If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ESPN)   ESPN: The BCS will be fondly remembered one day. No, it really will. Stop laughing. Why are you still laughing? You know, you're starting to hurt my feelings now. You'll have to stop laughing sometime in order to breathe   (espn.go.com) divider line 79
    More: Unlikely, BCS, ESPN, Ed O'Bannon, strength of schedule, margin of victory, BCS bowl, Northern Illinois, Fiesta Bowl  
•       •       •

879 clicks; posted to Sports » on 15 Aug 2013 at 7:00 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



79 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-08-15 07:05:05 AM  
Only in the south
 
2013-08-15 07:36:41 AM  
It'll be fondly remembered just like pervert uncle Bill: "Remember the good ol' days when we'd go visit uncle Bill who always wanted to make us sit on his lap and offered backrubs?"
 
2013-08-15 07:37:18 AM  
The old bowl system where the top bowls were played on NY day and then the season was OVER. That I miss.
 
2013-08-15 07:38:23 AM  
The BCS did a great thing in the late 90s; it gave us a #1 vs #2 championship game, which was a huge step forward.  But then we started seeing terrible flaws in the system every year, and we knew it was time to change things again, take the next evolutionary step.  Then there was the year of three undefeated teams, and we as fans asked why we couldn't have an expanded BCS where more than two teams played for the championship.  That was when the BCS and its defenders dug in their heels, and THAT was when the system clearly became a joke.
 
2013-08-15 08:00:41 AM  
Of course it'll be fondly remembered.  No one gives a dick about the players or fans so inevitably they'll come up with something worse.  That's when we'll refer to the BCS as "the good ol' days".
 
2013-08-15 08:16:06 AM  

UNC_Samurai: The BCS did a great thing in the late 90s; it gave us a #1 vs #2 championship game, which was a huge step forward.  But then we started seeing terrible flaws in the system every year, and we knew it was time to change things again, take the next evolutionary step.  Then there was the year of three undefeated teams, and we as fans asked why we couldn't have an expanded BCS where more than two teams played for the championship.  That was when the BCS and its defenders dug in their heels, and THAT was when the system clearly became a joke.


I like this.
 
2013-08-15 08:30:48 AM  
There will be people who do the math and realize that the BCS would have gotten their team in the championship.  Also, the playoff system will piss off the same people the BCS pissed off, just in different ways.

It's easier to deal with when you realize it's just amateur football.
 
2013-08-15 08:57:04 AM  
Yeah, it'll be fondly remembered when we have an 8 team playoff that literally, by rule, prevents any school not in the SEC, Big12, Pac12, or Big10 from getting a spot, regardless of record.
 
2013-08-15 09:10:31 AM  

jayhawk88: Yeah, it'll be fondly remembered when we have an 8 team playoff that literally, by rule, prevents any school not in the SEC, Big12, Pac12, or Big10 from getting a spot, regardless of record.


I have no problem with a school from a smaller conference getting in, but I'd rather not sit through another Georgia-Hawaii.
 
2013-08-15 09:17:48 AM  
I thought for sure that article would be by Skip Bayless.
 
2013-08-15 09:18:46 AM  
Some writer proposed a system with four conferences, ten teams in each conference, and relegation.  Top teams play in a four team playoff, bottom team(s?) get relegated and some new blood gets to enter the conferences.  Makes every game reaaaallly matter - which is what everyone has such a hard on for, right?
 
2013-08-15 09:22:15 AM  

Rapmaster2000: There will be people who do the math and realize that the BCS would have gotten their team in the championship.  Also, the playoff system will piss off the same people the BCS pissed off, just in different ways.

It's easier to deal with when you realize it's just amateur football.


It hasn't been amateur football in decades.
 
2013-08-15 09:23:37 AM  
I had a boil on the crack of my ass once that I'd miss more than the BCS.
 
2013-08-15 09:25:02 AM  

MattStafford: Some writer proposed a system with four conferences, ten teams in each conference, and relegation.  Top teams play in a four team playoff, bottom team(s?) get relegated and some new blood gets to enter the conferences.  Makes every game reaaaallly matter - which is what everyone has such a hard on for, right?


Hasnt the Super 4 conference idea been kicking around since the 70's?
 
2013-08-15 09:26:57 AM  
I know I am about to get blasted for this but I tend to view the BCS as the first evolutionary step towards a true playoff.

Our current "good ol days", the pre BCS system, was a sham and FAR more exclusive then the BCS ever was. Utah, Boise State, Hawaii and Northern Illinois would have NEVER played in any major bowl games under the old non-system. The BCS actually opened up the major games and payouts to these schools and conferences. Also teams like Cincinnati, Louisville, TCU and the like would never have had the chance to move up to major conferences had the BCS era never came to pass. As much as everyone hates on it, the BCS has opened more doors than anything before and mandated more inclusion than what was possible previously.

Was it perfect? Hell no! But it was an improvement and moved us down the road to a playoff. Yea a 4 team format is still lacking but anyone who pays attention can see this will evolve into an 8 team playoff and possibly even further. As soon as the powers that run college football figure out how to make the most money out of 4 teams they will expand to 8 and maybe beyond to chase the dollars. Sure it won't be done for the most noble of reasons but at least the fans will get what they want.

In the end the BCS was formed to do 2 things; grow the popularity of the game (to make more money of course) and get #1 to play #2 every year for the title. It did both and eventually led to the beginning of true playoffs and all while letting some of the previously locked out schools get in on the action for the first time as well.
I really do not see why it is perceived as being so evil in the eyes of most CFB fans around here. I am happy to see the game move on from it but to pretend it had no benefits and somehow helped only the major conferences when it actually opened up the major bowls to outside schools for the first time is laughable.
 
2013-08-15 09:27:28 AM  

jayhawk88: Yeah, it'll be fondly remembered when we have an 8 team playoff that literally, by rule, prevents any school not in the SEC, Big12, Pac12, or Big10 from getting a spot, regardless of record.


People forget that it was impossible for teams outside of these big conferences to get in these bowl games for years, so blaming the BCS was moronic. Most teams like Utah/Boise/Louisville/etc.... Were always going to be stuck in shiattier bowl games since they were never meant to have any hearing on the season and only set up as a way for them to pay back alumni who had given so much money. Hell, look at BYU back in '84, they didn't even get in a big payout game and they were number 2 I think at the time, they had to play in the holiday bowl against a crappy Michigan team.

People need to quit acting like the BCS was so terrible, it gave teams shots they never would have gotten otherwise. Sure it does unfairly reward top conferences when they don't deserve it, UF/UL, BSU/OU.... But for the most part it was better than the previous system of shiat matchups.
 
2013-08-15 09:30:20 AM  

steamingpile: jayhawk88: Yeah, it'll be fondly remembered when we have an 8 team playoff that literally, by rule, prevents any school not in the SEC, Big12, Pac12, or Big10 from getting a spot, regardless of record.

People forget that it was impossible for teams outside of these big conferences to get in these bowl games for years, so blaming the BCS was moronic. Most teams like Utah/Boise/Louisville/etc.... Were always going to be stuck in shiattier bowl games since they were never meant to have any hearing on the season and only set up as a way for them to pay back alumni who had given so much money. Hell, look at BYU back in '84, they didn't even get in a big payout game and they were number 2 I think at the time, they had to play in the holiday bowl against a crappy Michigan team.

People need to quit acting like the BCS was so terrible, it gave teams shots they never would have gotten otherwise. Sure it does unfairly reward top conferences when they don't deserve it, UF/UL, BSU/OU.... But for the most part it was better than the previous system of shiat matchups.


