at least the cardinals wouldn't have won the world series as a .500 team. nor would we have to pretend that the 2007 giants were better than the patriots. nor that butler matters.

Could have been amusing, but that was really poorly written.

It's a better article if you just jump down to halfway where he starts the analogies like I did. I thought it was funny.

JohnnyBravo: Zzzzzzzzzzz. We all know the BCS is BS.

Yup. But what many people seem to forget is that it's a giant leap forward from the pre-BCS days. Hopefully it's the precursor to a playoffs system, but for now I will enjoy having the opportunity to see the two best teams in college football play each other at the end of the season that I didn't have outside of a few fluke instances.

Obviously, Notre Dame should be playing LSU.

kwame: STFU idiot.

this

the sentiment i can agree with, but what a terribly shiatty article.

Pocket Ninja: I'm Frank DeFord, and if you're bothered by my cantankerousness I will strangle you with my sideburns.

I dont get why hes biatching, hes old enough to remember the last format and how that was even dumber.

Again, all this would be a moot point if they had just started the +1 the SEC/ACC pushed in 2004.

They should write one about if other sports used the World Cup Soccer format too.

A Fark Handle: at least the cardinals wouldn't have won the world series as a .500 team. nor would we have to pretend that the 2007 giants were better than the patriots. nor that butler matters.

Why does nearly everyone fall into the trap that champion=better? All it means is you won the farking tournament.

This college football thing will never catch on with fans if they dont make drastic changes immediately.

It was way better prior to the BCS. You know, when there were automatic bids to specific bowl games such that #1 playing #2 happened once every 50 years. A clear national champion was crowned when undefeated #'s 1-4 all won their bowl games. Or #1 and 2 with 1 loss each were tied for the championship over undefeated 5 and 6 with perfect records and lesser schedules.

I think a good comparison can be made between the BCS and Holy Roman Empire. You've got your different polls (Electors), your title game matchup (Papal coronation), your other major bowls (kingdoms of germany, bavaria, italy, burgundy, etc) and domination by an inbred dynasty that everyone hates (the Hapsburgs and the SEC).

Or something. I'm not spending anymore time on this than Deford did.

But, you see, this is in keeping with the BCS rationale that players are actually much happier playing when they aren't burdened by making money.

That's the NCAA's doing, not the BCS. That is for all NCAA sports, not just football.

AdmirableSnackbar: Yup. But what many people seem to forget is that it's a giant leap forward from the pre-BCS days.

Until we cancel all the non-championship bowl games or at least be honest with ourselves and treat the non-championship games, even the other BCS bowls, as the meaningless exhibitions that they have become, I disagree. All they are now are recruiting advertisements and NFL scouting opportunities.

I'm a Badger fan. I didn't watch a second of the Rose Bowl, or any other bowl. (Not that this stops people from assuming I watched it anyway.) I had no intention of doing so. I only even found out who was playing because I had it thrust in my face and couldn't avoid it. To do so would be to legitimize them as meaningful. I did, however, watch a few FCS playoff games and the Division 2 title game.

The pre-BCS days were at least honest about the fact that they were a jumbled mess. That's what I want if nothing else. Honesty. If the system's set up so that the two best teams might never face each other, at least man up, admit it, and work around it (which the old system did by allowing for co-champions). Don't make some bullshiat system that frequently gets the teams wrong and the system of which is kept under lock and key and then act as if the answer it provides is beyond debate. That's what pisses me off even more than the teams frequently being wrong. It's the fact that they're wrong with authority.

And that's why the bowl system used to work. Because the top teams might not face each other, having a lot of bowls gave all the top teams a chance to at least face one more quality opponent before you had to pick a champion or champions. The way it is now, the team selection is almost as haphazard as the pre-BCS, except only one bowl game can possibly produce a champion and all the other contenders, even a strong third place, have no way to prove themselves enough in their bowl game to make a case for being champion themselves. And yet we lie and act like they do if the two championship teams are weak enough. The third-place team's bowl game means exactly as much in the grand scheme of things as a bowl game featuring a pair of 6-6 teams from the MAC and Sun Belt, and we can't bring ourselves to admit it. And the longer it takes us to admit it, the longer this bullshiat is going to continue.

