Reflecting on how much the BCS sucks...

[D^3]

The BCS top 10 going in to the final week of the regular season:

1. Missouri 11-1
2. West Virginia 10-1
3. Ohio State 11-1
4. Georgia 10-2
5. Kansas 11-1
6. Virginia Tech 10-2
7. LSU 10-2
8. USC 9-2
9. Oklahoma 10-2
10. Florida 9-3

Notice where everybody is. This is what the BCS and the voters decided the best teams were, in order of #1 to #10. What happened the week after these rankings came out? Missouri lost to Oklahoma in the conference championship. WVU lost to Pitt. A week later, the polls looked like this:

1. Ohio State 11-1 (jumped from #3 to #1. Expected... the 2 in front of them lost)
2. LSU 11-2 (jumped FIVE spots from #7.)
3. Virginia Tech 11-2 (jumped 3 spots from #6)
4. Oklahoma 11-2 (jumped FIVE spots from #9)
5. Georgia 10-2 (dropped 1 spot, although did not play a game)
6. Missouri 11-2 (dropped 5 spots from #1)
7. USC 10-2 (moved up 1)
8. Kansas 11-1 (dropped THREE spots, but didn't play a game)
9. West Virginia 10-2 (dropped 7 spots after losing)
10. Hawaii 12-0 (broke into the top 10)

I'm sorry folks, but you just can't tell me there is ANY logic in that. Ohio State moves up into the #1 spot (while idle and not playing) because the two teams in front of them lost, while Georgia drops a spot because they are idle and not playing (yes, I know OSU won their conference, but they did not HAVE a conference championship game, and winning your conference is not part of the BCS formula). Kansas drops three spots and behind SIX 2 loss teams while they themselves only have ONE, and LSU, while the rankings from the week before have already deemed them to be the 7th best team in the country, have jumped all the way from 7 to 2, putting them in the title game.

This isn't to cry over who was in the title game, this is just to again show the sheer idiocy in the way we choose who goes to the MNC game. There is no sense in it. None.


We need a +1.

[Soccaplayamdg07]

Not sure you'll find too many people arguing that here. I completely agree. Even though it turned out to the benefit of my team last year (and I do think we were deserving of the second best ranking in the country and proved that in the championship game), our record did not agree with my feelings. What happened in the last week was to put it simply--crazy. I remember walking out of the Arkansas game not believing that we had just lost and had no shot at the national title anymore. My friend said something to the effect of "if everyone else ahead of us loses and we catch like 10 breaks, we still have a shot." I laughed in his face and told him to keep dreaming. Come to find out, dreams come true. This system is ridiculous, but you will only find opposition in the hierarchy of college football. Most fans believe things should be settled on the field.

[GTTiger]

I agree we need a +1 system, but I also think that each team should have to win thier conference to even make it to the +1 playoff.

For ex:
2006 would have matched:
#1 OSU vs. #6 Louisville
#2 Florida vs. #5 USC

#3 Michigan and #4 LSU would have been left out since they did not win there conference.

Just my opinion.

[GTTiger]

Not sure you'll find too many people arguing that here. I completely agree. Even though it turned out to the benefit of my team last year (and I do think we were deserving of the second best ranking in the country and proved that in the championship game), our record did not agree with my feelings. What happened in the last week was to put it simply--crazy. I remember walking out of the Arkansas game not believing that we had just lost and had no shot at the national title anymore. My friend said something to the effect of "if everyone else ahead of us loses and we catch like 10 breaks, we still have a shot." I laughed in his face and told him to keep dreaming. Come to find out, dreams come true. This system is ridiculous, but you will only find opposition in the hierarchy of college football. Most fans believe things should be settled on the field.

Can't really compare the LSU team at the end of the regular season and the team in the Bowl. LSU had several key players still injured at the end of the regular season, where as the LSU in the bowl game was the LSU that blew everyone out at the beginning of the year.

