The BCS

[MathNerd05]

I think its terrible.

[PghUSA]

lol, Mathnerd TOOOOO much info dude!

I'd love to know the top 3 reasons why Math.

The BCS should be scraped I think for a playoff system BUT I also think that schools should play conference games for the first 9/10 games THEN play TBAs against like ranked teams for the last 2/3 games of the season, then a bowl to determine final rankings . . . this way the last month of the season are playoffs, but every team would play even the Vanderbilts and UABs would play to see who is #100 and #105

[wolfdawg54]

It has its flaws but a play-off system would take way too long. Football players can't recooperate as fast as basketball players which will cause it to take longer.

There are way too many teams to make it happen. Maybe finding something in the middle of the road will work.

[MathNerd05]

I'd love to know the top 3 reasons why Math.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Okay.

1.) The current BCS system gives the most "computer power" to dynasty teams, making it all-but-impossible for teams, such as Boise State or Southern Miss, to make it to a BCS bowl. Granted, the dyansties are usually the best, but many teams are over-ranked (Michigan, Tennessee)

2.) Strength of Schedule is total nonsense. The only way to improve your schedule is to make agreements with teams consistently in the BCS, like Oklahoma or Miami. However, both of those programs are so well-endowed that they have no desire to play lower-level upstarts. So the BCS has effectively excluded every team in the nation except for its darlings, the Michigans and Texas' of the country.

3.) Last year. I was so tired of listening to all the complaining from USC, saying that they were the best team in the nation (and they may well have been.) but got left out of the national championship because of a computer error. Any foul-mouthed, buck-toothed redneck could have told you that Oklahoma was in the midst of a meltdown last year after being annihilated by a quick and talented Kansas State team while USC was just reaching its potential. Now, LSU was, by far, the best team last year at championship time, but they had a very unimpressive win over Georgia in the SEC championship game, and prior to that a VERY close call in Oxford against Eli Manning and Ole Miss. I believe USC should have been ranked #1 going into the BCS last year, with LSU second and, god forbid I say this, Michigan third. The BCS's biggest flaw is that it does not take into account the emotion of college football, it only uses the cold hard facts. Well, unfortunately, the facts are rarely enough to predict outcomes or even who is better.

In conclusion: human intuition needs to be in the BCS formula, not just facts, and while I'm not sure a playoff is the best solution, the BCS needs to be scrapped for something better. Now, it is true that there are too many teams to adequately choose a winner (Boise State, anyone?) but something akin to a playoff needs to be introduced.

Orange Bowl: #1 USC against #3 Auburn --> Usc 31-24

Rose Bowl: #2 Oklahoma vs #4 California --> Cal 42-31

Sugar Bowl: #8 Georgia vs #6 Utah --> Utes 20-17

Fiesta Bowl: #7 Texas vs #5 Wisconsin --> Wisconsin 34-17

We'll see how good I am

[wolfdawg54]

It is going to take time to find the right replacement for the BCS. Right now, I don't think a playoff is feasible as I have said before. Maybe a combination will work. BCS to pick top 20 the teams going to a playoff.

[MathNerd05]

I think a playoff in college is overkill. These kids are in school to get a degree, not to play football. I personally think that a ladder system would be a better way of ranking teams, but it has its own flaws.

Its a conundrum, no doubt about it.

[PghUSA]

lol anyone here read my first post to its conclusion?

If teams could play their conference games in weeks 1-8 or 9 and go by the BCS or a ladder system then the NCAA could have "groupings" the top 10 teams would play each other for final ranking during the last 3 weeks of the season AS SEASONAL GAMES, just in the sch. they are TBAs. You would go down the list of 10 teams at a time 1-10 could play for the championship 11-20 top 20 status and on and on. Doing the math you might need a 13 game season or 14 game season but with bowl games some colleges already play that. You would never have a split champion and you would never have a 1980 Pittsburgh Team or 1994 Penn State Team or 1997 West Virginia Team complain they got cheated from a championship. Instead of having Penn State play meaningless games with UCF the 4th week of the season they'd be all BigTen games until week 8 or 9 then the playoffs for the final 4 games. There finally no arguments!

[MathNerd05]

On a side note: Anyone think an at-large team should play Oklahoma for the Big 12 championship instead of a 6-6 team from the Big 12 North?

[ert90]

@Math: Strenght of Schedule was taken away from the BCS formula before this season started. Ruining the system even more IMO . . .

[MathNerd05]

SOS was kind of a waste, I think. To me it is difficult to compare schedules between teams that play in different conferences. I honestly think it added a little bit more of a bias to teams "perceived" to be good. I'm glad t see it gone so that the Notre Dame's and the Boise States of the game can shine through.

Go Utah!

[MathNerd05]

SOS was kind of a waste, I think. To me it is difficult to compare schedules between teams that play in different conferences. I honestly think it added a little bit more of a bias to teams "perceived" to be good. I'm glad t see it gone so that the Notre Dame's and the Boise States of the game can shine through.

Go Utah!

[wolfdawg54]

I don't know about that. You could point it the other direction too. What about Auburn. We don't know about tonight but i think that they are more deserving than USC or Oklahoma because the SEC is a pretty tough conference. In my opinion strength of schedule should play a role in determining some spots.

