Tweaks approved for the BCS
- Thread starter jbhtexas
- Start date
Pretty soon every team with a 6 win record will play in a "bowl" game. Liked it better when it meant something that you went to a bowl, not because X conference get 8 bowls game and so on and so on.
This probably won't affect anything this year. It MIGHT get two Big 10 teams into the BCS, and it would likely mean that two Big 12 teams would be in the BCS, probably Texas and whomever wins the Big 12 outright.
It shouldn't affect Iowa's bowl situation at all though.
It shouldn't affect Iowa's bowl situation at all though.
This doesn't change the number of bowl games at all. It has absolutely no affect on 6 win teams.
We should just make it so all 6 wins team get into the BCS so it is not so hard to figure out. This is just getting silly.
This rule change will have zero impact on this season and probably ever. This new rule will MAYBE affect one BCS at-large bid.
The Big 10 is quite brilliant the way the system is set up. They are all finished and will all gain spots in all the polls now the next 2-3 weeks. Plus they don't have their 2 best teams playing each other at the end of the season. If they don't get 2 teams in the BCS every year, it can only be by being very mediocre to poor in that given year.
That and they're trying to make it that much more difficult for a non-BCS school to make it into the BCS. This year the rule is Hawaii or Boise St either has to be in the top 12 of the BCS or finish in the top 16 with a BCS champion finishing outside the top 16. Starting next year, they'd have to finish in the top 12 or finish in the top 16 with a BCS champion finishing outside the top 18. It just seems to be an insurance program to make it even more difficult for a Boise St/Oklahoma or Utah/West Virginia outcome to happen again.
The question is, what tweak are they going to make next year?
When can we just bring this mad experiment that is the BCS to an end? I am really hoping for a worst-case scenario this year where there are numerous 11-1 and 10-2 teams. In this case - how can you realistically and fairly say which two teams belong in the championship game and which don't? Because teams A and B got their losses earlier in the season compared to teams C-F? What kind of a bogus system rewards a team for losing earlier in the year when the better team might have lost later in the year? Oh yeah, the BCS, and this argument might just be validated this year.
Seriously - go Mizzou - make a mess out the the BCS
The question is, what tweak are they going to make next year?
When can we just bring this mad experiment that is the BCS to an end? I am really hoping for a worst-case scenario this year where there are numerous 11-1 and 10-2 teams. In this case - how can you realistically and fairly say which two teams belong in the championship game and which don't? Because teams A and B got their losses earlier in the season compared to teams C-F? What kind of a bogus system rewards a team for losing earlier in the year when the better team might have lost later in the year? Oh yeah, the BCS, and this argument might just be validated this year.
Seriously - go Mizzou - make a mess out the the BCS
Well, this is a projection based on next year and how Illinois would benefit. As much as it seems we complain about Texas running the Big XII, I sometimes wonder how much control the Big 10 has in the BCS. This is the second time this year I've heard mention of Illinois getting into the BCS. In front of whom? Mizzu, who beat them, if they lose to Kansas? I see no reason to expand the BCS unless you are going to start using it as a play off.
Hey, hat's off to Illinois. They've had a great season, But, it's not like beating Ohio State this year was that overly monumentous of a feat. I highly doubt we see Illinois in the BCS this year. But, I find it very disturbing that this is the second mention I've heard their named linked with the BCS this week. If you are going this far down the pool, then why not just go ahead and send every Div 1A school to a bowl game then. Hell, call every bowl a BCS bowl.
A lot of this is also probably jockeying by the beloved SEC this year. They are so great and powerful, I don't know why we don't just let the SEC fill up all the BCS spots and let them play each other. From the talk I've heard, a lot of them feel they got screwed this year because their conference is so tough. So, with these developments, as much of a joke someone said earlier about Notre Dame, I believe a lot of it is true. This is an expansion set in place to keep your big name schools in the picture. How do we keep Notre Dame, Ohio State, Florida, USC out of the BCS? This way, if Kansas does win out their season and they end up playing West Virginia, the BCS still has it in their rules to get other schools in there.
honestly, I'm quite offended by the BCS this year. Kansas still can't get a #1 ranking, but, Ohio state is moving their way up again, and with the loss that will come from the KU Mizzu game, are assured to move up a little more. They are in because of their conference championship, but, by no means deserve a shot at the title, even with future losses that may happen.