[GatorHunter]

I definitely can see how an UGA fan could be pissed about it...no doubt. Had it been the Gators...I, like you...would have a very tough time letting this one go. But...and this is a huge "but"...you failed to mention the most important thing...LSU won the SEC Championship Game. As '06 showed...the BCS "folks" place a lot of emphasis on the winner of that Game...LSU won it and leapfrogged into the BCS Title Game. I know it wasn't part of the criteria (I think it is now or will be soon) winning your conference carries a lot of weight...especially if it's the SEC. Don't you think it would be kinda crazy to be a National Champion...but 3rd best in your own conference?

What hurt UGA...losing at home to SC and a beatdown by UT. Had the loss to SC been in Columbia...and the loss to UT a little "closer"...UGA is likely in the BCS Title Game. I'll will say again, though...I don't know the disappointment associated with this...Auburn fans do...but I'll say I do understand and will never disparage a UGA fan for speaking his/her mind about what happened. It did suck.

[GTTiger]

The BCS top 10 going in to the final week of the regular season:

1. Missouri 11-1
2. West Virginia 10-1
3. Ohio State 11-1
4. Georgia 10-2
5. Kansas 11-1
6. Virginia Tech 10-2
7. LSU 10-2
8. USC 9-2
9. Oklahoma 10-2
10. Florida 9-3

Notice where everybody is. This is what the BCS and the voters decided the best teams were, in order of #1 to #10. What happened the week after these rankings came out? Missouri lost to Oklahoma in the conference championship. WVU lost to Pitt. A week later, the polls looked like this:

1. Ohio State 11-1 (jumped from #3 to #1. Expected... the 2 in front of them lost)
2. LSU 11-2 (jumped FIVE spots from #7.)
3. Virginia Tech 11-2 (jumped 3 spots from #6)
4. Oklahoma 11-2 (jumped FIVE spots from #9)
5. Georgia 10-2 (dropped 1 spot, although did not play a game)
6. Missouri 11-2 (dropped 5 spots from #1)
7. USC 10-2 (moved up 1)
8. Kansas 11-1 (dropped THREE spots, but didn't play a game)
9. West Virginia 10-2 (dropped 7 spots after losing)
10. Hawaii 12-0 (broke into the top 10)

I'm sorry folks, but you just can't tell me there is ANY logic in that. Ohio State moves up into the #1 spot (while idle and not playing) because the two teams in front of them lost, while Georgia drops a spot because they are idle and not playing (yes, I know OSU won their conference, but they did not HAVE a conference championship game, and winning your conference is not part of the BCS formula). Kansas drops three spots and behind SIX 2 loss teams while they themselves only have ONE, and LSU, while the rankings from the week before have already deemed them to be the 7th best team in the country, have jumped all the way from 7 to 2, putting them in the title game.

This isn't to cry over who was in the title game, this is just to again show the sheer idiocy in the way we choose who goes to the MNC game. There is no sense in it. None.


We need a +1.

A few things that you also need to take into account:
1) #3 Ohio State was almost .1 ahead of #4 UGA
2) #4 UGA was about 0.05 ahead of #7 LSU

So, while UGA was 3 spots ahead, it was closer than UGA was to #3 Ohio State.

[D^3]

I definitely can see how an UGA fan could be pissed about it...no doubt. Had it been the Gators...I, like you...would have a very tough time letting this one go. But...and this is a huge "but"...you failed to mention the most important thing...LSU won the SEC Championship Game. As '06 showed...the BCS "folks" place a lot of emphasis on the winner of that Game...LSU won it and leapfrogged into the BCS Title Game. I know it wasn't part of the criteria (I think it is now or will be soon) winning your conference carries a lot of weight...especially if it's the SEC. Don't you think it would be kinda crazy to be a National Champion...but 3rd best in your own conference?

What hurt UGA...losing at home to SC and a beatdown by UT. Had the loss to SC been in Columbia...and the loss to UT a little "closer"...UGA is likely in the BCS Title Game. I'll will say again, though...I don't know the disappointment associated with this...Auburn fans do...but I'll say I do understand and will never disparage a UGA fan for speaking his/her mind about what happened. It did suck.


