PDA

View Full Version : Bcs



Agent51
12-08-2005, 07:10 PM
OK, WHY is everyone saying "the BCS FINALLY got it right"? The BCS didn't get anything right, common sense got it right. USC and Texas were number 1 and 2 respectively all year, plus they were the only two remaining undefeated teams, if they DIDN'T make the Rose Bowl the BCS would have been crucified. You can't really say the BCS got it right. Them getting it right would have been if VT or another team were undefeated in the end and then the BCS got the two teams that should be there there. The BCS didn't get anything right or "finally work" this year by putting the two most obvious, no-brainer choices in the Rose Bowl.

kastofsna120
12-08-2005, 08:19 PM
they got it right because texas and USC wouldn't have played each other in a bowl game without the BCS

Alex44
12-08-2005, 08:20 PM
they got it right because texas and USC wouldn't have played each other in a bowl game without the BCS


They got it right be default


there is no conceivable way they could have messed it up

kastofsna120
12-08-2005, 08:22 PM
if there were no BCS, USC would be playing penn state (prbly a better game anyway), and texas would be where....the orange bowl?

Agent51
12-08-2005, 09:01 PM
they got it right because texas and USC wouldn't have played each other in a bowl game without the BCS

I wasn't talking if there weren't a BCS, I'm talking about the fact that the BCS didn't get anything right, it has the #1 team vs the #2 team playing for the title, which is exactly how it should be, you can't screw that up this year, it's pretty clear cut who the #1 and #2 are. Everytime there are 3 undefeateds or only 1 undefeated the BCS seems to go all screwy, yet when it's obvious who it will be and the BCS names them suddenly its praised.

Alex44
12-08-2005, 09:03 PM
I wasn't talking if there weren't a BCS, I'm talking about the fact that the BCS didn't get anything right, it has the #1 team vs the #2 team playing for the title, which is exactly how it should be, you can't screw that up this year, it's pretty clear cut who the #1 and #2 are. Everytime there are 3 undefeateds or only 1 undefeated the BCS seems to go all screwy, yet when it's obvious who it will be and the BCS names them suddenly its praised.


i agree

for instance I thought LSU and Auburn were better teams than USC the last two years but they never got a shot, LSU was co champion but thats not really justice to the system

kastofsna120
12-08-2005, 09:04 PM
well it got it right didn't it? you can't deny that, that's exactly what happened. the whole point of the BCS was to get the #1 and #2 team to play each other, and that's what happened. so.....it worked. HAD WE NOT HAD THE BCS, we'd be where we were before 1998

Alex44
12-08-2005, 09:06 PM
well it got it right didn't it? you can't deny that, that's exactly what happened. the whole point of the BCS was to get the #1 and #2 team to play each other, and that's what happened. so.....it worked. HAD WE NOT HAD THE BCS, we'd be where we were before 1998

also true


Actually I take back what i said about LSU and Auburn being better than USC the last 2 years, I think they should have played for the national championship the last 2 years

LSU vs USC

and

Auburn vs USC

those would have been true bowl games not the stupid games they put oklahoma in

Agent51
12-09-2005, 06:35 PM
well it got it right didn't it? you can't deny that, that's exactly what happened. the whole point of the BCS was to get the #1 and #2 team to play each other, and that's what happened. so.....it worked. HAD WE NOT HAD THE BCS, we'd be where we were before 1998

Yes, they did get it completely right, but my enitre point is there was absolutely no reason they SHOULDN'T have this year, so in a year where it's cut and dry basically from the get-go who should be in the Rose Bowl everyone praises the BCS all of the sudden. If we finished with 3 undefeateds or only 1 undefeated and a bunch of one loss teams, or even NO undefeateds and a bunch of 1 loss teams you can be DAMN sure someone would be getting screwed by the BCS and the writers and fans would be going off about how it sucks and we need a playoff, but because it's right this year, when there were no variable to give it a CHANCE to screw up, everyone loves it, THAT is what's BS.