WOW, I went on a lot of tangents there. I guess I could have just said, "We need to get rid of the BCS." In cases with no clear cut champion, it works no better than the old system. So, why have it. It seems more biased to names than the sportswriters were.
This is EXACTLY the scenario the BCS was designed to address. It's why in it's early years it relied far more heavily on the objective computer polls.
I've said many times before that a playoff would completely ruin college football, IMO. The champion of a playoff would be no more legitimate than the BCS champion due to the number of teams in 1A, and the number of games they play.
This has always been my feeling as well. Its impossible to have a legitimate nation champion when you have 120 teams playing a 12 game regular season. There's too much variance in the scheduling.
This would be my absolute dream scenario for the next two weeks:
Thursday:
USC beats ASU
Friday:
Texas beats Texas A&M
Saturday:
Virginia Tech beats Virginia
Boston College beats Miami
Connecticut beats West Virginia
Georgia beats Georgia Tech
Oregon beats UCLA
Oklahoma beats Oklahoma St
Missouri beats Kansas
Saturday (Dec 1):
Virginia Tech beats Boston College
Georgia beats LSU
Oklahoma beats Missouri
Would result in:
LSU - 11-2 (SEC West champ, Not SEC Champ)
Kasnas - 11-1 (Not Big XII North nor Big XII champ, plus weak schedule)
West Virginia - 10-2 (Not Big East champ)
Missouri - 11-2 (Big XII North champ, not Big XII champ)
Ohio St - 11-1 (Big 10 champ - weak schedule and weak conference)
Arizona St - 10-2 (split Pac 10 champ)
Georgia - 11-2 (SEC Champ)
Virginia Tech - 11-2 (ACC Champ)
Oregon - 10-2 (split Pac 10 champ)
Oklahoma - 11-2 (Big XII champ)
USC - 10-2 (split Pac 10 champ)
Texas - 10-2 (not Big XII South champ, not Big XII champ)
Odds are, if this scenario happens, Ohio St catapults to #1 and is in the national championship game. But who do you put there with them? Excluding Kansas (at 11-1), everyone else is either 10-2 or 11-2. Do you say that you must win your conference championship to make it to the championship game? BCS rules don't include that as a qualification, and that hasn't prevented teams from making it there before (see Nebraska earlier this century). But we'll play that game. That excludes LSU, Kansas, West Virginia, Missouri, and Texas. Seems fair, but you'll hear legitimate arguments out of LSU, Kansas, and West Virginia about how they belong in the conversation regardless of not being conference champ (we'll discuss that a little later). Plus you still have 6 teams to weed through. How do you distinguish among those? Weed out those that split the conference championship? Fine - but no BCS rules about split conference champions in the title game. We'll eliminate Arizona St, USC, and Oregon from the mix, but they're going to have the same gripe as the other schools above. That leaves us with Georgia, Virginia Tech, and Oklahoma. Georgia lost to South Carolina and Tennessee (probably the best set of the losses of the three), Oklahoma lost to Colorado and Texas Tech (probably the worst set of losses of the three), and Virginia Tech lost to Boston college and was destroyed by LSU (and you know LSU's going to play that trump card, considering they have the same record). With these arguments, who's to say which of these 11 teams deserve the shot against Ohio St? A bunch of networked computers? A bunch of assistants to head coaches who participate in polls? Newspaper columnists who have regional biases? Come up with a logical argument for any one of those 11 teams over the rest of the 10. Can you? I can't. As a matter of fact, why should Ohio St necessarily be there? Because they're the only 1 loss team with a conference championship? But then we've gone on for the last couple weeks about how bad Ohio St's nonconference schedule was and just how bad the Big 10 is overall. Winning the Big 10 isn't that much of an accomplishment, so why should they fight for the national championship? And what happens if one of the 11 teams beats Ohio St for the championship? How can you call it a definitive National Championship when you couldn't even clearly distinguish them from the other 11 teams, and when they beat a team you were hesitant to put there in the first place? This isn't excitement - this will be the worst national champion in the history of college football and we'll all have to listen to 9 months of *****ing from the 10 other schools that didn't get the chance to play for the championship. And what happens if the AP decides to do what they did in 2003 and award the winner of one of the other BCS games THEIR national championship? You then have a split national champion, and the original purpose behind creating the BCS in the first place was to do away with the split national championships and have a consensus national champion (although they've "done away" with this argument because if they held onto this the BCS would have been a complete failure after 2003 - which I still view it as anyway - but notice how it used to be "THE national championship game" and now it's "A national championship game" - they don't necessarily even believe in their product).