I understand people will always note the conference championship, but therein again, it is NOT a part of the BCS formula. Furthermore, how can a conference championship game give one team an advantage, and another a disadvantage, while some teams do not play them at all? (tOSU). Then you have LSU moving up FIVE spots for winning their championship game, while VA Tech only moves up 3 for winning theirs.

This post isn't as much about bringing up again how screwed we felt in Athens over this, but to point out the madness of it all. And it is madness. Just wanted to reiterate how much we need a better system.

[GatorHunter]

I understand people will always note the conference championship, but therein again, it is NOT a part of the BCS formula. Furthermore, how can a conference championship game give one team an advantage, and another a disadvantage, while some teams do not play them at all? (tOSU).

This post isn't as much about bringing up again how screwed we felt in Athens over this, but to point out the madness of it all. And it is madness. Just wanted to reiterate how much we need a better system.

It should be, though.

[D^3]

A few things that you also need to take into account:
1) #3 Ohio State was almost .1 ahead of #4 UGA
2) #4 UGA was about 0.05 ahead of #7 LSU

So, while UGA was 3 spots ahead, it was closer than UGA was to #3 Ohio State.

Yes, but according to the BCS, UGA was better. Now, you say "well, they were hurt because they were sitting at home while LSU played in Atlanta." Ok, but tOSU was sitting on their laurels for weeks, and it didn't affect them. The fact is, the system does not treat everyone fairly.

[D^3]

It should be, though.

Not disagreeing with you. But thats just one more part of my case in point that the BCS system is garbage.

[GTTiger]

I understand people will always note the conference championship, but therein again, it is NOT a part of the BCS formula. Furthermore, how can a conference championship game give one team an advantage, and another a disadvantage, while some teams do not play them at all? (tOSU). Then you have LSU moving up FIVE spots for winning their championship game, while VA Tech only moves up 3 for winning theirs.

This post isn't as much about bringing up again how screwed we felt in Athens over this, but to point out the madness of it all. And it is madness. Just wanted to reiterate how much we need a better system.

The human polls are the problem. They are too biased. UGA Wouldn't have gotten in either way(and I think that's how it should have been), but the Computer polls are based on actual field performance. I enjoyed the way the BCS was setup in the early 2000s when teams got a quality win component. LSU would have gotten pts for beating VT and UGA. Oklahoma would have gotten pts for beating Mizz and Kansas. Strength of schedule was also a component that I enjoyed being part of the BCS.

What is the point of the BCS when the human polls are the majority of the ranking system. The BCS Was created because people didn't think human polls could be unbiased.

[D^3]

The human polls are the problem. They are too biased. UGA Wouldn't have gotten in either way(and I think that's how it should have been), but the Computer polls are based on actual field performance. I enjoyed the way the BCS was setup in the early 2000s when teams got a quality win component. LSU would have gotten pts for beating VT and UGA. Oklahoma would have gotten pts for beating Mizz and Kansas. Strength of schedule was also a component that I enjoyed being part of the BCS.

What is the point of the BCS when the human polls are the majority of the ranking system. The BCS Was created because people didn't think human polls could be unbiased.

I'm not saying UGA should have been in it (obviously I would have liked that) but just how ridiculous this system has become. By the way, LSU didn't beat UGA, they didn't play us last year.

I'm with you that the human polls are biased, but I don't think computers are the answer either.

Bottom line: WE NEED THE +1 SYSTEM.

[GTTiger]

Yes, but according to the BCS, UGA was better. Now, you say "well, they were hurt because they were sitting at home while LSU played in Atlanta." Ok, but tOSU was sitting on their laurels for weeks, and it didn't affect them. The fact is, the system does not treat everyone fairly.

Ohio State only lost 1 game during the season and won there conference. Ohio State was getting in the game no matter what. UGA's best shot was to stay ahead of LSU, and many voters voted UGA lower because they didn't win the conference. What is interesting is to see how the coaches voted. Stoops voted 3 Big 12 schools ahead of everyone except ohio state.

