutes could certainly go out and buy four non-conference opponents willing to come in for a $500,000 pay-out. For WAC, Sunbelt, or Conf. USA teams, that is more than they'll make off a bowl pay-out. With BCS schools much less likely to schedule BYU or utahutes in future, why not give the fans 2-3 more home games? 3 more home games will exceed the revenue the school would get to keep by making a BCS game they might or might not get invited to. Something to think about. Hmmmmm.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

fatbass said:


> Who's schedule would you rather play?
> Bama:
> Event Location Time / Result
> 
> ...


Well, Mississippi. St.,and Kentucky don't have me shaking in my boots. Too bad you guys didn't get to roll Vanderbilt this year. Ol' Miss has been the "bust team of the year", Arkansas, mediocre, and even MWC doormat Wyoming beat the fighting Fullmers/Kiffins last year. You SEC guys do have a shred of validity in your argument, but what about genuinely bad BCS conferences like the Big 10 and ACC and overrated conferences like the big 12? They all do it and use the same argument, and it rings hollow. (I will give credit to bama though for having the stones to schedule Va Tech, almost makes up for giving us Chattanooga this week.) Also, some years a conference is good and the next year mediocre. The Big East this year is fairly decent, but in previous years has been lousy.



GaryFish said:


> So throwing this out there - I see teams like Florida and Nebraska with 8-9home games every year. Their only away games are the required confernce games. All non-confernce games are home games for them. Granted, they play the worst of the worst. But their fans get that many more home games, which translates into that much more revenue. BYU and the utahutes could certainly go out and buy four non-conference opponents willing to come in for a $500,000 pay-out. For WAC, Sunbelt, or Conf. USA teams, that is more than they'll make off a bowl pay-out. With BCS schools much less likely to schedule BYU or utahutes in future, why not give the fans 2-3 more home games? 3 more home games will exceed the revenue the school would get to keep by making a BCS game they might or might not get invited to. Something to think about. Hmmmmm.


I think the main reason the U, BYU, and TCU don't sign up too many cupcakes is that they know their schedule will be scrutinized to a greater extent if they have a great season and make a run at the BCS than their AQ peers. This is why you see the U take no return games with Michigan and Notre dame, TCU do it with Oklahoma and Clemson, and the Y against Oklahoma, just like your average MAC or Sun Belt school. Interestingly, Boise St. has an open date for their schedule in 2 yrs and can't get any of the "big guys" to accept it, even though it would be a "No return" game.



fatbass said:


> Ticket sales and stadium capacity are factors as well.
> Bryant-Denny Stadium (Alabama) will seat 101,000 next year.
> Ben Hill Griffin (Fla) seats 88,548.
> Lavell Edwards seats 64,045.
> Rice-Eccles seats 45,017.


This is definitely true as well.


----------



## The Janitor (Jan 23, 2009)

I believe it was during the past TCU/Utah game that they showed how well each conference has been doing against AQ teams. I remember the the MWC was in fourth place. If i remember right it went something like this:
1- SEC
2- PAC-10
3- ACC
4- MWC
5- Big 12
6- Big 10
7- Big East


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

Did anyone else find the irony in this part of the article??


> _Michael Davis, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor of Economics at Missouri University of Science and Technology and can be contacted at [email protected]. Tim Kane, Ph.D. is an economist at the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation and can be contacted at [email protected]._


He's a professor of ECONOMICS, not statistics or mathematics! Tell me its not all about the money!!!


----------



## mikevanwilder (Nov 11, 2008)

How about '03? How do you get 2 National champions? The BCS is not the way it should be if it was then why even play a championship game? The #1 team has already been decided right just give it to the #1 team at the end, no need to let the #2 team have a chance right? And the BCS is supposed to pit the #1 and #2 teams together right? '00 '01 and '03 didn't have #1 vs #2 in '03 they didn't even have the #1 team playing in the championship game. 
What I really don't get is why are these non-bcs teams even in the same College division then if they are not allowed to play in that divisions championship game? 
Like others have said its all about the money nothing more, which is disgusting to say the least. In all reallity I don't think even a team from the Big east or a team other then USC from the Pac Ten or Ohio ST, Michigan from the Big Ten and Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska from the Big 12 and, maybe Miami, Florida ST from the ACC and of course any team from the all mighty SEC, would be allowed to play in the title game, I can think of many times another team was more deserving to go but was left out because one of these teams was close.


----------