I'm telling you - I'd be much more excited this year for a 12-team tournament with the mess of a picture we have right now than whatever watered-down national championship game that we're going to have forced upon us this year.
Thursday:
USC beats ASU
Friday:
Texas beats Texas A&M
Saturday:
Virginia Tech beats Virginia
Boston College beats Miami
Connecticut beats West Virginia
Georgia beats Georgia Tech
Oregon beats UCLA
Oklahoma beats Oklahoma St
Missouri beats Kansas
Saturday (Dec 1):
Virginia Tech beats Boston College
Georgia beats LSU
Oklahoma beats Missouri
Would result in:
LSU - 11-2 (SEC West champ, Not SEC Champ)
Kasnas - 11-1 (Not Big XII North nor Big XII champ, plus weak schedule)
West Virginia - 10-2 (Not Big East champ)
Missouri - 11-2 (Big XII North champ, not Big XII champ)
Ohio St - 11-1 (Big 10 champ - weak schedule and weak conference)
Arizona St - 10-2 (split Pac 10 champ)
Georgia - 11-2 (SEC Champ)
Virginia Tech - 11-2 (ACC Champ)
Oregon - 10-2 (split Pac 10 champ)
Oklahoma - 11-2 (Big XII champ)
USC - 10-2 (split Pac 10 champ)
Texas - 10-2 (not Big XII South champ, not Big XII champ)
Odds are, if this scenario happens, Ohio St catapults to #1 and is in the national championship game. But who do you put there with them? Excluding Kansas (at 11-1), everyone else is either 10-2 or 11-2. Do you say that you must win your conference championship to make it to the championship game? BCS rules don't include that as a qualification, and that hasn't prevented teams from making it there before (see Nebraska earlier this century). But we'll play that game. That excludes LSU, Kansas, West Virginia, Missouri, and Texas. Seems fair, but you'll hear legitimate arguments out of LSU, Kansas, and West Virginia about how they belong in the conversation regardless of not being conference champ (we'll discuss that a little later). Plus you still have 6 teams to weed through. How do you distinguish among those? Weed out those that split the conference championship? Fine - but no BCS rules about split conference champions in the title game. We'll eliminate Arizona St, USC, and Oregon from the mix, but they're going to have the same gripe as the other schools above. That leaves us with Georgia, Virginia Tech, and Oklahoma. Georgia lost to South Carolina and Tennessee (probably the best set of the losses of the three), Oklahoma lost to Colorado and Texas Tech (probably the worst set of losses of the three), and Virginia Tech lost to Boston college and was destroyed by LSU (and you know LSU's going to play that trump card, considering they have the same record). With these arguments, who's to say which of these 11 teams deserve the shot against Ohio St? A bunch of networked computers? A bunch of assistants to head coaches who participate in polls? Newspaper columnists who have regional biases? Come up with a logical argument for any one of those 11 teams over the rest of the 10. Can you? I can't. As a matter of fact, why should Ohio St necessarily be there? Because they're the only 1 loss team with a conference championship? But then we've gone on for the last couple weeks about how bad Ohio St's nonconference schedule was and just how bad the Big 10 is overall. Winning the Big 10 isn't that much of an accomplishment, so why should they fight for the national championship? And what happens if one of the 11 teams beats Ohio St for the championship? How can you call it a definitive National Championship when you couldn't even clearly distinguish them from the other 11 teams, and when they beat a team you were hesitant to put there in the first place? This isn't excitement - this will be the worst national champion in the history of college football and we'll all have to listen to 9 months of *****ing from the 10 other schools that didn't get the chance to play for the championship. And what happens if the AP decides to do what they did in 2003 and award the winner of one of the other BCS games THEIR national championship? You then have a split national champion, and the original purpose behind creating the BCS in the first place was to do away with the split national championships and have a consensus national champion (although they've "done away" with this argument because if they held onto this the BCS would have been a complete failure after 2003 - which I still view it as anyway - but notice how it used to be "THE national championship game" and now it's "A national championship game" - they don't necessarily even believe in their product).