You want the BCS gone? Stop watching the non-championship games. Change the channel and treat them like the worthless consolation games that they are.

Hillbilly Jim: Why does nearly everyone fall into the trap that champion=better? All it means is you won the farking tournament.

Because without a tournament...well it could lead to differences of opinions and emotional discussions. Lawd knows college football fans hate to argue with one another about who's team is best or claim glory for their teams using circuitous logic.

mikaloyd: Hillbilly Jim: Why does nearly everyone fall into the trap that champion=better? All it means is you won the farking tournament.

Because without a tournament...well it could lead to differences of opinions and emotional discussions. Lawd knows college football fans hate to argue with one another about who's team is best or claim glory for their teams using circuitous logic.

Hey, now...are you being sarcastic??

I caught this on the car radio part way through the broadcast. I swear to FSM I thought he was making a long-winded joke about the whole strawpoll/caucus/primary thing.

I know the BCS formula is complex, but does it take into account the drop or rise teams get in rankings?

I mean, let's say Team X is ranked #5 in the country at the beginning of the year. Alabama beats them week 1, so it looks like a big win on paper, but by week 10, this team has lost 4 games and are considered a POS team...a win over them late in the season doesn't count as much. So, does a team's victory over a previously high ranked opponent drop in value as the team drops, or in reverse, does a win over a previously low ranked team count for more if that low ranked team climbs the rankings?

If the BCS ran baseball, every World Series would be either the Yankees or Red Sox facing off against a semi-randomly chosen team that was just a little better than .500 during a predetermined 3-week stretch in August, unless they faced each other. And it would be just one game, held at either Fenway or Yankee Stadium, with the game not counting if the visiting team is ever in the lead by more than 3 runs.

There'd also be a "Runner-Up Series," which would be the top-ten team with the most bandwagon fans (but never the Yankees or Red Sox; see above) in a home game against either the Mets, Pirates or Orioles (again, with the "game doesn't count if the visitors lead by more than 3 runs" rule in effect)

And 20 of the remaining 26 teams would be paired up at random for various low-prestige series, such as the "Doug's 10-Minute Oil Change Series," the "Sneed's Feed And Seed Series" and the "Wasilla City Hall And Bait Shop Series." Home teams would be chosen at random; and the "game doesn't count if the visitors lead by more than 3 runs" rule will NOT be in effect since the teams wouldn't have enough fans between them to fill one baseball stadium, which in turn would mean the advertisers wouldn't care if it's a pitcher's duel or a blowout.

mikaloyd: They should write one about if other sports used the World Cup Soccer format too.

That would be awesome. The group stage has too many games to work for football, but baseball and basketball could easily use the World Cup format.

ihatedumbpeople: I know the BCS formula is complex, but does it take into account the drop or rise teams get in rankings?

Yes it drops their SOS down and their computer rankings, if a team drops after another team beats them then that win doesnt show up as a quality win, it happens every year.

Its better than the random pairings we used to have which meant you rarely had two top teams meet for the title and played lower ranked teams then the people would vote on who was better, if you have half a brain you prefer the BCS which is still the first step to a playoff, its just the big 12 fought against that last time. It pleases me that they may be through as a conference.

I'm assuming that the last point regarding the World Cup (Peru v. Slovenia in Sri Lanka... two teams nobody cares about from a disparate location) was a dig at all the meaningless bowl games. Realistically, that's not the problem of the BCS, which handles the top 5 games only. That's other cities with stadiums trying to get tourism revenue and promote their fine towns. A month ago I wasn't considering going to Shreveport or Boise, but now, after having seen those cities on display in the Independence and Idaho Potato Bowls, respectively, I just might. So, to be more precise, if the BCS ran the World Cup, you'd pair off the top 10 teams in the world in a relatively arbitrary manner (save for the top 2, of course), and play the games in relatively attractive locations (really, nothing too horrible about the biggest games being played in Phoenix, Miami, LA, and New Orleans).