[paulblackgsx]

I don't know about that. You could point it the other direction too. What about Auburn. We don't know about tonight but i think that they are more deserving than USC or Oklahoma because the SEC is a pretty tough conference. In my opinion strength of schedule should play a role in determining some spots.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The problem is strength of schedule did play a role for Auburn. That's why they are third. Auburn played very weak non-conference games this year, and it has certainly cost them.

I think the BCS is crap, mmmm kay?

The system is designed to keep a lock on the money and top bowls for the big conferences.

Also, I don't believe a playoff would take too long. Even a 16 team playoff is only 4 games. Div IAA football has a playoff and there doesn't seem to be an issue.

I think the reason there is no playoff has nothing to do with the schools or players health/recovery. It has to do with controlling the flow of bowl money. Who gets it and who has a shot at it. Currently, a handful of conferences have guaranteed spots into the guaranteed 14 million dollar pay off. Why would they want to allow a team like Boise State from the MWC get a shot at their money?

The whole system is awful. At minimum, give us a +1 addition a week later so any of the top 4 have a shot at the title. 8 would be better, 16 would be ideal.

[MathNerd05]

I agree. SOS hurt Auburn this year. The Sec West this year was not what it usually is. Ole Miss and Mississippi State were both horrid teams, Arkansas was not much better save Matt Jones, Alabama is just starting to recover from NCAA probation, and LSU is a very young team. There are five of 11 games hat were fairly easy wins, save LSU. (14-13 scare in Baton Rouge, which is an extremely hostile place to play) That leaves wins over Tennessee and Georgia. Tennessee, by some quirk of the fates, played in the SEC Championship even though Georgia is by far the best team in the East. Auburn blew out Tennessee early in the year when the Vols had not yet settled on a QB. (Two freshmen QB's at that) The win over Georgia was inexplicable, although Georgia this year had its ups and downs. So 7 of 11 games won in the SEC, of which two were really difficult games, Georgia and LSU. The rest were non-conference no-names such a UAB and a team from the MAC (New Mexico State?)

I really think Auburn and USC are the two best teams in the land, but Oklahoma will get the nod against USC so everyone can watch Heisman runners Matt Leiner, Jason White, Reggie Bush, and Adrian Peterson. I really think USC will blow OU away.

Speaking of the Heisman, Auburn QB Jason Cambell may be the best in the country this year, but noone will vote him for Heisman b/c he has Ronnie Brown and Carnell Williams in the backfield. All three of these kids will go high in the draft.

edit: I missed an SEC game but I don't know who it is Auburn played. Maybe Kentucky?

[DHall]

Oklahoma is by far the best team this season. With USC's 3 point leads in most of their games, overated because they play most of their games while most AP writers are asleep or flying, and coming from behind against UCLA, and lucky because of a bad call against UCLA. Auburn didn't do so well againt crappy as always Tennessee, with only a 10 point lead. Oklahoma peaked in their championship, as they soured in last years championship. That was due to Coah Mike Stoops, Bob Stoops' brother, taking an Az St. job.

Auburn SHOULD be playing Oklahoma. No doubt. USC and Auburn pretty much screwed themselves, when their AP voter fans made sure the BCS was changed, and every time Oklahoma goes to the national championship.

The reason USC was picked was that it is more fun. Sure, if there is a bad call against Auburn the good folks in Whakaweewee and Tuscaloosa are going to be spittin' themselves insane. But that's all. USC & Oklahoma have national fan bases. Houston has the nation's largest Sooner fan club, pretty funny for a Texas city, aint it?

The Big 12 is the toughest conferance there is. The Big 12 north is not so good. But by far, the nations best teams are in the south. Oklahoma, Texas, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, in that order probably. The only 'bad' south team is Baylor, who everybody in the south puts a hefty thrashing on every year.

Plus, the curse of the Heisman is on USC this year. And, I would be worried about a close game if we played Auburn, but I am not worried at all of USC. Nope. They barely beat stanford, came from behind to beat the heck out Notre Dame, and should have lost to UCLA, doesn't seem worthy to me. You know... last year, Oklahoma beat UCLA by about 65 points. That was when we peaked at the wrong time. Now, we're peaking at just the perfect time.

Another thing, if they redo the BCS, they should force conferance like the Pac 10 to have championships. It's not fair on championship conferances. If the Big 12 was like that, Oklahoma and Texas would face each other every single year.

By the way, how many of you know that Notre Dame and Oklahoma are currently tied for the most championships? Looks like we may break the tie this year!

Thats all I've got. And, yes, I have been a Sooners fan all my life.

[PghUSA]

Pittsburgh gets to play in a BCS bowl . . . now thats amazing!

there the first Pennsylvania team to do it (PennSt. made it last in the mid-90s before the BCS during the old bowl alliance days). First January bowl for Pittsburgh since 1984!

Pittsburgh at 8-3 though has more deserving teams ahead of it in the polls . . . serves the BCS right they should have the last 2 games of the regular season as playoff games and quit this non-sense with conference weights and poll #s let the field of play decide it.

Too bad for Utah they're gonna get crushed like a tostito