BCS

[Smoggy]

Watching the selection show, I find it absolutely hilarious that every coach has essentially said they want a playoff. Even though I live in So. Cal, I'm not a USC fan. However, even though I've always cheered for the Big 10, I'll cheer for USC in the hopes that they are awarded a share of the national championship and destroy the BCS.

We may have our SOS problems in DII, but thank goodness we get to play the games. Neither GVSU or UND would be in the national championship game without a tournament and both are deservedly going to Florence.

[Sandram]

Couldn't agree with you more, smoggy! I'm always in favor of having the end of the season turn out just like this to show how silly the BCS is and how much sense a playoff system would make. USC loses one road game in, what was it, 3 OT's and is not playing for the so-called "championship". I really hope they beat Michigan just so there will be two "national champions".

With a playoff system, there will then be arguments about who got screwed out of being in the play-offs, but it is so much more exciting and fair than some computers deciding it. BTW, don't you love the way they add rules to the BCS "formula" every year to address the latest controvery - just to make it worse. I think it's called the "law of unintended consequences"!!

Sandram

[flatspin7]

The BCS is obviously messed up. The simple fact that there will be 2 national champions if USC beats Michigan show that the system is flawed.

D2 and D1AA as well as most other sports have some sort of play off /tourney that is influenced by alot of the BCS factors (SOS and rankings) and after it is all said and done we will all know if UND is the champion or not- It will be decided on the feild not in some old crappy computer.

[redwing77]

The BCS is obviously messed up. The simple fact that there will be 2 national champions if USC beats Michigan show that the system is flawed.

D2 and D1AA as well as most other sports have some sort of play off /tourney that is influenced by alot of the BCS factors (SOS and rankings) and after it is all said and done we will all know if UND is the champion or not- It will be decided on the feild not in some old crappy computer.

2 national champions was something that happened recently in the past.

By the way, I heard somewhere that the BCS contract is up for re-enacting or whatever. Ten to One goodbye BCS.

[Smoggy]

2 national champions was something that happened recently in the past.

By the way, I heard somewhere that the BCS contract is up for re-enacting or whatever. Ten to One goodbye BCS.

The last time there were two national champs was before the BCS (I believe it was Michigan and someone). The whole idea behind the BCS was to ensure that there wouldn't be a shared title. But the press has their vote and the coaches are forced to vote for the BCS "champion." Hence, we can still have a shared DI title.

With the system they run, if you can't win your conference, you don't belong in the national championship. Now if they had playoffs, then this would be diferent story.

[Riverman]

All other D1 sports playoff!

I agree the BCS=BS!

But money talks.And we all know how the NC$$ works.

Don't even get me started on how they are treating our brother CC in hockey!

[Fighting Sioux Fan]

Why does not Oklahoma deserve a shot at the championship? USC has one loss, so does OU and LSU. OKlahoma clearly dominated during the season and lost only in the Conference Championship for the Big 12. The SOS was also tougher then USC. Even if you throw our that Quality Win crap, OU still is better in the BCS. It sucks for USC, that is how it works though. Maybe they should not have lost the game that they did...

[redwing77]

I could swear it's happened in the 90s the two national titles.

With Oregon (I think) getting screwed out of a bowl a few years ago in favor of Virginia Tech and USC's snafu this year, the PAC 10 will probably be pining to get out of the BCS. They nearly pulled out until Oregon got a major bowl bid.

I wish I knew more about the BCS system. But anything that is too hard to understand isn't worth it.

[Diggler]

It happened in 97 with Nebraska and Michigan. 94 with Penn State and Nebraska. In 91(?) with Washington and I believe Georgia Tech.

[Smoggy]

Fighting Sioux Fan,

First I DON'T like USC. Secondly Oklahoma doesn't belong in because they couldn't even win their own conference. Plus they lost at the end of the season, which always looks bad. While our SOS doesn't take into account enough teams, the BCS SOS takes into account the record of the team your playing and the recored of who they played and so on. Any time Hawaii and Boise State decide who gets to go to the national title game, you know something isn't right.

I could swear it's happened in the 90s the two national titles.

With Oregon (I think) getting screwed out of a bowl a few years ago in favor of Virginia Tech and USC's snafu this year, the PAC 10 will probably be pining to get out of the BCS.  They nearly pulled out until Oregon got a major bowl bid.

I wish I knew more about the BCS system.  But anything that is too hard to understand isn't worth it.

I went to the Oregon game when they got 'stuck' at the Fiesta Bowl. It was in 2001 I believe. Yet another case where Nebraska didn't even play in the conference championship and yet they got to go to the national title game where they got pummelled. I believe it was Miami that beat them.

Obviously the conference championship games are hurting DI teams, but they make too much money at them to quit playing them.

Edited December 8, 2003 by cheeringsiouxfromsmoggycali

[redwing77]

First I DON'T like USC. Secondly Oklahoma doesn't belong in because they couldn't even win their own conference. Plus they lost at the end of the season, which always looks bad. While our SOS doesn't take into account enough teams, the BCS SOS takes into account the record of the team your playing and the recored of who they played and so on. Any time Hawaii and Boise State decide who gets to go to the national title game, you know something isn't right.