Satosuke: /They were better that day.
//All that matters.

but why should that be the standard? the season series was tied 1-1 and score tie at 52-52 on aggregate with one game at new york (new jersey) and one at a neutral site, meanwhile against other teams the patriots went 17-0 and giants went just 13-5.

A Fark Handle: at least the cardinals wouldn't have won the world series as a .500 team. nor would we have to pretend that the 2007 giants were better than the patriots. nor that butler matters.

Who cares? I'd much rather watch teams earn the right to play in the championship game than have it awarded based on subjective decisions. You set the rules for the playoffs, play the season, and let the playoffs team in. If that means a .500 team is playing for the championship, great! I don't see this as a bad thing, because I don't give a crap about finding the "best" team. I want to see a team earn the championship, I like to see upsets, and if a "better" team can't stop them then that "better" team doesn't get anything just because they played well during the regular season. If my Packers lose in the playoffs, to say the Giants, you won't see me whining "but they beat them in the regular season!"

A Fark Handle: Satosuke: /They were better that day.
//All that matters.

but why should that be the standard? the season series was tied 1-1 and score tie at 52-52 on aggregate with one game at new york (new jersey) and one at a neutral site, meanwhile against other teams the patriots went 17-0 and giants went just 13-5.

Because nothing is more boring than finishing the game and then using a tiebreaker system (or worse, subjective decisions behind closed doors) to find out who really won the championship.

man I dont like Frank Deford, and for some reason I feel bad about it.

A Fark Handle: Satosuke: /They were better that day.
//All that matters.

but why should that be the standard? the season series was tied 1-1 and score tie at 52-52 on aggregate with one game at new york (new jersey) and one at a neutral site, meanwhile against other teams the patriots went 17-0 and giants went just 13-5.

Because they won the farking tournament?

Because fark you that's why?

/either or

Gosling: til we cancel all the non-championship bowl games or at least be honest with ourselves and treat the non-championship games, even the other BCS bowls, as the meaningless exhibitions that they have become, I disagree. All they are now are recruiting advertisements and NFL scouting opportunities.

Other bowl games have become meaningless? What the blue fark are you talking about? They always were meaningless. At least now there is one meaningful game. Hopefully someday there will be more, but that shouldn't stop anyone from enjoying bowl games for what they are. And guess what, if the FCS introduced a playoff series, there would still be meaningless bowl games. That's part of the fun of D-I college football, maybe the only true fun of it.

I'm a Badger fan. I didn't watch a second of the Rose Bowl, or any other bowl. (Not that this stops people from assuming I watched it anyway.) I had no intention of doing so. I only even found out who was playing because I had it thrust in my face and couldn't avoid it. To do so would be to legitimize them as meaningful. I did, however, watch a few FCS playoff games and the Division 2 title game.

This line of thinking makes absolutely no sense to me. 15 years ago you would have loved to watch that game but now you refuse to acknowledge it. Instead you now watch weaker football out of spite? Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

nobius: mikaloyd: They should write one about if other sports used the World Cup Soccer format too.

That would be awesome. The group stage has too many games to work for football, but baseball and basketball could easily use the World Cup format.

The qualifiers would drive you crazy. These are the actual procedures used to qualify teams from each continent into the 2014 World Cup (note: 'knockout round' here always means 'two-legged home-and-away series'):

UEFA: Teams divided into groups. Winner of each group qualifies. Runners-up compared; worst runner-up eliminated; the other runners-up paired off, winner of each playoff qualifies.
CAF: Teams paired off in preliminary knockout round. Best teams then enter competition; all teams still in placed into groups. Winners of groups thrown into another knockout round. Survivors of this last knockout round qualify.
OFC: Worst teams placed into group stage. Winner placed into second group stage with best teams. Survivors of second group stage merged into third group stage. Winner plays also-ran from some other continent to qualify.
AFC: Preliminary knockout round among worst teams. Better teams enter competition, engage in second knockout round. Best teams enter competition, everyone split into groups. Survivors reset into two new groups. Best teams qualify, next teams down enter into playoff. Winner goes on to play also-ran from some other continent to qualify.
COMNEBOL: All the teams thrown into single double-round-robin. Top teams qualify, one runner-up goes on to face also-ran from some other continent to qualify.
CONCACAF: Worst teams paired off in knockout round. Better teams enter competition; survivors of knockout round placed amongst better teams in group stage. Best teams enter competition; placed amongst group stage winners in second group stage. Best teams from second group stage entered into six-way double-round-robin group known coloquially as "hexagonal". Best teams qualify, next team down plays also-ran from some other continent to qualify.