Nappy Roots
12-09-2005, 06:51 PM
Yes, they did get it completely right, but my enitre point is there was absolutely no reason they SHOULDN'T have this year, so in a year where it's cut and dry basically from the get-go who should be in the Rose Bowl everyone praises the BCS all of the sudden. If we finished with 3 undefeateds or only 1 undefeated and a bunch of one loss teams, or even NO undefeateds and a bunch of 1 loss teams you can be DAMN sure someone would be getting screwed by the BCS and the writers and fans would be going off about how it sucks and we need a playoff, but because it's right this year, when there were no variable to give it a CHANCE to screw up, everyone loves it, THAT is what's BS.



if there is 3 undefeated teams, and the top 2 go to the National Championship, how is that a screw up by the BCS?

wasnt USC-Oklahoma 1 & 2 before the national championship last year?

tylerdolphin
12-09-2005, 06:54 PM
But Auburn was better than Oklahoma

Nappy Roots
12-09-2005, 07:10 PM
But Auburn was better than Oklahoma



no one knew that at the time though. its easy to look back on it after Oklahoma got the **** kicked out of them. if we as people couldnt see that Auburn was better than oklahoma, how the hell is a computer suppose to?

kastofsna120
12-09-2005, 07:11 PM
remember the year before? when everyone was asking "is oklahoma the best team EVER?" then they lost to k-state and LSU. that was funny

Buddwalk
12-09-2005, 07:11 PM
no one knew that at the time though. its easy to look back on it after Oklahoma got the **** kicked out of them. if we as people couldnt see that Auburn was better than oklahoma, how the hell is a computer suppose to?

Last year i thought auburn was better than usc imo

kastofsna120
12-09-2005, 07:12 PM
Last year i thought auburn was better than usc imo
why? USC had a better offense, better defense, better special teams.....etc

Alex44
12-09-2005, 07:14 PM
no one knew that at the time though. its easy to look back on it after Oklahoma got the **** kicked out of them. if we as people couldnt see that Auburn was better than oklahoma, how the hell is a computer suppose to?


I saw auburn was the best team in the country

I dont blame the computer I blame the human voteing for falling into the hype of teams

Agent51
12-09-2005, 07:19 PM
if there is 3 undefeated teams, and the top 2 go to the National Championship, how is that a screw up by the BCS?

wasnt USC-Oklahoma 1 & 2 before the national championship last year?

Because it's not always the top 2 that get there when there are more than 2 undefeateds. Hence the "split" national championships, which are ridiculous, if you are going to have co-champs, hell, have THEM play a game for the sole title.

Alex44
12-09-2005, 07:22 PM
Because it's not always the top 2 that get there when there are more than 2 undefeateds. Hence the "split" national championships, which are ridiculous, if you are going to have co-champs, hell, have THEM play a game for the sole title.


Thats how I felt about LSU and USC, they should have played, because IMO LSU would have won that game

kastofsna120
12-09-2005, 08:01 PM
meh i guess i'm the only one that doesnt really care about co-championships

Nappy Roots
12-09-2005, 08:12 PM
Because it's not always the top 2 that get there when there are more than 2 undefeateds. Hence the "split" national championships, which are ridiculous, if you are going to have co-champs, hell, have THEM play a game for the sole title.


how is that the BCS's fault? BCS doesnt decide not to play +1

Alex44
12-09-2005, 08:17 PM
meh i guess i'm the only one that doesnt really care about co-championships

well we kind of want to know who the best team is

co-champs just leaves us wondering if LSU could beat USC

Agent51
12-09-2005, 08:35 PM
how is that the BCS's fault? BCS doesnt decide not to play +1

I didn't neccessarily say it was the BCS' fault, which is kind of the point of my thread. My question is why does everyone bash the BCS every single year because someone deserved to play for it and isn't, but the one year that there is absolutely NO QUESTION who should be playing for the title everyone praises them for getting it right. They DIDN'T "get it right" because there was nothing to get wrong. Had there been another team 12-0 or everyone 11-1 or just one 12-0 and a bunch of 11-1s then you better believe the "experts" and fans would ALL be in an uproar over SOMETHING right now.


well we kind of want to know who the best team is

co-champs just leaves us wondering if LSU could beat USC

Exactly. People don't play in the Super Bowl or World Series or fight for a title belt only to come out SHARING the title, they have a clear cut champ at the end. It should be that way in college too. Personally I don't have the die hard hatred for the BCS that some people do (although I'm sure I would if my Longhorns ever got screwed over bad by it) but I WOULD prefer to see a playoff system like Division 1-AA does. I just think it leaves less questions in people's minds.

