Who likes the BCS?

[Neo]

I don't know about you guys but I actually like the BCS formula. I thought LSU deserved the NC outright last year but the media has always drooled over S. Cal.
I feel that the BCS works because it factors in the entire season's performance as opposed to week to week like the USAToday & AP Poll. It also takes the "human elemental bias" out of the equation. The media is biased and everyone knows it but noone wants to admit it. I find it funny that the college football world including S. Cal agreed that the BCS decided the champion and when the chips didn't fall their way, they pitched a temper tantrum.

undefined I want someone to tell me why they think that S. Cal deserved the title over LSU!

Oh..and for the conferences that complain about being left out of the BCS and take stabs at the SEC, Big XII, Big X, ACC, and so on.....You are coming across as just a spoiled brat!

[MSU Ed]

The only complaint I have is they still have not corrected the "we didn't win our conference championship" and we want to play for the national championship. There is the contingent that says the championship games hurt the higher ranked teams due to an extra game being played; however, if you are sitting at #3 in the BCS poll and have the extra game it can also help you out. IMO if you don't win your conference, you shouldn't get a shot at the title.

[Neo]

MSU Ed,

The only thing about that is like last years debacle. Granted Oklahoma didn't win their conference but should they have gone to the NC to play LSU? Absolutely! Why you ask? Throughout the whole season, Oklahoma STOMPED everyone on their schedule, then lose to a RANKED Kansas St. in the conference championship. Too bad I cannot say the same for USC. Like I stated earlier, the BCS factors in your entire season not week to week like the polls. Just because you didn't win your conference, does that mean you shouldn't have a shot at the NC. How do you factor in the teams not aligned in a conference?
Put simply, Oklahoma made mince-meat of EVERYONE they played until the Big XII Championship game and then they faltered a bit. Personally, I think the BCS system worked this past season and I firmly believe that it will continue to work.

[MSU Ed]

Good points DeLoreanfan; however, the arguement may not hold up next year when we have three conference championship games (Big12, SEC, ACC). What happens when you have the same situation but Miami wins the ACC with one loss? Who goes to the National Championship game?

I agree that the BCS is working. It seems everyone forgets the co-champions the old bowl system produced. But is just seems to me that the conference championship games don't really weigh in the matter. If you get rewarded for the win, then you should be penalized for the loss.

[dudeman0501]

I agree that the BCS is working. It seems everyone forgets the co-champions the old bowl system produced. But is just seems to me that the conference championship games don't really weigh in the matter. If you get rewarded for the win, then you should be penalized for the loss.

My feelings exactly. Like was said eariler, "if you don't win your conference, you shouldn't get a shot at the title".

[ssand]

You guys must forget that the BCS had been revamped. SOS has been eliminated.
There are now only three components: AP poll (media), USAToday poll (coaches), and the computer polls ( NYTimes poll has been eliminated, thank god. One other also, I think). The longer this goes on, the closer we get to the "old" AP and UPI determine the number one team. There is no answer but a playoff. The number of teams in that playoff can be debated for a long time. But I would rather a playoff than jounalists, coaches, and newspaper computers determine who should play for all the marbles!!! But that is just me.

[MSU Ed]

ssand, you got it. The NCAA should get off of its behind and make the playoff work for 1A football. Then you would have a true "NCAA" football champion. They seem to make it work with every other division they have in football. The "extending the season" arguement is getting old. However, I don't really see the NCAA having a motive to move to a playoff in 1A. Too much money coming in for them now, so why would they want to change?

The BCS was better than what we had, but it could be better. This is a never ending debate. If you go to a playoff, of say eight teams, there will always be the argurement of who got in the playoff and who did not. Look at basketball, there are 65 teams in the tournament and every year there are eight or ten teams that feel they got shafted.

IMO the playoff would crown a champion, but the debates would still rage.

[oxfordrebel]

A playoff system is the closest way to determine a national champion. As far as money goes, just change the bowl games into playoff games. For instance, the #4 and #5 teams might meet up in the Music City Bowl with the winner playing the winner of the Gator Bowl in the Peach Bowl or something like that. All the money still gets thrown around and we get better bowl games in the end.