But we can all agree a playoff system is better.  I think people hate the BCS because they wanted to go from the old shiatty system right into a playoff.
 
2013-08-15 09:31:15 AM  

Rapmaster2000: There will be people who do the math and realize that the BCS would have gotten their team in the championship.  Also, the playoff system will piss off the same people the BCS pissed off, just in different ways.

It's easier to deal with when you realize it's just amateur football.


First, I'm going to be nice and assume you were using the word "amateur" to troll.

Second, if there is indeed a committee that selects the teams and is ultimately responsible for the decisions of leaving people in and out, I'm fine with that. A big problem with the BCS was a complete lack of accountability; when two-loss Nebraska vaulted the more deserving Oregon, or one-loss USC was shunned while two-loss Oklahoma and LSU teams made it in, the people in charge just shrugged their shoulders and pointed to the formula. Now, there a person with his job theoretically on the line if a terrible decision is made.

And also, if it turns out later we need to expand the format to 8 teams, hopeully this system will respond to that instead of retrenching, and regurgitating the tired old "this is better than the crap before" bullshiat that hallmarked the BCS.


And jayhawk, let's be fair; the ACC has done nothing in the last few years to demonstrate a team from that conference is championship-worthy. Maybe if VT, FSU, or Clemson would actually run the table and beat a big-time opponent in a non-conference game, they'd get a shot. But when teams like FSU lose to NC State and at home against Florida, then the conference is doing itself no favors.

And I also think it's time to add another tier separator in Division 1-A, because as much as ECU deserves to be treated as big-time football, the AAC, C-USA, MWC, MAC, and Sun Belt just aren't at the same level as the five big conferences.
 
2013-08-15 09:38:15 AM  

meanmutton: Rapmaster2000: There will be people who do the math and realize that the BCS would have gotten their team in the championship.  Also, the playoff system will piss off the same people the BCS pissed off, just in different ways.

It's easier to deal with when you realize it's just amateur football.

The problem with the playoff is that it retains the subjective aspect that really caused the problems in the BCS. A playoff that is made up only of conference winners, and included all conference winners, would eliminate the subjectivity.


Let's run with a  hypothetical situation here.  Schools #1 and #2 are in the same division in the same conference, both ranked in the top four/eight/however-many-you-want-in-playoffs at the end of the season.  School #1 has a brutal cross divisional schedule and ends up losing to school #3, also in that conference, which finishes the season ranked at #7.    School #2 has an easy cross divisional schedule (doesn't play school #3) and out of conference schedule, but had an ugly 10+ point loss in an out of conference game to an unranked team.  You use only conference winners, school #2 goes (assuming they win the conference championship), #1 doesn't.  Cross divisional games kill any chance of that being fair.
 
2013-08-15 09:39:13 AM  

flak attack: meanmutton: Rapmaster2000: There will be people who do the math and realize that the BCS would have gotten their team in the championship.  Also, the playoff system will piss off the same people the BCS pissed off, just in different ways.

It's easier to deal with when you realize it's just amateur football.

The problem with the playoff is that it retains the subjective aspect that really caused the problems in the BCS. A playoff that is made up only of conference winners, and included all conference winners, would eliminate the subjectivity.

Let's run with a  hypothetical situation here.  Schools #1 and #2 are in the same division in the same conference, both ranked in the top four/eight/however-many-you-want-in-playoffs at the end of the season.  School #1 has a brutal cross divisional schedule and ends up losing to school #3, also in that conference, which finishes the season ranked at #7.    School #2 has an easy cross divisional schedule (doesn't play school #3) and out of conference schedule, but had an ugly 10+ point loss in an out of conference game to an unranked team.  You use only conference winners, school #2 goes (assuming they win the conference championship), #1 doesn't.  Cross divisional games kill any chance of that being fair.


Assume no losses occurred that aren't stated.  Felt like I should clarify there
 
2013-08-15 09:44:33 AM  

Gunny Highway: But we can all agree a playoff system is better.  I think people hate the BCS because they wanted to go from the old shiatty system right into a playoff.


i agree completely. But when you hear about the "big boys" using it to consolidate power/money and shut the smaller schools out or this continued notion that the big bad schools are gonna form their own NCAA with hookers, and blackjack... it just gets old.

People need to let the process continue until we have the playoff we want and knock off the conspiracy  theories. It's called patience.

Keep calm and watch college football.
 
2013-08-15 09:49:07 AM  

flak attack: Let's run with a  hypothetical situation here.  Schools #1 and #2 are in the same division in the same conference, both ranked in the top four/eight/however-many-you-want-in-playoffs at the end of the season.  School #1 has a brutal cross divisional schedule and ends up losing to school #3, also in that conference, which finishes the season ranked at #7.    School #2 has an easy cross divisional schedule (doesn't play school #3) and out of conference schedule, but had an ugly 10+ point loss in an out of conference game to an unranked team.  You use only conference winners, school #2 goes (assuming they win the conference championship), #1 doesn't.  Cross divisional games kill any chance of that being fair.


Doesn't matter. School #1 and School #2 will play each other since they are in the same division. The better team will be decided on the field and the winner will advance in this senario.
 
2013-08-15 10:16:54 AM  

flak attack: flak attack: meanmutton: Rapmaster2000: There will be people who do the math and realize that the BCS would have gotten their team in the championship.  Also, the playoff system will piss off the same people the BCS pissed off, just in different ways.

It's easier to deal with when you realize it's just amateur football.

The problem with the playoff is that it retains the subjective aspect that really caused the problems in the BCS. A playoff that is made up only of conference winners, and included all conference winners, would eliminate the subjectivity.

Let's run with a  hypothetical situation here.  Schools #1 and #2 are in the same division in the same conference, both ranked in the top four/eight/however-many-you-want-in-playoffs at the end of the season.  School #1 has a brutal cross divisional schedule and ends up losing to school #3, also in that conference, which finishes the season ranked at #7.    School #2 has an easy cross divisional schedule (doesn't play school #3) and out of conference schedule, but had an ugly 10+ point loss in an out of conference game to an unranked team.  You use only conference winners, school #2 goes (assuming they win the conference championship), #1 doesn't.  Cross divisional games kill any chance of that being fair.

Assume no losses occurred that aren't stated.  Felt like I should clarify there


What's hilarious is, the fear of having a Michigan-OSU rematch in the NCG was what gave us 2-loss Florida and the start of the SEC's run.  Then an actual rematch of LSU-Alabama was so gods-awful that they hit the lowest ratings for the NCG in the history of the BCS, which was the direct catalyst for us getting the playoffs next year.
 
2013-08-15 10:23:39 AM  
SEC, BIG10, PAC 12, BIG 12 and ACC all expand to 14 schools. That gives you 70 schools. All schools have an 11 game schedule with a conference championship. The schools are only allowed to play games against teams from one of the major 5 conferences. After the season is done take a final ranking of these 70 schools. The top 24 get into the playoffs. The first 8 seeds have a bye week. Those 8 seeds are the 5 conference winners and the next best ranked schools in the top 24. In this format the most games a school could possibly play is 17 games; 11 regular season, 1 conf champ (not getting a bye week) then 5 playoff games. Yes it adds games to the schedule, but football players would not be missing any more class than a basketball or baseball player does during a school year. The amount of time between the end of the regular season and the current BCS title game is 6 weeks as it stands so you would not be adding days to the schedule. Use the bowl games as a rotating neutral sight set up and accept bids on the national championship game just like the Superbowl does. Now the cities that depend on the bowl games for seasonal tourist revenue still get it and sponsers still get to pay the schools for the right to hype theit specific playoff game. All sponsership money gets split evenly between the 70 schools.