[GTTiger]

I'm not saying UGA should have been in it (obviously I would have liked that) but just how ridiculous this system has become. By the way, LSU didn't beat UGA, they didn't play us last year.

I'm with you that the human polls are biased, but I don't think computers are the answer either.

Bottom line: WE NEED THE +1 SYSTEM.

Yeah, I wasn't thinkin straight about beating UGA.

[GatorChomp]

I am strongly against using conference championship in the BCS. I think it should add if you win it, but it should not be required to play in the National Title game.

There are so many different scenarios where a team could not win their conference yet still be a very, very good team, still possibly #2 in the nation in certain scenarios.

For example. In the Big 10 it isn't a round robin so two teams could go undefeated and it would go down to tiebreaker's to see who the conference champion is. If there is no requirement it is no big deal, but I doubt a system requiring a conference champion would allow for a scenario like this (except in cases of a tiebreaker...). Or perhaps the SEC. Florida and Tennessee play each other early. Say Florida beats Tennessee and then goes on to lose some OOC games to FSU/Miami and Georgia or LSU. Tennessee wins the rest of their games, but because Florida beat them early in the season they can't go to the SEC Championship game. Florida wins the SEC, but are they really the best team? Scenarios like this wouldnt be accounted for if you put it into the BCS system. Yes, you can say "but Florida won that game...Tennessee should ahve taken care of business...", Yes, but teams don't go undefeated too often and the best team does NOT always win. Maybe add that Tennessee's starting Quarterback was out for the Florida game, it was in teh swamp and they lost in overtime? Yeah it is a semi-crazy scenario, but there are tons of them.

Yes, you should win your conference, but not winning your conference should not automatically disqualify you from contention.

[D^3]

I am strongly against using conference championship in the BCS. I think it should add if you win it, but it should not be required to play in the National Title game.

There are so many different scenarios where a team could not win their conference yet still be a very, very good team, still possibly #2 in the nation in certain scenarios.

For example. In the Big 10 it isn't a round robin so two teams could go undefeated and it would go down to tiebreaker's to see who the conference champion is. If there is no requirement it is no big deal, but I doubt a system requiring a conference champion would allow for a scenario like this (except in cases of a tiebreaker...). Or perhaps the SEC. Florida and Tennessee play each other early. Say Florida beats Tennessee and then goes on to lose some OOC games to FSU/Miami and Georgia or LSU. Tennessee wins the rest of their games, but because Florida beat them early in the season they can't go to the SEC Championship game. Florida wins the SEC, but are they really the best team? Scenarios like this wouldnt be accounted for if you put it into the BCS system. Yes, you can say "but Florida won that game...Tennessee should ahve taken care of business...", Yes, but teams don't go undefeated too often and the best team does NOT always win. Maybe add that Tennessee's starting Quarterback was out for the Florida game, it was in teh swamp and they lost in overtime? Yeah it is a semi-crazy scenario, but there are tons of them.

Yes, you should win your conference, but not winning your conference should not automatically disqualify you from contention.

You don't even have to think that hard.... what if Tennessee beats LSU in the SECCG last year? Do you still keep Georgia out of it?

Hell, UGA didn't play in the SECCG, because they tied for the East, but tie-breaker went to UT... but was UT really the best team? Most would say not.

[gatorunvrsty]

You don't even have to think that hard.... what if Tennessee beats LSU in the SECCG last year? Do you still keep Georgia out of it?

Hell, UGA didn't play in the SECCG, because they tied for the East, but tie-breaker went to UT... but was UT really the best team? Most would say not.

I'll make it even simpler. There are years when the two best teams in the country are right here in the SEC; and they can't both win the conference championship.:brick: You could make a case (a damn fine one), that UF and LSU were the two best teams in the country in '06.

[sheluvsbama]

It is not fair the way the teams are chosen. It has long been a point of contention, but it doesn't seem likely to change anytime soon. There needs to be a way the truly finest teams can contend for the title. We are rarely convinced that the #1 team is truly the deserving one, because more often than not, the team they beat in order to win the NC was not the team they should have been playing. It leaves us all very unsatisfied and throws a murky shadow on the NC Trophy.