Just one idea.

[dudeman0501]

I agree with the playoff system. And I like oxfordrebel's idea of bowl games being playoff games.

[Neo]

I was watching ESPN's College Gameday Preview and I was shocked at what I found out. For this years BCS, they have removed SOS, losses and QW from the BCS calculations. I give that 2 years tops! I agree with ol' Lee Corso, quote: "From this moment on, you are going to see a lot of CUPCAKES scheduled now because the BCS has removed SOS." If you think about it, he made a valid point. Suppose this coming year 3 teams go undefeated and only one of them played a half-way competitive sehedule, who gets to go to the big dance? He also made a point to say that the people wanted the BCS because the fans didn't trust the voters and now they give more power to the voters. Go figure???

AP Poll = 1/3
USAToday = 1/3
BCS Computers = 1/3

Total = 100%

[oxfordrebel]

Personally I like the polls better than the BCS formula, so I like the changes made to the BCS. But I think it ought to be mandatory at all teams play at least one OOC game that involves another team from a BCS conference. Otherwise everyone will continue to schedule 2 Sun Belt and a C-USA instead of gettting some ACC, B-10, B-12, etc. games going.

[lsu-i-like]

Good points DeLoreanfan; however, the arguement may not hold up next year when we have three conference championship games (Big12, SEC, ACC). What happens when you have the same situation but Miami wins the ACC with one loss? Who goes to the National Championship game?

I agree that the BCS is working. It seems everyone forgets the co-champions the old bowl system produced. But is just seems to me that the conference championship games don't really weigh in the matter. If you get rewarded for the win, then you should be penalized for the loss.

uh, you are penalized for the loss. the case of three top teams with equitable seasons seems to point out the need even further for a bcs type system and/or a playoff.

i actually prefer a playoff using a bcs-like formula to aid in selecting teams. the polls are flawed and a formula can take into account all the things that are important without bias. if you have a good formula, the numbers don't lie. it just depends on what you consider important when creating the formula. i personally think the bcs formula is pretty crappy and too politically correct. oklahoma lost to a better team than usc did, and played a MUCH tougher schedule than usc did. i would have liked to have seen a playoff with all three teams involved, but college football revolves around money.

its funny that all the presidents were opposed to a playoff because the players would have to play additional games and it would be detrimental to their academics. however as soon as the playoff was shot down the big12 commissioner was pushing to add an additional game to the regular season for all big12 teams because of the enormous revenue home games bring in. :confused:

[Neo]

LSU I Like,

I agree to a point! I thought that the BCS did it's job by deciding that LSU & Oklahoma play for the NC. I honestly feel that the polls are EXTREMELY BIASED and the BCS removes that BIAS from the equation. The polls reflect too much on teams from week to week compared to the season BCS average. As far as I know, CCG's DO COUNT FOR AND AGAINST YOU. That SEC CG where LSU handed Georgia an A$$WHOOPIN brought LSU above USC in the final BCS statistics. I don't know who it was that said CCG's do not count against you. Well...I can't wait to see how the ACC will do starting in 2005 with their CCG. So far if I'm not mistaken, the only conferences with a CCG is the SEC, Big XII, and the MAC.

[MSU Ed]

So, how did Oklahoma get penalized for losing to KState in the Big XII? They went from BCS #1 to BCS #2. Now that is a harsh penalty. However, USC lost to a sorry Cal team earlier in the year, but won their conference. I guess the point I'm making is the conference championship games are about money and very little else. I just think you should have to win your conference, however that may be, to play for a national title.

[Neo]

Oklahoma went from #1 to #2 in the BCS standings because of their SOS. Out of all of Oklahoma's games, they scored 20 pts or less in only 3 games. 40 or more points in 8 games and 50 or more points in 7 games. Here's food for thought too for the Pro-Poll/Anti BCS fans, USC only played and won 2 games against ranked opponents last year. Oklahoma played 4 games against ranked teams and won 2 of them. (I am counting the bowl games too.) Oklahoma lost to RANKED KANSAS ST. and LSU. USC lost to a PITIFUL Cal St.