Your welcome.
 
2013-08-15 10:30:36 AM  

MattStafford: Some writer proposed a system with four conferences, ten teams in each conference, and relegation.  Top teams play in a four team playoff, bottom team(s?) get relegated and some new blood gets to enter the conferences.  Makes every game reaaaallly matter - which is what everyone has such a hard on for, right?


That won't happen for the same reason promotion and relegation will never happen in American sports; the teams that are currently in the big name conferences wouldn't want to risk losing money be getting relegated when there is extra money that they could get.
 
2013-08-15 10:49:35 AM  

llortcM_yllort: MattStafford: Some writer proposed a system with four conferences, ten teams in each conference, and relegation.  Top teams play in a four team playoff, bottom team(s?) get relegated and some new blood gets to enter the conferences.  Makes every game reaaaallly matter - which is what everyone has such a hard on for, right?

That won't happen for the same reason promotion and relegation will never happen in American sports; the teams that are currently in the big name conferences wouldn't want to risk losing money be getting relegated when there is extra money that they could get.


Is also would never happen because conferences like the ACC, B1G and PAC 12 exist as much for education/research dollars as they do for athletics. No one is going to want to lose an academic power like Stanford or Northwestern based on some sport. And before anyone starts talking about b-b-but the money take the CIC (academic Big 10) for example, where research BILLIONS make football/basketball millions look like chump change.

People need to think like a university president, not like an athletic dircetor.
 
2013-08-15 10:50:44 AM  

flak attack: meanmutton: Rapmaster2000: There will be people who do the math and realize that the BCS would have gotten their team in the championship.  Also, the playoff system will piss off the same people the BCS pissed off, just in different ways.

It's easier to deal with when you realize it's just amateur football.

The problem with the playoff is that it retains the subjective aspect that really caused the problems in the BCS. A playoff that is made up only of conference winners, and included all conference winners, would eliminate the subjectivity.

Let's run with a  hypothetical situation here.  Schools #1 and #2 are in the same division in the same conference, both ranked in the top four/eight/however-many-you-want-in-playoffs at the end of the season.  School #1 has a brutal cross divisional schedule and ends up losing to school #3, also in that conference, which finishes the season ranked at #7.    School #2 has an easy cross divisional schedule (doesn't play school #3) and out of conference schedule, but had an ugly 10+ point loss in an out of conference game to an unranked team.  You use only conference winners, school #2 goes (assuming they win the conference championship), #1 doesn't.  Cross divisional games kill any chance of that being fair.


It eliminates subjectivity from the equation. Everything is determined by on-field play. No one is really broken up when a good NFL or MLB team gets passed over for the playoffs when they don't win their division.

Besides, you need good teams for bowl games.
 
2013-08-15 10:55:08 AM  
Never really cared for the BCS. Before, everybody knew the championships were bullshiat. With the BCS, they were still bullshiat, but now they're legitimized bullshiat.
 
2013-08-15 10:59:50 AM  

UNC_Samurai: it gave us a #1 vs #2 championship game, which was a huge step forward.


The 2001 Nebraska Cornhuskers and 2003 Oklahoma Sooners disagree with you there, but everything else you said was spot on.

Frankly, I'm disappointed with the new playoff format. Hanging on to the bowl system for 12 more years is a mistake and just funnels more money to the sleazy bowl organizers running the postseason. I wish they would've had the balls to do a true four, eight or sixteen team playoff with home sites for higher seeds and a neutral site semi-final. How hard would that be? And if the other 300 bowl games want to keep operating outside of the playoff, that's fine. I'd like to see more college football, not less. The only thing I would do with the remaining bowls is to eliminate the bowl organizers and cut out the middle man. If there's one thing that's always baffled me about the bowl system, it's the need for a third party to run off with all the profits while participating schools get stuck with the costs. If the SEC and ACC can schedule non-conference regualr season games, then why can't they organize a bowl game and keep all the money themselves?
 
2013-08-15 11:08:23 AM  
I admit, I do enjoy arguing with my Nebraska friend (me being a Michigan alum) about that split title.  Or as we Michigan fans call it, Tom Osborne's retirement gift from the coaches.
 
2013-08-15 11:12:16 AM  
And for the love of god, stop counting a September Top-Flight U vs Creampuff 75-0 walkover as any more significant than a 35-14 win against the same school. You won by 20+ points - we get it, you're better.

You want the easy win, you still get it, but winning by 50 points doesn't get you any closer to January than winning by 21.

// I'd say that a 35-14 win should count as much as a 35-34 win, but we should separate "convincing win" from "squeaker" with a sample size of only 10-11 games
 
2013-08-15 11:20:03 AM  

flak attack: meanmutton: Rapmaster2000: There will be people who do the math and realize that the BCS would have gotten their team in the championship.  Also, the playoff system will piss off the same people the BCS pissed off, just in different ways.

It's easier to deal with when you realize it's just amateur football.

The problem with the playoff is that it retains the subjective aspect that really caused the problems in the BCS. A playoff that is made up only of conference winners, and included all conference winners, would eliminate the subjectivity.

Let's run with a  hypothetical situation here.  Schools #1 and #2 are in the same division in the same conference, both ranked in the top four/eight/however-many-you-want-in-playoffs at the end of the season.  School #1 has a brutal cross divisional schedule and ends up losing to school #3, also in that conference, which finishes the season ranked at #7.    School #2 has an easy cross divisional schedule (doesn't play school #3) and out of conference schedule, but had an ugly 10+ point loss in an out of conference game to an unranked team.  You use only conference winners, school #2 goes (assuming they win the conference championship), #1 doesn't.  Cross divisional games kill any chance of that being fair.


Win your conference or go home.  That solves a whole host of problems that arise from letting beauty queen pageantry and incredibly biased sports networks control which teams we see in the big games.  While the "better" team doesn't always win their conference, the outcome on the field can not be disputed.  You win your conference, you earned your spot in the post season.  Period.

Never in the history of ever has it been OK to lose your conference and still be considered a national champion.  Until the BCS came along, and decided that losers and runner ups could have second chances.  That idea destroyed the validity of multiple seasons of well played football.

The BCS has gotten it right plenty of times, but whatever fond memories people may have had of the BCS were erased when that farce of a game was played at the end of the 2012 season.  A boring game chock full of hilariously botched plays does not deserve a repeat on the biggest stage.  Anything that fixes that embarrassment is a good step in the right direction.

In my opinion, we need a more rigidly structured playoff so that big money interests like ESPN can't rig the whole system in their favor like they have with the current system.  8 teams minimum, 6 of them being auto-bids awarded to the conference champs of the Big 10, SEC, Big 12, Pac-10, Big East and ACC.  That leaves 2 at large for either an exceptional team from one of the power conferences, or to be more fair, the 2 highest ranked mid-majors.  The 2 at large bids let the beauty queen fans still have their subjective little bikini contest, while everyone else is happy that A) all conferences are represented and B) anyone who ends up in the NCG earned their spot on the field during the playoffs.
 
2013-08-15 11:26:59 AM  

meanmutton: It eliminates subjectivity from the equation. Everything is determined by on-field play. No one is really broken up when a good NFL or MLB team gets passed over for the playoffs when they don't win their division.