[GatorHunter]

I'll make it even simpler. There are years when the two best teams in the country are right here in the SEC; and they can't both win the conference championship.:brick: You could make a case (a damn fine one), that UF and LSU were the two best teams in the country in '06.

I see you/others point. But...in '06...UF had already beaten LSU...and it wasn't really a close game. So...should UF have to play LSU again? No doubt, LSU had 5 TO that game and it cost them. So...do they deserve another chance? Just playing devil's advocate.

I see both sides...how many times in the '90's did UF give UT their only loss? But...it does seem crazy to have a potential National Champion that couldn't even win their own conference. Doesn't it?

[ShowTime24]

what if this year UF and UGA both go undefeated except for the WLOCP and UGA wins by a field goal? both of them can't go to the SECCG but could be the best two in the country, who could argue with that?

[GTTiger]

I don't like the idea of a National Championship game that is a repeat of a game played during the regular season. Michigan fans felt slighted after being left out in '06 when Florida got the nod, but in my opinion, Michigan knew they needed to win the game vs. Ohio State to make it into the title game. If you don't win your conference, you dont' deserve to be in the national title game in my opinion.

[volimhtown]

Even a +1 system doesn't insure fairness or guarantee the best teams to be rewarded. Until a full playoff system is instituted, there will always be controversy.
Not to defend the BCS system in ANY way, I think it should be noted, however, that the sole purpose of the BCS is and always has been to determine the Top 2 teams only. Where others move or fall in places #3 through wherever is immaterial and has no bearing on anything. In terms of doing what it was intended to do, the BCS system has been pretty successful. It pains me to say that, but.... The one glaring exception was when it awarded a shot at a NT to a one-loss Nebraska team (who didn't even win it's conference) over an undefeated Oregon team. But, the system has been tweaked since then and the last 2 years have clearly shown evidence of that.
Again, I don't like the BCS and think it's a severe black-eye on a sport that otherwise has everything going for it, but it has done what it was intended to do!!

[GatorChomp]

I see you/others point. But...in '06...UF had already beaten LSU...and it wasn't really a close game. So...should UF have to play LSU again? No doubt, LSU had 5 TO that game and it cost them. So...do they deserve another chance? Just playing devil's advocate.

I see both sides...how many times in the '90's did UF give UT their only loss? But...it does seem crazy to have a potential National Champion that couldn't even win their own conference. Doesn't it?
Well we got our first Championship in a rematch against FSU. First game was a close one away, the second was a blowout in a neutral field. You could say that it wasn't fair to FSU, but whatever.

Getting the National Champion is about getting the BEST team. While usually the best team will win their conference, there are certain situations, although relatively rare that the best team in a conference will not actually win the conference. Winning the conference does not automatically make your team the best in the conference. I did not think Tennessee was the best team in the SEC last season, or even the SEC East but they could have won both. While I htink the majority of the time a team needs to win their conference I think it would be limiting if some extraordinary circumstance happens. Say the best two teams really are from the SEC, should that limit jut because only one can actually win the conference?

i think we should go to at least a plus one format. Someone suggested only using teams that won their conference but that is so limiting if you have 4 teams. Some conferences have two very good teams and other conferences have their best team being weaker. The National Championship is, again, trying to get the BEST teams. In 2006 I would have loved
1. Ohio State
2. Florida
3. Michigan
4. LSU

If you only allow conference champions then kick out Michigan and LSU and then put in two teams that would be relatively undeserving. I would have loved having the opportunity to play against Michigan and prove ourselves on the field. Then if we won and LSU won i wouldn't have a problem playing them again, they got to the game and we would need to take care of business. I don't like playing teams twice after beating them the first time, because good teams usually rebound and want revenge, but i they get there fairly then I am fine with it. If we were to lose, I would rather it be to an SEC team than someone else anyways.

I just am a strong believer in the best team not always winning. Should a team necessarily be punished on the national scale for something in one game against the wrong opponent? A lot of teams that get to the National Title game have a loss. It would be unfortunate not to get there because you didn't win your conference due to a lost tiebreaker to a team you lost to.