Oklahoma BUSTED and I do mean BUSTED their butt all last year stomping everyone in their path by at least 25+ points and people don't think that they belong in the championship? I just don't get it.

By the way, If you think that CCG's DO NOT count against you if you lose, tell that to UGA. After losing to LSU, they slipped to #9 in the ESPN/USAToday and #11 in the AP Poll. Before the SEC CG, they were ranked 4th or 5th if I'm not mistaken.

[lsu-i-like]

you may not remember it but oklahoma was lauded as one of the best teams ever before their loss to kansas st. oklahoma and usc were nearly identical after oklahoma lost to kansas st, but oklahoma succeeded against a much tougher schedule than usc. conference championships should be held completely independent, other than its regular win/loss value, of who plays for a national championship. every game in the season should be important, not just the most recent one.

now, i wouldnt say cal sucked last year. and i will say that i think usc deserved a shot at the national championship last year. i also think that miami ohio and maybe even boise st deserved a shot. and oklahoma deserved a shot.

[ssand]

I don't care what criteria you use, but Miami (OH) and Boise St. did not deserve a shot at the MNC. No way, no how. LSU, OU, and USC would have destroyed them. Toolame didn't even deserve a berth in the championship when they went undefeated. But it's over, for now. The new season is just a couple of weeks away. Let's see if this discussion resumes come December.

[Benthelus]

There will never be a REAL national champion in college football until all polls and rating systems are done away with and we have a REAL playoff.

I have come up with the perfect playoff.

Take the top eight conferences, and only their CHAMPIONS play, and the first four games would be the Sugar, Orange, Fiesta and Rose bowls. The other bowls stay exactly the same. The four winners meet at neutral sites the very next week in two games, and then the two winners meet in the last game. You have only added three games to the entire season and left the bowl structure intact.

And don't cry if the second-place SEC team stays home while the first-place CUSA or Mountain West team goes... because the conference championship games would really be the first round of a real playoff system, because only the CHAMPIONS continue.

And, yes... the top eight conferences would all have to have at least twelve teams and have a championship game so it would be fair to all.

Now...

I don't want to hear any crap about this... because I am RIGHT! :mad:

[ssand]

Would you mind listing the top eight conferences for me so that I can see if this is fair?? And how many of these conferences would have to add teams and/or championship games for this to be plausible?

[lsu-i-like]

benthelus, your way isnt the only way and it really doesnt seem like the best way to me. as ive said before on other boards, conference championship (CC) games should not be a part of the playoff. if CC games are considered round 1 of the playoff, you have lsu and georgia playing in the first round (two top 5 teams). you also have miami ohio and bowling green (1 top 10 team and 1 top 30 team) playing in the first round. you want the best teams to meet in the last round of the playoffs, not the first round. lsu and georgia should have a better shot at getting to the 2nd round than bowling green and miami ohio.

also, given the large number of teams and the small number of games played, the best way to form a playoff is by using a ranking system.

[lsu-i-like]

ssand, the top 8 conferences using benthelus's idea could vary from year to year using relative strength.

as far as miami ohio and boise st not deserving to play for the NC, almost any computer system that ranked teams last year, including mine had miami ohio in the top 10, many in the top 5. nonBCS teams have to overcome an inherent bias in formulas since they are in weaker conferences. they would join the sec in a heartbeat if they could so any benefit they would recieve from extra consideration would be small compared to inclusion in a major conference.

as far as bcs-like rating systems, some computers have screwed up formulas, but some are really good and more thorough than any human pollster could ever hope to be. the same can be said for pollsters, some make assinine ratings and some dont.

humans can make judgement calls, which are based on areas of varying importance. but the amount of information for humans to thoroughly compile when ranking teams is impossible to sort through. so with a good formula and a good mind working together a computer can produce a very meaningful rating system. so if a nonBCS team makes a good showing on a well conceived computer poll, it might just mean that they belong there.

its impossible to know how miami ohio would have done against lsu/oklahoma/usc/michigan/miamiflorida/floridast. but considering the season they had they deserved a shot.

[Benthelus]

LikerOfLSU,

In the first place, any ranking system that has anything to do with POLLS or voting in any way will never be valid. You have too many biased people, fans, coaches, journalists and the rest.