Got all that?

Pemulis: I think a good comparison can be made between the BCS and Holy Roman Empire. You've got your different polls (Electors), your title game matchup (Papal coronation), your other major bowls (kingdoms of germany, bavaria, italy, burgundy, etc) and domination by an inbred dynasty that everyone hates (the Hapsburgs and the SEC).

Or something. I'm not spending anymore time on this than Deford did.

Now that you mention it Larry Scott and Charles II of Spain do look a bit alike.

steamingpile: I dont get why hes biatching, hes old enough to remember the last format and how that was even dumber.

In a year (well within the last 12 months) where people were tearing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" apart as a horrible dinosaur, this attitude is a little surprising. Yes, I'm sure he remembers pre-BCS crap like 1994's Nebraska over Penn State championship-without-a-game but college football then went from completely stupid to only mostly stupid in deciding a champion. It wasn't a big improvement, and has only rarely yielded a solid championship (USC v Texas).

The time delay is just ridiculous, regardless of the number of schools, money, everything. And what the hell is with these games being played on days that suck for travel? A Tuesday night championship game? Even rec-league basketball holds those on Thursdays or Fridays!

AdmirableSnackbar: This line of thinking makes absolutely no sense to me. 15 years ago you would have loved to watch that game but now you refuse to acknowledge it. Instead you now watch weaker football out of spite? Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

15 years ago the Rose Bowl had a chance of having a say in determining the champion. Now it does not and cannot. Its usefulness has been stripped away. I'm not sticking around just because someone wants to scream "b-b-but tradition!" Fark tradition. Tradition is why drunken idiots fly to Spain to whack rampaging bulls with a rolled-up newspaper.

A Fark Handle: Satosuke: /They were better that day.
//All that matters.

but why should that be the standard? the season series was tied 1-1 and score tie at 52-52 on aggregate with one game at new york (new jersey) and one at a neutral site, meanwhile against other teams the patriots went 17-0 and giants went just 13-5.

Because when they were told "Beat those team in front of you right now" they said "okay" and did it. The Patriots did not.

/A lot of people seem to forget the Pats had problems against good teams/rematches that year
//Using just regular season is silly due to both unbalanced schedules and the fact that what do you do if tied?
///Playoffs are more for fun than best team, but it's still better than finding out the best team than the BCS, because the BCS is not equipped to handle more than two legitimate contenders per year.

Gosling: AdmirableSnackbar: This line of thinking makes absolutely no sense to me. 15 years ago you would have loved to watch that game but now you refuse to acknowledge it. Instead you now watch weaker football out of spite? Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

15 years ago the Rose Bowl had a chance of having a say in determining the champion. Now it does not and cannot. Its usefulness has been stripped away. I'm not sticking around just because someone wants to scream "b-b-but tradition!" Fark tradition. Tradition is why drunken idiots fly to Spain to whack rampaging bulls with a rolled-up newspaper.

So maybe - maybe - once a decade it was a factor, so it was great to watch every year? And now it doesn't so it's unwatchable crap? Nope, still doesn't make sense to me. To me, it's not about tradition, it's about rewarding teams and players that work hard year-round and succeed with a working vacation, an exhibition game, and a great experience followed by a great party. I pity you, it must suck trying to avoid fun at all costs.

"If the BCS ran the NFL"

boy that's a real stretch of the imagination there... I mean it's two completely unrelated sports


There's way too many people making way too much money for there to be any kind of change coming anytime soon
You need boycotts from several of the major conferences, something like each conferences champion going undefeated, but the conferences are in the pocket of the BCS. Who in their right mind would vote for making less money and making it more difficult to make more money for the sake of "fairness" and crowning a "true champion"?

/obligitory BCS rant