[D^3]

In terms of doing what it was intended to do, the BCS system has been pretty successful. It pains me to say that, but.... The one glaring exception was when it awarded a shot at a NT to a one-loss Nebraska team (who didn't even win it's conference) over an undefeated Oregon team.


That isn't the only exception. 2003 saw the BCS snub the Trojans of USC (who were ranked #1 in both the AP and the USA today polls. Then there is the snub of undefeated Auburn, and the Nebraska debacle. Then you have last season, where nobody was convinced that the best 2 teams were playing in the MNC game.

[GTTiger]

\ The one glaring exception was when it awarded a shot at a NT to a one-loss Nebraska team (who didn't even win it's conference) over an undefeated Oregon team.

Oregon wasn't undefeated that year. Oregon, FSU, Miami, and Nebraska all had one loss. Colorado had 2-losses, but won the Big-12. There were many teams that had an arguement to be in the title game that year, but I agree that you should have to win your conference to be in the title game.

[Crimson Tide]

Oregon wasn't undefeated that year. Oregon, FSU, Miami, and Nebraska all had one loss.

No, Miami went undefeated in that year.

source (http://cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/div_ia/acc/miami/yearly_results.php?year=2000)

[GTTiger]

No, Miami went undefeated in that year.

source (http://cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/div_ia/acc/miami/yearly_results.php?year=2000)

The link you posted shows Miami losing to Washington. Washington beat Oregon if I remember correctly and Miami beat Florida State.

edit: nm, I see that Miami went undefeated in 2001 when they played nebraska.

[Crimson Tide]

We need a +1.

I disagree. What if there are 5, 6, or 7 teams that are equally deserving of participation in the +1 games? There will still be teams crying foul over being left out. The same can be said for a 16 team playoff. If you guys want playoffs, follow a lower division of college football!

I've said the following on this forum before, but I think it bears repeating: One of the many reasons I like the division 1-A college football method of crowning a champion is the non-conformity to the rest of the sporting world. Can anyone think of another pro or major amateur sporting league which doesn't use a playoff format to determine a champion? The bowl system, along with the traditions and heated debates that follow it, are just a few of the many qualities of college football which make it the most exciting sport in the world. Embrace it!

[Soccaplayamdg07]

I disagree. What if there are 5, 6, or 7 teams that are equally deserving of participation in the +1 games? There will still be teams crying foul over being left out. The same can be said for a 16 team playoff. If you guys want playoffs, follow a lower division of college football!

I've said the following on this forum before, but I think it bears repeating: One of the many reasons I like the division 1-A college football method of crowning a champion is the non-conformity to the rest of the sporting world. Can anyone think of another pro or major amateur sporting league which doesn't use a playoff format to determine a champion? The bowl system, along with the traditions and heated debates that follow it, are just a few of the many qualities of college football which make it the most exciting sport in the world. Embrace it!

Are you serious? If you want debate, join a team. I want to know who the best college football team is. The only legitimate way to determine that is a playoff-type system. In this case being unique is not a good thing.

[PuddingTime]

I agree we need a +1 system, but I also think that each team should have to win thier conference to even make it to the +1 playoff.

For ex:
2006 would have matched:
#1 OSU vs. #6 Louisville
#2 Florida vs. #5 USC

#3 Michigan and #4 LSU would have been left out since they did not win there conference.

Just my opinion.

Any formula that puts Louisville in a legit spot to win a national title should be immediately discredited.

[GatorHunter]

Well we got our first Championship in a rematch against FSU. First game was a close one away, the second was a blowout in a neutral field. You could say that it wasn't fair to FSU, but whatever.

That's a little different...we had won our conference and every team ahead of us in the poll lost. Not saying the Gators haven't "benefited" from the current system...and I certainly am not in favor of the current system...but, it's what we have.