Thus... you cannot ever have a REAL champion until you scratch all voting FIRST.

What else does that leave? It simply leaves it as it SHOULD be... ONLY CONFERENCE CHAMPIONS ALLOWED!!!

Once the top 8 conferences are decided on, then we would rank them from top to bottom... then the number one ranked champ (let's say LSU) would play the number five ranked champ (let's say Marshall) and so-forth.

Most often, the numbers 1 through 4 will defeat numbers 5 through 8, so your semi-final and final games would be top matchups. You would have, say, LSU playing Nebraska in one game and Michigan playing USC in the other, and the two winners meeting.

If any upset was to happen in the first round (let's say a CUSA team beating an SEC or ACC team) then so be it. They would have EARNED the right to play the next week... ya?

I'm sorry... but I will stand firm forever on what I believe... and I believe that, if you do not win your own conference championship, then how in hell can you call yourself a true NATIONAL CHAMPION no matter what you win after that? You cannot!!! No way!!!

I don't care if Oklahoma was better than Kansas State last season or not. The FACT is that K-State kicked the unholy snot out of the Okies, and so K-State should have been allowed to play-on and Okie should have gone home.

[lsu-i-like]

you didnt respond to the point i made about the disproportionate first round, aka the conference championships. why should lsu and georgia have a more difficult trip to the SECOND ROUND than miami ohio and bowling green?

also, my computer poll and many computer polls dont count any voting in ranking teams. teams are ranked in my poll by actual and relative performance, and wins & losses. so, scratch the voting and you have a system that doesnt change for any team.

[ssand]

What you two clowns forget is that the polls and rankings ( Conf., SOS, Ranked Teams and such) determine who gets invited and seeded in the basketball and baseball tourney. See, in baseball and basketball, the conference tourney champ gets an automatic invite. NO matter what you did in the regular season. Almost always, the regular season champ in these sports gets invited. But there is no tourney like that in football. To be fair, you would have to do this for football. All plains have to be equal. Under Bent's idea, KState would be in the title hunt last year. AS would USC. OU would not be included. But many other, underserving teams would, many others. Then it is a tourney to see who is the strongest for the longest. THERE IS NO ANSWER UNLESS A PLAYOFF LIKE the lessor divisions adhere to is adopted!

[lsu-i-like]

lol @ clowns. baseball and basketball have much longer seasons, play more games, and have more teams competing. you cant compare them to football. a 16 team playoff would ruin one of the best things about 1A college football, the importance of the regular season. winning the national championship is quite an accomplishment. using a playoff like the one i suggested would give the minor conference teams the opportunity to participate and accounts for the inherent bias in the current system. dont know if that bias is intentional or not, but it cant be debated that the bias isnt there. but it would also maintain the importance of the regular season by narrowing the field of competition for the NC.

[ssand]

okay, just a quick poll. Do you REALLY give a crap about the minor conference teams? I mean, REALLY? Does anyone really think that they deserve a shot at the MNC? I was just kidding about the "clowns" remark. But explain this to me: How does every other NCAA football division get away with a playoff and D-1 doesn't? Yes, winning a national championship is quite an accomplishment. But don't the minor conferences have the same opportunity to win that championship in the Baseball and Basketball tourney's? The same tourney that football doesn't have? I await your answer.

[lsu-i-like]

1)i think most don't, but i really do care about the minor conferences having a shot. a weighted, proportionately relative shot (ie, less chance than the big boys), but a shot none the less. i actually like them to have a conditional chance at making it (you have to be in the top 15% of all teams or something similar).

2)minor conference teams do have an opportunity to win the NC in baseball and basketball, BUT the field of teams allowed is much larger (65 in basketball, im not sure in baseball). since the field of teams allowed is larger, a small percentage of all teams allowed in are minor conference teams. add that to the FACT that the difference between major conference teams and minor conference teams in baseball and basketball is WAY smaller than that of those in football.

now, if you had a 16 team playoff with 11 conference champions, 10-11 are BCS, 5-6 are non-BCS. 1/3 of the teams are minor conference teams, which is too high of a percentage considering that last year before the bowls, in the top 1/3 of all teams 20% are nonBCS and in the top 16 only 2 (13%) are nonBCS.