Alex44
12-09-2005, 08:39 PM
Exactly. People don't play in the Super Bowl or World Series or fight for a title belt only to come out SHARING the title, they have a clear cut champ at the end. It should be that way in college too. Personally I don't have the die hard hatred for the BCS that some people do (although I'm sure I would if my Longhorns ever got screwed over bad by it) but I WOULD prefer to see a playoff system like Division 1-AA does. I just think it leaves less questions in people's minds.

Exactly the superbowl winner never has to share a title with a team that has the same record, they are the best, I agree that college should have a playoff system although not as large as Divison 1-AA or 2 A whatever the correct name is

It should just be 1 vs 2 and if there is another undefeated team after the bowls they play eachother

Its much more simple and less of an injury risk for highly ranked players comeing out of college

2-A can afford a bigger playoff because if the players get hurt no offense but they arnt #1 draft picks or even in the draft most the time

kastofsna120
12-09-2005, 08:40 PM
i just don't want a "plus one" game. that sucks. give me a full playoff or just leave it alone

Nappy Roots
12-09-2005, 08:42 PM
I didn't neccessarily say it was the BCS' fault, which is kind of the point of my thread. My question is why does everyone bash the BCS every single year because someone deserved to play for it and isn't, but the one year that there is absolutely NO QUESTION who should be playing for the title everyone praises them for getting it right. They DIDN'T "get it right" because there was nothing to get wrong. Had there been another team 12-0 or everyone 11-1 or just one 12-0 and a bunch of 11-1s then you better believe the "experts" and fans would ALL be in an uproar over SOMETHING right now.

Exactly. People don't play in the Super Bowl or World Series or fight for a title belt only to come out SHARING the title, they have a clear cut champ at the end. It should be that way in college too. Personally I don't have the die hard hatred for the BCS that some people do (although I'm sure I would if my Longhorns ever got screwed over bad by it) but I WOULD prefer to see a playoff system like Division 1-AA does. I just think it leaves less questions in people's minds.


ohh alright. then i agree

Agent51
12-09-2005, 09:03 PM
Exactly the superbowl winner never has to share a title with a team that has the same record, they are the best, I agree that college should have a playoff system although not as large as Divison 1-AA or 2 A whatever the correct name is

It should just be 1 vs 2 and if there is another undefeated team after the bowls they play eachother

Its much more simple and less of an injury risk for highly ranked players comeing out of college

2-A can afford a bigger playoff because if the players get hurt no offense but they arnt #1 draft picks or even in the draft most the time

I semi-agree with this. The problem with that is this:

Say there are 3 undefeateds going into the bowl games. Two undefeateds have to play each other because the BCS thinks they are the top 2, and one undefeated has to play another team, which, while undoubtedly a good team, will not be an undefeated team and maybe not be the caliber of one of the 2 undefeateds playing in the BCS championship. That means that if there are "co-champs" and we have one more game to determine the "true" champ, the AP champ team that DIDN'T play in the BCS title game and isn't the BCS champ will have had the easier road to the "true" title. Does that make sense? It'd be like 1 team having to play an undefeated team to just get a SHOT at the title game, while the other only hads to play a mediocre team to get into the game and have a shot at the same title (thats an EXTREME example but I just used it to explain the scenerio I'm trying to put together) so there would STILL be doubts about who the true champ was because if the team that didn't play the BCS title game ended up winning the "true" title in that game then people would say they had they easier route there.

Plus, all the "stars" in D1-A are going to the NFL anyway, where there IS a playoff, so it's something they might as well get used to. It's not like we can say "lets not have it because they could get injured in those extra games". Yeah, they could, but it'd STILL be less games than an NFL season, and it would give us a clearer cut champion as opposed to leaving us with all the questions that the BCS system USUALLY leaves us with.

Nappy Roots
12-09-2005, 09:06 PM
meh i guess i'm the only one that doesnt really care about co-championships


how do you not care about it? would u want the dolphins to go to the superbowl one year and they decide to call it a tie?