I'm telling you - I'd be much more excited this year for a 12-team tournament with the mess of a picture we have right now than whatever watered-down national championship game that we're going to have forced upon us this year.
It may be your opinion that a playoff would destroy college football, but 2003 proved that the BCS system doesn't work when it wasn't able to force a consensus national championship (the split championship between USC and LSU). The original purpose of the BCS was to create a consensus national championship, and as far as I'm concerned, it became irrelevant after 2003 and I'm kind of upset that it's still being used to determine who they think the champion should be when it can't deliver upon its promises.
Look, you will NEVER have a legitimate champion in 1A football that will make everyone happy. There never has been a true 1A champion. There probably never will be a true 1A champion. The whole "championship" construct in 1A football is placed upon it by the media, quite literally, until the BCS. Now at least there is a system in place to grant a somewhat legitimate championship crown.
You can dismiss the "computer polls" as a bunch of networked computers, but if you look at what they really are, an objective way of ranking teams based on their achievements, and the statistics behind them, they are about as legitimate a system for ranking teams as we will ever have in 1A football. Nobody can possibly watch all 119 teams play all of their 12 games. It's almost physically impossible. And because of this, the human polls can not possibly be entirely accurate. Over the long term, however, you end up with teams that have won the most games in the hardest conferences near the top of the polls. At any rate, there isn't much point looking at polls until the end of the season, since those are the only ones that really matter anyway.
You would always have the same arguments about who should get into a tournament. With 12 teams, should you have to allow all conference champions in? What happens if, say, Kansas loses and gets knocked out in the Big 12 championship game, and 2 loss Oklahoma plays in the tournament instead of 1 loss Kansas? Should you have to include Mid-major conference champs in the mix? Should BYU get in and not Kansas or Missouri? Should undefeated teams all get in, regardless of how horrible their schedule is (Hawaii)? Would that lead to a "race to the bottom" while teams line up patsies out of conference to avoid losing in the NC schedule, instead of trying to challenge themselves and making an argument that even with 1 loss, they played a more difficult schedule and deserve a shot?
There are a LOT of problems with a playoff that just can't be addressed with 119 teams and 12 games. It's simply not mathematically possible. A playoff winner would be no more a legitimate champion than a BCS championship game winner.
In college football, your playoff begins on the first day of the football season. You win all your games, and you're in. You lose, and you lose control of your own destiny. You still might have a shot at it, but you really don't have any control over it. The BCS just tries to match up the top 2 teams at the end of the year. If there are only 2 undefeateds, it's pretty easy. If there are more than 2, it has a system in place to help choose the "best" two of those. If there are a bunch of 1 loss teams, it attempts to rank those the best way it can.
No, the original purpose of the BCS was to put the top two teams against each other, and in turn HOPE to create a consensus national champion. In the event of a bunch of 0 loss teams or 1 loss teams, it was intended to chose the top two, largely based on the computer polls and strength of schedule.
They certainly knew when it was created, that there was an opportunity for things like 2003 to occur. It's just the nature of the beast when you're trying to sort between teams that are marginally better than one another.
No.
The original stated purpose of the BCS was to eliminate the split national championship by putting who the computers thought were the two best teams together to get a consensus champion. This didn't work in 2003, and might not work this year, because the AP's #1 team wasn't the BCS #1 team (it was the #3 team), and when AP's #1 team went and won their BCS game and the BCS #1 team won their BCS game, it caused a split.
Your statement has become the mission statement since the AP split the national championship in 2003.