Getting the National Champion is about getting the BEST team. While usually the best team will win their conference, there are certain situations, although relatively rare that the best team in a conference will not actually win the conference. Winning the conference does not automatically make your team the best in the conference. I did not think Tennessee was the best team in the SEC last season, or even the SEC East but they could have won both. While I htink the majority of the time a team needs to win their conference I think it would be limiting if some extraordinary circumstance happens. Say the best two teams really are from the SEC, should that limit jut because only one can actually win the conference?

i think we should go to at least a plus one format. Someone suggested only using teams that won their conference but that is so limiting if you have 4 teams. Some conferences have two very good teams and other conferences have their best team being weaker. The National Championship is, again, trying to get the BEST teams. In 2006 I would have loved
1. Ohio State
2. Florida
3. Michigan
4. LSU

If you only allow conference champions then kick out Michigan and LSU and then put in two teams that would be relatively undeserving. I would have loved having the opportunity to play against Michigan and prove ourselves on the field. Then if we won and LSU won i wouldn't have a problem playing them again, they got to the game and we would need to take care of business. I don't like playing teams twice after beating them the first time, because good teams usually rebound and want revenge, but i they get there fairly then I am fine with it. If we were to lose, I would rather it be to an SEC team than someone else anyways.

I just am a strong believer in the best team not always winning. Should a team necessarily be punished on the national scale for something in one game against the wrong opponent? A lot of teams that get to the National Title game have a loss. It would be unfortunate not to get there because you didn't win your conference due to a lost tiebreaker to a team you lost to.

Everything you've written above just defends the need for a play-off...which, I'm totally in favor of. If D-II can do it...why not D-I? It's basically all "opinion" unless we have a play-off...that's the only way to ensure the 2 best teams face-off and we have a "true" National Champ.

[volimhtown]

Oregon wasn't undefeated that year.
You are correct!! My apologies!! :thumpsup:

That isn't the only exception. 2003 saw the BCS snub the Trojans of USC (who were ranked #1 in both the AP and the USA today polls. Then there is the snub of undefeated Auburn, and the Nebraska debacle. Then you have last season, where nobody was convinced that the best 2 teams were playing in the MNC game.
Well..... under the system, USC and Auburn really were simply on the outside looking in among the three teams that had identical resumes. I understand the frustration from the fans of those schools, but it's not like the system failed. I think the majority nationwide agreed with the two teams that were put into both of those games prior to them being played.
What should have been different last year?? Nobody "earned" or played their way into the NT game. When you lined up their resumes, results, strength of schedule and the like, LSU and Ohio State were clearly the obvious choices in a season full of mediocrity!!

But, points taken!! :thumpsup: A full blown playoff is the ONLY thing that will solve the debatable nature of determining a champion!!

[Bulldog Bry]

I like boobs.

[True Grit]

Im not sure there will ever be a perfect system for CFB. Even if we get a plus one, there will be one year where someone thinks they should get in the plus one game but wont. Or a team will blow out another team in there bowl and will think there shouldnt be a plus one since they the game wasnt close. We cant have a tournament like basketball because you cant play multiple games in one week. And you have to remember that certain people (Big Ten, Pac 10, Rose Bowl) would like to keep tradition in place.

[D^3]

I disagree. What if there are 5, 6, or 7 teams that are equally deserving of participation in the +1 games? There will still be teams crying foul over being left out.



Ummm.... the +1 format would have 8 teams playing in 4 BCS bowl games, with the 4 winners facing each other in one extra week, to determine which 2 will play for the NC.

[GTTiger]

Ummm.... the +1 format would have 8 teams playing in 4 BCS bowl games, with the 4 winners facing each other in one extra week, to determine which 2 will play for the NC.

haha...no

the +1 format is basically the equivalent of a 4 team playoff. The #1 and #4 teams would play each other in one bowl game and the #2 and #3 would play each other in a separate bowl game. The winners would play each other in the title game.