The problem with that is that the strength of schedule for the NFL or MLB are relatively equal.  I know that there is some variance in the NFL, but in general its the difference between playing the Lions and the Packers for one game - within the NCAA, the difference in strength of schedule could be extreme.
 
2013-08-15 11:27:00 AM  

Dr Dreidel: And for the love of god, stop counting a September Top-Flight U vs Creampuff 75-0 walkover as any more significant than a 35-14 win against the same school. You won by 20+ points - we get it, you're better.

You want the easy win, you still get it, but winning by 50 points doesn't get you any closer to January than winning by 21.

// I'd say that a 35-14 win should count as much as a 35-34 win, but we should separate "convincing win" from "squeaker" with a sample size of only 10-11 games


I like the idea of margin of victory counting somewhat up until 14-16 points.  Once it becomes more than a two possession game, a blowout is a blowout.  That's the point where starters are getting pulled toward the end of the game, so the margin doesn't really mean much at that point anyway.
 
2013-08-15 11:29:29 AM  
Gunny Highway:

But we can all agree a playoff system is better.  I think people hate the BCS because they wanted to go from the old shiatty system right into a playoff.

No. The problem that most people had was that it was very evident that the BCS system was horribly flawed, as UNC Samurai pointed out. And also, Division II-A football has had a playoff system forever, it just doesn't get alot of attention because it's Div II-A. But, the fact that the NCAA already had a successful college football playoff system in place only made the BCS excuses much more flimsy; "Well, we don't want to lengthen the season becasue we don't want to take the student-athletes away from their studies or increase the chances of them being hurt."  It made the money-grab that was the BCS even more apparent.
 
2013-08-15 11:30:07 AM  
Pretty clearly the unstated purpose of the computer polls has always been to agree with the human polls, and if it doesn't, we need to fix it so it does.
 
2013-08-15 11:51:36 AM  

UNC_Samurai: flak attack: flak attack: meanmutton: Rapmaster2000: There will be people who do the math and realize that the BCS would have gotten their team in the championship.  Also, the playoff system will piss off the same people the BCS pissed off, just in different ways.

It's easier to deal with when you realize it's just amateur football.

The problem with the playoff is that it retains the subjective aspect that really caused the problems in the BCS. A playoff that is made up only of conference winners, and included all conference winners, would eliminate the subjectivity.

Let's run with a  hypothetical situation here.  Schools #1 and #2 are in the same division in the same conference, both ranked in the top four/eight/however-many-you-want-in-playoffs at the end of the season.  School #1 has a brutal cross divisional schedule and ends up losing to school #3, also in that conference, which finishes the season ranked at #7.    School #2 has an easy cross divisional schedule (doesn't play school #3) and out of conference schedule, but had an ugly 10+ point loss in an out of conference game to an unranked team.  You use only conference winners, school #2 goes (assuming they win the conference championship), #1 doesn't.  Cross divisional games kill any chance of that being fair.

Assume no losses occurred that aren't stated.  Felt like I should clarify there

What's hilarious is, the fear of having a Michigan-OSU rematch in the NCG was what gave us 2-loss Florida and the start of the SEC's run.  Then an actual rematch of LSU-Alabama was so gods-awful that they hit the lowest ratings for the NCG in the history of the BCS, which was the direct catalyst for us getting the playoffs next year.


Quit acting like those OSU/UM teams were the only good teams that year like when LSU/bama played.

Oh you forgot to mention that 2 loss UF team blew out OSU and the TV ratings in the second half were shiat. Fu*king OSU can't even beat UF when we want them too, god dammit.
 
2013-08-15 11:52:50 AM  

velvet_fog: . If the SEC and ACC can schedule non-conference regualr season games, then why can't they organize a bowl game and keep all the money themselves?


Agree 100% with this and it's already happened. The SEC and Big XII created a new bowl that is the now the Sugar Bowl.  I THINK the conferences have now flipped the rules on how the bowl is run (i.e. no more minimum ticket req etc) Also, the SEC announced that the conference will be selecting which teams go where (outside of the playoffs) for bowl games instead of the bowls selecting the teams.  But you are correct.  The bowl system is SO corrupt it is unbelievable.  Mal Moore, Bama's former AD, ran 20 something sports at a championship level and was making something like half a mil a year and the executive director of the Sugar Bowl ran ONE GAME a year and was making $800k a year
 
2013-08-15 12:14:46 PM  

PowerSlacker: Rapmaster2000: There will be people who do the math and realize that the BCS would have gotten their team in the championship.  Also, the playoff system will piss off the same people the BCS pissed off, just in different ways.

It's easier to deal with when you realize it's just amateur football.

It hasn't been amateur football in decades.


Which is why I stopped caring years ago.  It's like the Tour de France - the winner just cheated better than the competition.  It's hard to care about the outcome of that kind of competition.
 
2013-08-15 12:24:00 PM  
the bcs has only gotten the championship game right maybe 3 or 4 times.
usc vs texas
auburn vs oregon
ohio st vs miami
tennessee vs florida st

2 quick opinions:
1) one year georgia was probably the best team in college football and they didn't even get an opportunity to play in the SEC championship game.  and they were forced to play hawaii in the ugliest bcs game in the history of college football not involving oklahoma
2) the only real difference between usc during their run and alabama now is that alabama has gotten the benefit of the doubt every time for the championship game and usc didn't.
3) hopefully i just offended several of you with these statements.  good day farkers

also...
let's get it on
i.imgur.com
 
2013-08-15 12:31:38 PM  

steamingpile: UNC_Samurai: flak attack: flak attack: meanmutton: Rapmaster2000: There will be people who do the math and realize that the BCS would have gotten their team in the championship.  Also, the playoff system will piss off the same people the BCS pissed off, just in different ways.

It's easier to deal with when you realize it's just amateur football.

The problem with the playoff is that it retains the subjective aspect that really caused the problems in the BCS. A playoff that is made up only of conference winners, and included all conference winners, would eliminate the subjectivity.

Let's run with a  hypothetical situation here.  Schools #1 and #2 are in the same division in the same conference, both ranked in the top four/eight/however-many-you-want-in-playoffs at the end of the season.  School #1 has a brutal cross divisional schedule and ends up losing to school #3, also in that conference, which finishes the season ranked at #7.    School #2 has an easy cross divisional schedule (doesn't play school #3) and out of conference schedule, but had an ugly 10+ point loss in an out of conference game to an unranked team.  You use only conference winners, school #2 goes (assuming they win the conference championship), #1 doesn't.  Cross divisional games kill any chance of that being fair.

Assume no losses occurred that aren't stated.  Felt like I should clarify there

What's hilarious is, the fear of having a Michigan-OSU rematch in the NCG was what gave us 2-loss Florida and the start of the SEC's run.  Then an actual rematch of LSU-Alabama was so gods-awful that they hit the lowest ratings for the NCG in the history of the BCS, which was the direct catalyst for us getting the playoffs next year.

Quit acting like those OSU/UM teams were the only good teams that year like when LSU/bama played.

Oh you forgot to mention that 2 loss UF team blew out OSU and the TV ratings in the second half were shiat. Fu*king OSU can't even beat UF when we want them too, god dammit.


Act like what? Do you not remember the hand-wringing about a rematch after that game?

And yes, that UF team showed on the field that they deserved to be there. But that narrative about not wanting a remath likely had an impact on poll voters.
 
2013-08-15 12:57:35 PM  

Dr Dreidel: You want the easy win, you still get it, but winning by 50 points doesn't get you any closer to January than winning by 21.