[dudeman0501]

1)i think most don't, but i really do care about the minor conferences having a shot. a weighted, proportionately relative shot (ie, less chance than the big boys), but a shot none the less. i actually like them to have a conditional chance at making it (you have to be in the top 15% of all teams or something similar).

I agree with that. I think that the minors should have a shot, at least.

[Neo]

I'll be honest and say that I don't give a darn about these wimpy cupcake-filled conferences. When they play schedules like everyone else, then they will have my attention. Some people say they can't help who they schedule. That in itself is total BSSSSSSSS! Look at Central Florida. Their first years in Div. I they were playing some of the hardest schedules in football and outside of their required conference games, they are still scheduling the big boys.

For example: Central Florida's OOC games are against:
#22 Wisconsin
#11 West Virginia
Penn State

So, that just proves my point. UCF is trying to legitimize their program and show the country that they intend to play a competitive schedule regardless of their conference.

I would honestly say that the cuppies get an advantage because they do NOT have to play the big boys. They can win against all of these suckers and get a title-shot? NO WAY JOSE! Here's a hypothetical situation. There are 3 undefeated teams in Div. I. Nebraska, South Carolina, and Miami Ohio. Which 2 teams should face off in the NC?

South Carolina/Miami Ohio

Vanderbilt/Indiana St.
#4 Georgia/#7 Michigan
S. Florida/Cincinnati
Troy St./Ohio
Alabama/Marshall
Mississippi/Kent St.
Kentucky/Buffalo
#14 Tennessee/Central Florida
Arkansas/Toledo
#10 Florida/W. Michigan
#16 Clemson/Akron

By looking at these schedules, who would you decide? The smaller schools cannot scream anymore about they cannot get the blue-chip talent. There are more blue-chippers out there then there was 10 years ago. Div. I football is becoming more and more competitive but until these cupcakes start playing some real opponents, they are going to be regarded as "Paper Champs" just like boxing. Now that the BCS has done away with SOS, MOV, & Losses, everything is going to go to hell.

[Irishrebel]

I was watching ESPN's College Gameday Preview and I was shocked at what I found out. For this years BCS, they have removed SOS, losses and QW from the BCS calculations. I give that 2 years tops! I agree with ol' Lee Corso, quote: "From this moment on, you are going to see a lot of CUPCAKES scheduled now because the BCS has removed SOS." If you think about it, he made a valid point. Suppose this coming year 3 teams go undefeated and only one of them played a half-way competitive sehedule, who gets to go to the big dance? He also made a point to say that the people wanted the BCS because the fans didn't trust the voters and now they give more power to the voters. Go figure???

AP Poll = 1/3
USAToday = 1/3
BCS Computers = 1/3

Total = 100%

Yeah its going to be worse this year, the bcs is nothing but BS , those college commisoners just suck so bad they know a playoff with the bowls would work and give them more money but they are so stupid its not even funny. :(

[lsu-i-like]

I'll be honest and say that I don't give a darn about these wimpy cupcake-filled conferences. When they play schedules like everyone else, then they will have my attention. Some people say they can't help who they schedule. That in itself is total BSSSSSSSS! Look at Central Florida. Their first years in Div. I they were playing some of the hardest schedules in football and outside of their required conference games, they are still scheduling the big boys.

For example: Central Florida's OOC games are against:
#22 Wisconsin
#11 West Virginia
Penn State

So, that just proves my point. UCF is trying to legitimize their program and show the country that they intend to play a competitive schedule regardless of their conference.

I would honestly say that the cuppies get an advantage because they do NOT have to play the big boys. They can win against all of these suckers and get a title-shot? NO WAY JOSE! Here's a hypothetical situation. There are 3 undefeated teams in Div. I. Nebraska, South Carolina, and Miami Ohio. Which 2 teams should face off in the NC?