Alex44
12-09-2005, 09:06 PM
I semi-agree with this. The problem with that is this:

Say there are 3 undefeateds going into the bowl games. Two undefeateds have to play each other because the BCS thinks they are the top 2, and one undefeated has to play another team, which, while undoubtedly a good team, will not be an undefeated team and maybe not be the caliber of one of the 2 undefeateds playing in the BCS championship. That means that if there are "co-champs" and we have one more game to determine the "true" champ, the AP champ team that DIDN'T play in the BCS title game and isn't the BCS champ will have had the easier road to the "true" title. Does that make sense? It'd be like 1 team having to play an undefeated team to just get a SHOT at the title game, while the other only hads to play a mediocre team to get into the game and have a shot at the same title (thats an EXTREME example but I just used it to explain the scenerio I'm trying to put together) so there would STILL be doubts about who the true champ was because if the team that didn't play the BCS title game ended up winning the "true" title in that game then people would say they had they easier route there.


The only logic I can use to dispute that is this

1- yes the 1 and 2 undefeated teams play but the one that loses has already proven they arnt a true champion

2- The #3 team doesnt play an undefeated but still has to play the #1 team that the other team has already proven they cant beat

that make sense?

Agent51
12-09-2005, 09:27 PM
The only logic I can use to dispute that is this

1- yes the 1 and 2 undefeated teams play but the one that loses has already proven they arnt a true champion

2- The #3 team doesnt play an undefeated but still has to play the #1 team that the other team has already proven they cant beat

that make sense?

Sort of, but then you have a case like the OU situation last year.

And what if the AP #1 team isn't as good as the BCS #2 team? then you have what SHOULD be a 3rd ranked team actually playing for a shot to win the title.

kastofsna120
12-09-2005, 09:31 PM
how do you not care about it? would u want the dolphins to go to the superbowl one year and they decide to call it a tie?
college football isn't the NFL. time to figure that out

Nappy Roots
12-09-2005, 09:52 PM
college football isn't the NFL. time to figure that out


whats your point. football is football.

DonShula84
12-09-2005, 10:37 PM
Sometimes I feel like im the only one who likes the BCS and the bowl system :escape:

Nappy Roots
12-09-2005, 10:43 PM
Sometimes I feel like im the only one who likes the BCS and the bowl system :escape:



i like it to. i just feel if there is a split national title, there should be a game to decided.

DonShula84
12-09-2005, 10:45 PM
i like it to. i just feel if there is a split national title, there should be a game to decided.

I think that's one of the changes should make as well

kastofsna120
12-09-2005, 10:51 PM
whats your point. football is football.
no. tradition is special in college. i like that every single game is extremely important. i like that every bowl game is special.

i've noticed most college football traditionalists don't have a problem with the bowl games, it's the converted NFL fans that don't like it. tough ****, go watch the NFL

Nappy Roots
12-09-2005, 11:04 PM
no. tradition is special in college. i like that every single game is extremely important. i like that every bowl game is special.

i've noticed most college football traditionalists don't have a problem with the bowl games, it's the converted NFL fans that don't like it. tough ****, go watch the NFL


exactly. i agree. that has nothing to do with split national championships

kastofsna120
12-09-2005, 11:06 PM
yeah it does

Nappy Roots
12-09-2005, 11:18 PM
yeah it does


please explain why it does.

kastofsna120
12-09-2005, 11:33 PM
i don't mind split champions at all

Nappy Roots
12-09-2005, 11:38 PM
i don't mind split champions at all


yup. we got that already. now we are just trying to figure out why, and why there arent split championships in other sports. Yes i know, then go watch those sports. i like the bowl thing to, i like the BCS, i like the way it is cept for 1 HUGE thing. and thats sharing a national title. you play all those meaning full games, do something specially, go to the national championship, win it, and your called the Co-National Champions? shouldnt be .

kastofsna120
12-09-2005, 11:55 PM
meh....sometimes that's the way it is

MikeO
12-10-2005, 01:15 AM
i don't mind split champions at all

Hey we agree on something

Agent51
12-10-2005, 08:49 PM
i like it to. i just feel if there is a split national title, there should be a game to decided.

Exactly, I have no probs with the bowl games, until you have split champs, that is lame and they should have a game to decide ONE national champ.