I'd use 17 points (three possessions) as the cap for margin of victory, but there should be some type of margin of victory in there.

BTW, the playoffs will be at 24 teams or more within 15 years.

/as evidence, I cite every other NCAA playoff, including football at the FCS level
//what? We're losing money on these playoffs? Let's get more teams in there!
 
2013-08-15 01:24:14 PM  

flak attack: meanmutton: Rapmaster2000: There will be people who do the math and realize that the BCS would have gotten their team in the championship.  Also, the playoff system will piss off the same people the BCS pissed off, just in different ways.

It's easier to deal with when you realize it's just amateur football.

The problem with the playoff is that it retains the subjective aspect that really caused the problems in the BCS. A playoff that is made up only of conference winners, and included all conference winners, would eliminate the subjectivity.

Let's run with a  hypothetical situation here.  Schools #1 and #2 are in the same division in the same conference, both ranked in the top four/eight/however-many-you-want-in-playoffs at the end of the season.  School #1 has a brutal cross divisional schedule and ends up losing to school #3, also in that conference, which finishes the season ranked at #7.    School #2 has an easy cross divisional schedule (doesn't play school #3) and out of conference schedule, but had an ugly 10+ point loss in an out of conference game to an unranked team.  You use only conference winners, school #2 goes (assuming they win the conference championship), #1 doesn't.  Cross divisional games kill any chance of that being fair.


You don't need such a convoluted hypothetical.  Just look at last year.  Does a 7-5 Wisconsin team, who finished third in its own division, but advanced to the Conference Championship Game because the two teams above it were both ineligible deserve to go to the playoff over 11-1 Oregon or 11-1 Florida or 11-2 Georgia or, hell, 11-2 Kent State?  No.
 
2013-08-15 01:27:08 PM  

rugman11: Does a 7-5 Wisconsin team, who finished third in its own division, but advanced to the Conference Championship Game because the two teams above it were both ineligible deserve to go to the playoff over 11-1 Oregon or 11-1 Florida or 11-2 Georgia or, hell, 11-2 Kent State?  No.


But they "won" their conference! THEY PROVED IT ON THE FIELD!

/mostly they proved that they're not that good
 
2013-08-15 01:33:29 PM  

rugman11: You don't need such a convoluted hypothetical. Just look at last year. Does a 7-5 Wisconsin team, who finished third in its own division, but advanced to the Conference Championship Game because the two teams above it were both ineligible deserve to go to the playoff over 11-1 Oregon or 11-1 Florida or 11-2 Georgia or, hell, 11-2 Kent State? No.


It's not that they deserve to go in, it's that those other teams don't deserve to be there because there is already someone who has proven they are better than them.
 
2013-08-15 01:37:04 PM  

Wadded Beef: jayhawk88: Yeah, it'll be fondly remembered when we have an 8 team playoff that literally, by rule, prevents any school not in the SEC, Big12, Pac12, or Big10 from getting a spot, regardless of record.

I have no problem with a school from a smaller conference getting in, but I'd rather not sit through another Georgia-Hawaii.


I had no problem with that. It was *great* watching the Hawai'i fans' faces as they realized that Knowshon Moreno was a cut above the community college backs the Warriors normally faced.
 
2013-08-15 01:39:28 PM  

IAmRight: BTW, the playoffs will be at 24 teams or more within 15 years.


I think that most would like to see 16 teams max.  8 would be perfect for me. I really thought that FCS jumped the shark with their decision to expand.
 
2013-08-15 01:40:33 PM  

rugman11: flak attack: meanmutton: Rapmaster2000: There will be people who do the math and realize that the BCS would have gotten their team in the championship.  Also, the playoff system will piss off the same people the BCS pissed off, just in different ways.

It's easier to deal with when you realize it's just amateur football.

The problem with the playoff is that it retains the subjective aspect that really caused the problems in the BCS. A playoff that is made up only of conference winners, and included all conference winners, would eliminate the subjectivity.

Let's run with a  hypothetical situation here.  Schools #1 and #2 are in the same division in the same conference, both ranked in the top four/eight/however-many-you-want-in-playoffs at the end of the season.  School #1 has a brutal cross divisional schedule and ends up losing to school #3, also in that conference, which finishes the season ranked at #7.    School #2 has an easy cross divisional schedule (doesn't play school #3) and out of conference schedule, but had an ugly 10+ point loss in an out of conference game to an unranked team.  You use only conference winners, school #2 goes (assuming they win the conference championship), #1 doesn't.  Cross divisional games kill any chance of that being fair.

You don't need such a convoluted hypothetical.  Just look at last year.  Does a 7-5 Wisconsin team, who finished third in its own division, but advanced to the Conference Championship Game because the two teams above it were both ineligible deserve to go to the playoff over 11-1 Oregon or 11-1 Florida or 11-2 Georgia or, hell, 11-2 Kent State?  No.


By that logic, the Seahawks didn't deserve to make the playoffs as a 7-9 team, even though they won their division, however horrible it was. But then the Hawks went out and beat the Saints that year, IIRC.

Wisconsin won their conference championship game, no matter how they got to it, and they won it in convincing fashion, hanging 70 on the Huskers. Maybe Nebraska should have been better.
 
2013-08-15 01:41:19 PM  

HeadLever: I think that most would like to see 16 teams max.


LOL at thinking anyone cares about what "most would like to see."

See: NCAA tournament play-in games.
 
2013-08-15 01:41:27 PM  
And now I've defended Bert and the Badgers and must go cleanse myself.
 
2013-08-15 01:43:01 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: By that logic, the Seahawks didn't deserve to make the playoffs as a 7-9 team, even though they won their division, however horrible it was. But then the Hawks went out and beat the Saints that year, IIRC.


While I enjoyed that game and the playoff appearance and all, even as a Seahawks fan it was silly that they were in the playoffs.

Even then, though, it's not as bad as the situation where you "win" a division because TWO teams ahead of you aren't allowed to win it.
 
2013-08-15 01:43:35 PM  

Lost Thought 00: rugman11: You don't need such a convoluted hypothetical. Just look at last year. Does a 7-5 Wisconsin team, who finished third in its own division, but advanced to the Conference Championship Game because the two teams above it were both ineligible deserve to go to the playoff over 11-1 Oregon or 11-1 Florida or 11-2 Georgia or, hell, 11-2 Kent State? No.

It's not that they deserve to go in, it's that those other teams don't deserve to be there because there is already someone who has proven they are better than them.


That's absolutely not true.  There may be a team who has proven they can beat them.  But that's totally different from being better.  And your statement only works practically if we're dealing with nothing but undefeated teams.  Was Notre Dame the best team last year?  I don't think anybody would make that argument after the championship game, but before?  If we didn't allow teams who had been beaten to play for the championship, Notre Dame would have been crowned right there and we wouldn't have gotten to see everything come crashing down against Alabama.

The playoff isn't about finding The Best Team.  It's about putting the teams who have performed best up against each other in order to find a winner.  If we wanted to find the best team, we'd just look at Bill Connelly's numbers and call it a day.  But we still think that wins and losses count so we make teams prove it on the field.
 
2013-08-15 01:47:29 PM  

GQueue: I admit, I do enjoy arguing with my Nebraska friend (me being a Michigan alum) about that split title.  Or as we Michigan fans call it, Tom Osborne's retirement gift from the coaches.


I like that.  Though having watched both teams in 1997 I can assure you, NU would have destroyed little blue on the field.  Bookies back in the day had a little fun and even said the Huskers would be 17 point favorites if they played.  Probably because they had just witnessed NU throttle the Fightin' Mannings, and MU struggle against the Ryan Leafers.
 