[GatorChomp]

You can't just discard a +1 or playoff because there might still be some discontentment. In college basketball 65 teams make the field and there still is some dispute with the last in and those that get left out. The thing is, they don't really have much of a legitimate claim to an opportunity at the national title. I am sure that the #3 team is much more likely to be deserving of being in the Championship game than #5, 6, etc. Leaving it only to two teams determined by a very fallible system creates a lot of controversy. There would still be some controversy for the #5 team, but they would likely not have as legitimate a claim to a NC opportunity as the teams ahead of them.

[Apes]

Florida Gators Country » Football » A few minutes with Tommy Tuberville (http://www.gatorcountry.com/football/article/a_few_minutes_with_tommy_tuberville/3831)


Tommy Tuberville actually talks about the BCS system in this article...good read.

[The Ramp]

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i90/MT33/UGAcrying1.gif

[gatorunvrsty]

Only in the BCS system does it not make sense to allow teams who didn't win their conference to play for the NC. In a playoff scenario, it would make sense. Just because a team may have beat another one in the regular season in the pros (even in the same division), it doesn't disqualify the loser from the playoffs.

In '06, a replay of the tOSU/UM game wouldn't have pitted the 2 best teams. We know that because of what UF did to tOSU. What we don't know is who would have been a better opponent for UF; and the only way to determine that would have been to have the +1 system.

After watching us demolish tOSU 41-14, LSU demolish ND by the exact same score, and USC hammer UM, I have a hard time believing the tiny 10 even should have had a horse in the race; but that's hindsight. But, I think it's pretty safe to say, if we'd had a playoff system then, it would have been UF/LSU. So what if you've played them before. That happens in all playoffs of just about every sport I can think of. The championship game is where you find out who can step up and play above themselves for all the marbles.

That's not to say that tOSU and UM should have been able to replay their game for the NC without a playoff; because that doesn't allow other teams to challenge for the spot. A playoff would have probably weeded them both out.

That's why I say a replay between 2 conference rivals doesn't make sense in the BCS system. Human beings would be VOTING them there. If those two teams still ended up as the last 2 standing after facing challenges from other teams in a playoff, then so be it. Who can complain... they took on all comers.

[zartan]

haha, GU said 'tOSU' three times in that post. geechee's head should explode any second now...

[gatorunvrsty]

haha, GU said 'tOSU' three times in that post. geechee's head should explode any second now...

I give myself a little laugh doing that... for some reason, I keep thinking of tofu... which also isn't very good.:happy:

[shanksta13]

I don't like the idea of a National Championship game that is a repeat of a game played during the regular season. Michigan fans felt slighted after being left out in '06 when Florida got the nod, but in my opinion, Michigan knew they needed to win the game vs. Ohio State to make it into the title game. If you don't win your conference, you dont' deserve to be in the national title game in my opinion.

Okay, but that was the last game of the season, when they knew what was on the line. What if LSU and Auburn both go undefeated except for the game they play against each other in mid September?

[zartan]

i have heard the argument that early losses are more forgivable because teams are supposed to improve over the course of the season and that's why an early loss shouldn't hurt as much in the BCS scheme of things.

i personally think that's a bunch of crap, though. it ignores injuries, for one. a team could be mighty beaten up by november...

[shanksta13]

i have heard the argument that early losses are more forgivable because teams are supposed to improve over the course of the season and that's why an early loss shouldn't hurt as much in the BCS scheme of things.

i personally think that's a bunch of crap, though. it ignores injuries, for one. a team could be mighty beaten up by november...

My point was more that in the Ohio State vs. Michigan scenario in 2006, they played in their last game of the season, basically an elimination game for the National Championship and both squads knew that. Whereas, if LSU plays Auburn early in the year and they both run the table the rest of the year, you have two teams that have won 8 or 9 games in a row and only lost to the other one. Whereas in the Ohio State vs. Michigan scenario, one had just lost. Can you turn down an 11-1 SEC team that doesn't play for the SEC Championship game just because they lost a game to the 13-0 SEC champion in the first month of the season?

[HitYourStride!]

Its all about Money! Period..

If things would have stayed without team rankings being moved, we would of had to watch Missouri play West Virginia. The viewers and ratings would have been low.....

The BCS is about making money, that's why it always plays out the way it does.