South Carolina/Miami Ohio

Vanderbilt/Indiana St.
#4 Georgia/#7 Michigan
S. Florida/Cincinnati
Troy St./Ohio
Alabama/Marshall
Mississippi/Kent St.
Kentucky/Buffalo
#14 Tennessee/Central Florida
Arkansas/Toledo
#10 Florida/W. Michigan
#16 Clemson/Akron

By looking at these schedules, who would you decide? The smaller schools cannot scream anymore about they cannot get the blue-chip talent. There are more blue-chippers out there then there was 10 years ago. Div. I football is becoming more and more competitive but until these cupcakes start playing some real opponents, they are going to be regarded as "Paper Champs" just like boxing. Now that the BCS has done away with SOS, MOV, & Losses, everything is going to go to hell.

your 3 team example exposes a problem of the two team playoff.

as far as the minor conference teams getting an advantage by playing a weaker schedule, do you really think they would think twice about leaving their cupcake conferences to join the sec? not only no, but hell no. the BCS teams get tons of perks, strength of schedule just being one of them.

a team in a weak conference, even if they have a strong OOC schedule, would be left out regardless of how well they do if two BCS teams go undefeated. the nonBCS teams will never be on a level playing field with their BCS bretheren almost solely because of the conference they play in. and as i said, its not like they can just choose to be in a strong conference. and most teams cant pull a notre dame.

ive proposed that nonBCS teams be given a conditional shot to play for a NC in an unconventional 8 team playoff. they would have to achieve something like being in the top 15% of all 117 1A teams, which is quite an accomplishment for a nonBCS team considering the inherent bias in strength of schedule.

[Benthelus]

Uh... ladies...

MY playoff system DOES give the weaker conferences at least a shot at the championship. And MY playoff system DOES include every team who DESERVES A SHOT. It doesn't matter if you lose in the conference championship games or if you lose the next week or two... there will STILL be a 'real' national champion crowned with MY system... the bowls will stay exactly the same and give every other team something to shoot for... and MY way is the only FAIR way.

And I repeat... Oklahoma did NOT deserve a shot at the MNC last season, because they were NOT champions of anything to DESERVE the chance to be champions of EVERYTHING. Why doesn't this sink into some of your heads?

Thus...

The loser of the Jawja/LSU game and the Michigan/Ohio State game and the USC/UCLS game does NOT deserve to advance REGARDLESS of who else is let into the tournament.

And PLEASE don't mention the field of 64 in the basketball tournament. That is a JOKE. There are many teams left out who deserve to be there, and many teams included who do not deserve to be there... but that's BASKETBALL and not FOOTBALL... the king of all sports!

[Neo]

That's the truth Irishrebel. By removing all of that stuff from the BCS, you are going to create MORE arguments then you can imagine.

[lsu-i-like]

benthelus, you are missing my point or avoiding it.
round 1 = 1v2 & 25v57; round 2 = 1v25. what a backwards playoff.

[Benthelus]

benthelus, you are missing my point or avoiding it.
round 1 = 1v2 & 25v57; round 2 = 1v25. what a backwards playoff.

The only thing that is 'backwards' is to have anyone but conference champs be involved in a playoff.

And I did respond to your question. It doesn't matter what round you lose in... only that you win or lose. You can say that Jawja has to play LSU and it's not fair because Missy Zouth only has to play Tulane... but it's just as hard for Missy Zouth to beat Tulane as it is for Jawja to beat LSU.

And the losers of the conference championship games are NOT champions... right? So they have no gripe whatsoever about not getting invited to the big dance.

That's it.

[lsu-i-like]

it's just as hard for Missy Zouth to beat Tulane as it is for Jawja to beat LSU.

Mr Bent, obviously you don't think that the highest rated teams should have the easiest route in the playoff, so you don't believe in rewarding teams for having a good season. I believe in the civilized world you are alone in this opinion, though you can find quite a few CUSA fans to agree with you, I'd imagine. I believe the teams that have accomplished the most during the season have the least to prove in the playoffs and the teams that have accomplished the least have the most to prove in the playoffs. But I'm crazy like that. :eek:

[Neo]

On ESPN today, Lee Corso was talking about the BCS removing SOS again. I swear, that man hates that they did that. He keeps saying now that everyone will schedule "cupcakes" since SOS doesn't matter. Wins are all that matters.