2013-08-15 01:50:36 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: By that logic, the Seahawks didn't deserve to make the playoffs as a 7-9 team, even though they won their division, however horrible it was. But then the Hawks went out and beat the Saints that year, IIRC.

Wisconsin won their conference championship game, no matter how they got to it, and they won it in convincing fashion, hanging 70 on the Huskers. Maybe Nebraska should have been better.


My issue is with allowing ONLY conference winners into the tournament.  The NCAA did that decades ago with the basketball tournament until they realized that it was stupid to let Furman into the tournament just because they won the crappy Southern Conference while keeping the #2 team in the country (USC in 1971) out.
 
2013-08-15 01:51:40 PM  

IAmRight: The_Six_Fingered_Man: By that logic, the Seahawks didn't deserve to make the playoffs as a 7-9 team, even though they won their division, however horrible it was. But then the Hawks went out and beat the Saints that year, IIRC.

While I enjoyed that game and the playoff appearance and all, even as a Seahawks fan it was silly that they were in the playoffs.

Even then, though, it's not as bad as the situation where you "win" a division because TWO teams ahead of you aren't allowed to win it.


Those teams shouldn't have done things that got them disqualified from post season play. I say this as an avid Ohio State fan. Did I absolutely hate Gene Smith for giving away a magical season? Yes. Did I whine and cry that Ohio State couldn't play for the title? No. Former players and coaches did wrong and we were punished. I would have felt no differently if the BountyGate punishments had included a post season ban for the Saints.

If you do something so egregious to warrant being barred from the postseason, then you should be passed over, no matter where you end up in the standings. Just so happened that OSU had their bad post-scandal season before the punishments were handed down. Doesn't mean that they didn't deserve them being handed down.

Technically, Wisconsin didn't actually win the division, Ohio State did. But Wisky was the division rep in the championship game. Since they won that game handily, if there were playoffs instituted at that time, I would have no issue with a 8-5 team going to the playoffs since they won their championship game.

Won't matter though, as Ohio State will win the last BCS title and the first NCS title.
 
2013-08-15 01:51:46 PM  

jayfurr: Wadded Beef: jayhawk88: Yeah, it'll be fondly remembered when we have an 8 team playoff that literally, by rule, prevents any school not in the SEC, Big12, Pac12, or Big10 from getting a spot, regardless of record.

I have no problem with a school from a smaller conference getting in, but I'd rather not sit through another Georgia-Hawaii.

I had no problem with that. It was *great* watching the Hawai'i fans' faces as they realized that Knowshon Moreno was a cut above the community college backs the Warriors normally faced.


for the most part, the Mid Majors have represented themselves pretty well.  Not many folks gave them a chance against Bama OU or Wisconson and they did just fine.  And don't forget that BCS beatdowns are not limited to Hawaii.

/looking at you Clemson, Cincy,and Ohio State
 
2013-08-15 01:53:32 PM  
rugman11:
You don't need such a convoluted hypothetical.  Just look at last year.  Does a 7-5 Wisconsin team, who finished third in its own division, but advanced to the Conference Championship Game because the two teams above it were both ineligible deserve to go to the playoff over 11-1 Oregon or 11-1 Florida or 11-2 Georgia or, hell, 11-2 Kent State?  No.

I don't know how I missed that one, given that my own team (Georgia Tech) nearly found itself in a similar situation last year too.
 
2013-08-15 01:56:11 PM  

IAmRight: LOL at thinking anyone cares about what "most would like to see."


Probably, but we are moving in a direction that most wanted them to go.  However once you get this train moving, it may be a little more difficult to have them apply the brakes.
 
2013-08-15 01:57:30 PM  

rugman11: The_Six_Fingered_Man: By that logic, the Seahawks didn't deserve to make the playoffs as a 7-9 team, even though they won their division, however horrible it was. But then the Hawks went out and beat the Saints that year, IIRC.

Wisconsin won their conference championship game, no matter how they got to it, and they won it in convincing fashion, hanging 70 on the Huskers. Maybe Nebraska should have been better.

My issue is with allowing ONLY conference winners into the tournament.  The NCAA did that decades ago with the basketball tournament until they realized that it was stupid to let Furman into the tournament just because they won the crappy Southern Conference while keeping the #2 team in the country (USC in 1971) out.


The difference between MBB and NCAAF is that 99% of the playoff caliber teams are from the power 6. Sure, you have your Boise States and Notre Dames that are outside the Big 6, but they should be forced to join a power conference anyway and stop all this mid-major/independent nonsense.

I would have no problem with an 8 team playoff that included the power 6, the MWC (the next most powerful conference) and the Independents (provided that more teams went independent, no one wants to see ND in the playoff every year b/c their toughest competition is BYU/Army/Navy)

You are going to get the proverbial best teams out of the best conferences with that setup. Only way into the playoffs is to win your conference and not be in a stupid conference like the MAC or SunBelt. There is no reason that Kent State, even at 11-2, should be in the FBS playoffs. The caliber of teams that they play is on par with the Big East.
 
2013-08-15 02:03:25 PM  
1)  Go back to the old system, with 11 games, finish all regular season games the week after Thanksgiving, which includes conference champions
2)  Return traditional bowl tie-ins and end all bowl games on New Years Day, no later
3)  If New Years Day is Sunday through Tuesday, begin the 4 team playoff that Saturday.  If New Years Day is Wednesday or later, begin the playoff the following Saturday
4) To be in the 4 team playoff, a team must finish in the top 4 of the Coaches' Poll and win the bowl game they played in
     a) If a team finishes undefeated after Bowl Season, but outside the Top 4, they replace any non-undefeated team inside the Top 4
     b) If a team that lost its bowl game finishes inside the Top 4, they will be replaced by the the team ranked #5
5)  The four current BCS Bowl sites, Orange, Sugar, Fiesta and Rose, along with the Cotton and Sun will rotate in being the three host sites for the semi-final and championship sites

There.  Now we have smaller schools who go undefeated no longer being able to say they were shut out of a chance at a national championship, we have seemingly meaningless bowl games sometimes take on importance (Northern Illinois, as MAC Champion, would have had to have beaten whoever the Big Ten sent, not Western KY, to the Little Ceasers/Motor City Bowl for the right to get into the playoff) enough for everyone to watch, Bowl Games still keep their importance and tradition, and you still have the playoffs.  The team ranked #5 would still have a gripe, but so does #69 in March, and big schools won't like the loss of revenue from one less home game, but fark them.
 
2013-08-15 02:04:58 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Sure, you have your Boise States and Notre Dames that are outside the Big 6, but they should be forced to join a power conference anyway and stop all this mid-major/independent nonsense.


Well, you can't really force them to.

And Boise State still needs a university to go with their football team in order to join the Pac-12, but I suppose if you're letting the MWC have an autobid, they can just take that one for a decade.
 
2013-08-15 04:23:18 PM  
11 Conference Winners + 5 At Large = 16 Teams. Seed By BCS rank. Use Existing Bowl Sites/Tie InS As Much As Possible.

When I'm Not On My Phone, I'll Dig Out My Bracket From Last Season If This APplied.
 
2013-08-15 04:29:59 PM  

LucklessWonder: 11 Conference Winners + 5 At Large = 16 Teams. Seed By BCS rank. Use Existing Bowl Sites/Tie InS As Much As Possible.

When I'm Not On My Phone, I'll Dig Out My Bracket From Last Season If This APplied.


That's ridiculous - every conference doesn't deserve it's own spot.  Some are bigger and more competitive than others.
 
2013-08-15 04:34:29 PM  

spiderpaz: That's ridiculous - every conference doesn't deserve it's own spot. Some are bigger and more competitive than others.


That is where the at large bids are awarded.  It provides these bigger and stronger confrences additional spots in the tourney.
 
2013-08-15 04:35:50 PM  
Also, if you start excluding teams from said playoff for arbitrary reasons, you could find youself in Court pretty damn quick.
 
2013-08-15 04:51:05 PM  

UNC_Samurai: flak attack: flak attack: meanmutton: Rapmaster2000: There will be people who do the math and realize that the BCS would have gotten their team in the championship.  Also, the playoff system will piss off the same people the BCS pissed off, just in different ways.

It's easier to deal with when you realize it's just amateur football.

The problem with the playoff is that it retains the subjective aspect that really caused the problems in the BCS. A playoff that is made up only of conference winners, and included all conference winners, would eliminate the subjectivity.

Let's run with a  hypothetical situation here.  Schools #1 and #2 are in the same division in the same conference, both ranked in the top four/eight/however-many-you-want-in-playoffs at the end of the season.  School #1 has a brutal cross divisional schedule and ends up losing to school #3, also in that conference, which finishes the season ranked at #7.    School #2 has an easy cross divisional schedule (doesn't play school #3) and out of conference schedule, but had an ugly 10+ point loss in an out of conference game to an unranked team.  You use only conference winners, school #2 goes (assuming they win the conference championship), #1 doesn't.  Cross divisional games kill any chance of that being fair.

Assume no losses occurred that aren't stated.  Felt like I should clarify there

What's hilarious is, the fear of having a Michigan-OSU rematch in the NCG was what gave us 2-loss Florida and the start of the SEC's run.  Then an actual rematch of LSU-Alabama was so gods-awful that they hit the lowest ratings for the NCG in the history of the BCS, which was the direct catalyst for us getting the playoffs next year.



I would just like to point out that it was a 1-loss Florida team that was picked over a 1-loss Michigan team. I think the Gators proved that the voters made the correct choice (and also happened to start the SEC's streak of consecutive national championships).

Despite all the complaining about the BCS (which is generally justified), the correct team has been crowned almost every year. In fact, I would argue that the SEC has been hurt more by incorrect selections since LSU was forced into a split championship after beating an overrated Oklahoma team in the title game and Auburn was left out of the title game in favor of an overrated Oklahoma team.
 
2013-08-15 06:42:05 PM  

influx: In fact, I would argue that the SEC has been hurt more by incorrect selections since LSU was forced into a split championship after beating an overrated Oklahoma team in the title game and Auburn was left out of the title game in favor of an overrated Oklahoma team.


Yeah, Utah might have a thing or two to say about that.
 
2013-08-15 06:49:32 PM  

spiderpaz: LucklessWonder: 11 Conference Winners + 5 At Large = 16 Teams. Seed By BCS rank. Use Existing Bowl Sites/Tie InS As Much As Possible.

When I'm Not On My Phone, I'll Dig Out My Bracket From Last Season If This APplied.

That's ridiculous - every conference doesn't deserve it's own spot.  Some are bigger and more competitive than others.


True, which is why those 5 "at-large" spots would more than likely go to the power conferences (and/or Notre Dame) most years. I just feel that every team should have a hypothetical chance of being a National Champion, which is why every conference gets a slot. Sure the Sun Belt winner will likely get crushed by the SEC winner in the 1 vs 16 match-up 99% of the time, but there is the hope of that 1%, plus the media loves Cinderella stories...

Going by the Final BCS ranking last year, the first round would have been:
1. Notre Dame (At Large #1, BCS Average 0.9978) vs. 16. Arkansas State (Sun Belt Champion, BCS Average 0.0067)
2. Alabama (SEC Champion, BCS Average 0.9441) vs. 15. Tulsa (C-USA Champion, BCS Average 0.0155)
3. Florida (At Large #2, BCS Average 0.8984) vs. 14. Wisconsin ([eligible] Big 10 Champion, BCS Average 0.0545)
4. Oregon (At Large #3, BCS Average 0.8621) vs. 13. Utah State (WAC Champion, BCS Average 0.1787)
5. Kansas State (Big 12 Champion, BCS Average 0.8226) vs. 12. Louisville (Big East Champion, BCS Average 0.1808)
6. Stanford (PAC-12 Champion, BCS Average 0.7683) vs. 11. Boise State (MWC Champion, BCS Average 0.2513)
7. Georgia (At Large #4, BCS Average 0.7583) vs. 10. Northern Illinois (MAC Champion, BCS Average 0.3276)
8. LSU (At Large #5, BCS Average 0.7511) vs. 9. FSU (ACC Champion, BCS Average 0.5047)
 
2013-08-15 06:49:53 PM  

influx: What's hilarious is, the fear of having a Michigan-OSU rematch in the NCG was what gave us 2-loss Florida and the start of the SEC's run. Then an actual rematch of LSU-Alabama was so gods-awful that they hit the lowest ratings for the NCG in the history of the BCS, which was the direct catalyst for us getting the playoffs next year.


I would just like to point out that it was a 1-loss Florida team that was picked over a 1-loss Michigan team. I think the Gators proved that the voters made the correct choice (and also happened to start the SEC's streak of consecutive national championships).

Despite all the complaining about the BCS (which is generally justified), the correct team has been crowned almost every year. In fact, I would argue that the SEC has been hurt more by incorrect selections since LSU was forced into a split championship after beating an overrated Oklahoma team in the title game and Auburn was left out of the title game in favor of an overrated Oklahoma team.


Yeah, I went back and looked, and realized it was the next season's LSU team that was the first to win a championship with two losses.  And yes, the SEC got royally screwed in 2003.  I don't know if Auburn would have had a better shot against that [redacted] squad with Leinart and [ineligible], but they couldn't have been worse.  I don't know who got booed out of that stadium quicker - Jason White or Jessica Simpson's little sister.
 
2013-08-15 08:11:13 PM  
Oh, this has to be Ivan Maisel.

[clicks on article]

Yep, Maisel. Pretty sure this dude's gonna commit seppuku when they inevitably go to an 8-game playoff (and 12, and 16...).
 
2013-08-15 08:52:22 PM  

UNC_Samurai: influx: What's hilarious is, the fear of having a Michigan-OSU rematch in the NCG was what gave us 2-loss Florida and the start of the SEC's run. Then an actual rematch of LSU-Alabama was so gods-awful that they hit the lowest ratings for the NCG in the history of the BCS, which was the direct catalyst for us getting the playoffs next year.


I would just like to point out that it was a 1-loss Florida team that was picked over a 1-loss Michigan team. I think the Gators proved that the voters made the correct choice (and also happened to start the SEC's streak of consecutive national championships).

Despite all the complaining about the BCS (which is generally justified), the correct team has been crowned almost every year. In fact, I would argue that the SEC has been hurt more by incorrect selections since LSU was forced into a split championship after beating an overrated Oklahoma team in the title game and Auburn was left out of the title game in favor of an overrated Oklahoma team.

Yeah, I went back and looked, and realized it was the next season's LSU team that was the first to win a championship with two losses.  And yes, the SEC got royally screwed in 2003 2004.  I don't know if Auburn would have had a better shot against that [redacted] squad with Leinart and [ineligible], but they couldn't have been worse.  I don't know who got booed out of that stadium quicker - Jason White or Jessica Simpson's little sister.


FTFY
 
2013-08-15 09:47:17 PM  
The problem with the BCS was that it forced a ton of money to go to the big conferences no matter what, even if they didn't really do anything to earn it (cf. the Big Ten last year or the Big East or ACC any year, which get a lot of BCS bowl money without fielding any championship caliber teams).  When you do that, you make it that much harder for other schools to recruit top players.

There's no good reason why the college football landscape ought to be frozen the way it was in the 1990s, forever.

Stopping games between BCS conference schools and everyone else shouldn't happen because those games benefit everyone.  The BCS teams get to warm up at the beginning of the year, and the other schools get money that helps them continue to field football teams.  One or two boring games each year can fund nearly a dozen interesting games.
 
2013-08-15 10:20:59 PM  

influx: Despite all the complaining about the BCS (which is generally justified), the correct team has been crowned almost every year.


"Correct" based on what, exactly? The rankings? The regular season? The result of one game between two teams selected by an arbitrary and subjective process?

The creators of the BCS thought that college football's "problem" was that it didn't consistently match the #1 and #2 teams at the end of the year to play for the national championship. But it turns out that college football's actual "problem" was that there aren't just two teams worthy of playing for the national championship. College football under the BCS was a contest of "Lose the Fewest Games" played by major-conference teams with historic pedigrees. Of the 30 spots in the national title games since 1998, only two have gone to teams who were not among the top 18 winningest programs in history at the time of the game (Virginia Tech in 1999 and Oregon in 2010).
 
2013-08-15 10:30:45 PM  
What's gonna be funny is Michigan is gonna tear it up non-stop for the next century, play-off or not.

/GO BLUE
 
2013-08-15 11:43:02 PM  

velvet_fog: UNC_Samurai: it gave us a #1 vs #2 championship game, which was a huge step forward.

The 2001 Nebraska Cornhuskers and 2003 Oklahoma Sooners disagree with you there, but everything else you said was spot on.

Frankly, I'm disappointed with the new playoff format. Hanging on to the bowl system for 12 more years is a mistake and just funnels more money to the sleazy bowl organizers running the postseason. I wish they would've had the balls to do a true four, eight or sixteen team playoff with home sites for higher seeds and a neutral site semi-final. How hard would that be? And if the other 300 bowl games want to keep operating outside of the playoff, that's fine. I'd like to see more college football, not less. The only thing I would do with the remaining bowls is to eliminate the bowl organizers and cut out the middle man. If there's one thing that's always baffled me about the bowl system, it's the need for a third party to run off with all the profits while participating schools get stuck with the costs. If the SEC and ACC can schedule non-conference regualr season games, then why can't they organize a bowl game and keep all the money themselves?


Ironically the sec and acc were the ones to float the +1 system and all the other conferences fought it extremely hard thinking it would lead to a playoff. If the big east would have remotely supported it they might still be viable as a football conference.

You can blame the big 10/PAC 10/big 12 for killing any shot at an earlier playoff system.
 
2013-08-15 11:50:35 PM  

UNC_Samurai: steamingpile: UNC_Samurai: flak attack: flak attack: meanmutton: Rapmaster2000: There will be people who do the math and realize that the BCS would have gotten their team in the championship.  Also, the playoff system will piss off the same people the BCS pissed off, just in different ways.

It's easier to deal with when you realize it's just amateur football.

The problem with the playoff is that it retains the subjective aspect that really caused the problems in the BCS. A playoff that is made up only of conference winners, and included all conference winners, would eliminate the subjectivity.

Let's run with a  hypothetical situation here.  Schools #1 and #2 are in the same division in the same conference, both ranked in the top four/eight/however-many-you-want-in-playoffs at the end of the season.  School #1 has a brutal cross divisional schedule and ends up losing to school #3, also in that conference, which finishes the season ranked at #7.    School #2 has an easy cross divisional schedule (doesn't play school #3) and out of conference schedule, but had an ugly 10+ point loss in an out of conference game to an unranked team.  You use only conference winners, school #2 goes (assuming they win the conference championship), #1 doesn't.  Cross divisional games kill any chance of that being fair.

Assume no losses occurred that aren't stated.  Felt like I should clarify there

What's hilarious is, the fear of having a Michigan-OSU rematch in the NCG was what gave us 2-loss Florida and the start of the SEC's run.  Then an actual rematch of LSU-Alabama was so gods-awful that they hit the lowest ratings for the NCG in the history of the BCS, which was the direct catalyst for us getting the playoffs next year.

Quit acting like those OSU/UM teams were the only good teams that year like when LSU/bama played.

Oh you forgot to mention that 2 loss UF team blew out OSU and the TV ratings in the second half were shiat. Fu*king OSU can't even beat UF when we want them too, god dammit.

Act like what? Do you not remember the hand-wringing about a rematch after that game?

And yes, that UF team showed on the field that they deserved to be there. But that narrative about not wanting a remath likely had an impact on poll voters.


No, the only people biatching about wanting a rematch were big 10 and Michigan fans, but that year there were close to 6 teams that could have beaten either one of those teams. The LSU/bama year they were clearly head and shoulders above other teams so even though it wasn't highly anticipated they were deserving. Basically the playoff has now broken up rematches so they won't happen so close together now.
 
2013-08-15 11:54:28 PM  

dragonchild: influx: In fact, I would argue that the SEC has been hurt more by incorrect selections since LSU was forced into a split championship after beating an overrated Oklahoma team in the title game and Auburn was left out of the title game in favor of an overrated Oklahoma team.

Yeah, Utah might have a thing or two to say about that.


Utah is OK but they have only beaten an over rated OU team that year, people forget that they were barely average and if I remember they got their asses handed to them a week before the big 12 game.

Utah would have gotten smacked by any other team that year.
 
2013-08-16 10:43:06 AM  

steamingpile: Utah is OK but they have only beaten an over rated OU team that year, people forget that they were barely average and if I remember they got their asses handed to them a week before the big 12 game.


Uh, steamy please review your dumb comments before you post. Utah never played OU.  He is referencing the year that Utah kicked the shiat out of #4 Alabama 31-17. Bama that year only lost to Florida in the SEC Championship game.
 
2013-08-16 02:55:48 PM  

Dr. Steve Brule: But it turns out that college football's actual "problem" was that there aren't just two teams worthy of playing for the national championship.


Sometimes. Sometimes there are only two that deserve to compete. Sometimes there's one clear champion at the end of the regular season. Some years there are 3-7 top teams.

I'm in favor of an innovative system wherein teams must achieve to a certain level of excellence - if they can achieve it, they get in the playoff. If not, then they don't. If no one qualifies (like the years where everyone has two losses), then f*ck it, no national champion. Say, 11 wins are mandatory (FCS wins don't count), you have to have a SOS above a certain level, and you must have at least one OOC game against a "BCS" conference team.

influx: I would argue that the SEC has been hurt more by incorrect selections since LSU was forced into a split championship after beating an overrated Oklahoma team in the title game and Auburn was left out of the title game in favor of an overrated Oklahoma team.


I don't see how it hurts LSU to get to struggle past Chokelahoma and pretend they're national champions instead of getting its ass kicked by USC. And I don't see how Auburn didn't benefit from being able to claim "oh but we totally would've had a chance even though USC's beaten our asses two years running and they're better this year than they were then" instead of actually having their asses handed to them.

/but yes, Oklahoma did cheat the entire country out of legitimate championship games
 
Displayed 79 of 79 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report