I went to the Oregon game when they got 'stuck' at the Fiesta Bowl. It was in 2001 I believe. Yet another case where Nebraska didn't even play in the conference championship and yet they got to go to the national title game where they got pummelled. I believe it was Miami that beat them.

Obviously the conference championship games are hurting DI teams, but they make too much money at them to quit playing them.

I was in Seattle at the time. I couldn't remember if it was Oregon or Washington that got screwed in favor of Virginia Tech. But I remember that year because Miami's only loss came in Washington. It was one of the few times I saw UW fans calling for Oregon

[SiouxTupa]

Polls are OPINIONS. PLAYOFF!!! Playoff playoff playoff playoff.

You can't get screwed if you lose the game. You can only get screwed when you don't play in the game.

[CoteauRinkRat]

BCS contract is through the 2005 season.

[Bisonfan1234]

You guys have it all wrong.

The BSC is flawed, yes. The reason it's flawed: it takes into account 2 human polls!

If it was simply a straight computer algorithem that took into account only wins/losses, strength of schedule, etc. (in other words, obvious stats from the games played) and discounted humans which are obviously biased, the BCS would be perfect.

Other than that, a playoff would be aweful for college football. The bowls make SO much money it's unreal. No one is going to give up all that dough for a play-off.

With that being said, USC lost to Cal and beat some not-so great teams (Notre Dame). That is why they're out of it despite the biased human polls ranking them #1.

Screw the polls.

[nodakvindy]

This "bowls make money" thing is a crock. I was in Nashville last year and the Music City Bowl was crushed when they learned Minnesota would be in. The Gophs don't travel well and that bowl lost a ton of money. If the bowls were swimming in cash they would pick teams that deserve to be there, not ones who travel well and get the tickets sold. Most of these places have bowls to attract tourist dollars. Well, neutral site NCAA playoff games would do that, just like the hoops regionals do. If you want, you can still have the minor bowls (Humanitarian, Independence, Ft. Worth, etc.) for non-playoff teams, serving a purpose similar to that of the NIT.

[SiouxTupa]

If it was simply a straight computer algorithem that took into account only wins/losses, strength of schedule, etc. (in other words, obvious stats from the games played) and discounted humans which are obviously biased, the BCS would be perfect..

Are you kidding???

Nothing is perfect, and if you were on the football field, you wouldn't want the hopes and dreams of your season riding on a computer.

I hear what you're saying about the bowls garnering dollars, but seriously...Money can be made other ways. Personally, not being a corporate tycoon or bowl sponsor, I could care less about dollars and would MUCH rather see two qualified teams battle it out on the field. Who wants another debacle like Miami/Nebraska...yes we liked having eventual Heisman winner Tim Couch in the NC, but look at the score...Unless you're a home-town fan, who wants to see someone run up the score?

Scrap IT!!!

PLAYOFF PLAYOFF PLAYOFF

[jojordan23]

So who says they have to lose the Bowls? Why can't the places the Bowl games are played just host a playoff game? Some Bowls are more prestigious than others already, so why not put the bigger bowls towards the end of the playoff schedule. Does anyone know how many conferences there are in Div I-A football? Are there that many that they couldn't put them into regions and take the top 2 or even 4 from a region for playoffs? We all knew it was a matter of time before there was a BIG outcry about the BCS. The past few years, it has been pretty much right on, IMO, but this year, I HAVE to question how Oaklahoma could be in the title game. Had they destroyed Kansas St., sure, then they should be playing in it.

[Bisonfan1234]

Bowls are run like a business, if they don't make money, they don't exist. Thus, they must make money for someone to keep having them. Bowls are great advertising and thus corporations are sponsering them. This means alot of money made for whoever is hosting the bowl.

If the non-major bowls don't make much money, then how come the Alamo bowl is giving $1.45 million dollars to the teams playing. Likewise, the Sun bowl is giving away $1.425.

Nothing is perfect, and if you were on the football field, you wouldn't want the hopes and dreams of your season riding on a computer.

This is simply your opinion.

The reason my opinion is the opposite is because with a computer you get a fair result. A computer can only look at the numbers. Numbers can never lie.

However, when you add humans into the equation they start saying things like well, if, but, would have,etc. Even the best ranking humans are naturally biased and look at intagebles by nature. This is why humans have never been good at picking teams to win (which in turn has spawned gambling) and why polls are worthless.

My main point here is to take humans out of the equation when ranking teams. This can be either seeding teams for a play-off, or seeding teams for bowls. But, while we're at it, i'm pro-bowls.

[Bisonfan1234]

So who says they have to lose the Bowls? Why can't the places the Bowl games are played just host a playoff game? Some Bowls are more prestigious than others already, so why not put the bigger bowls towards the end of the playoff schedule. Does anyone know how many conferences there are in Div I-A football? Are there that many that they couldn't put them into regions and take the top 2 or even 4 from a region for playoffs? We all knew it was a matter of time before there was a BIG outcry about the BCS. The past few years, it has been pretty much right on, IMO, but this year, I HAVE to question how Oaklahoma could be in the title game. Had they destroyed Kansas St., sure, then they should be playing in it.

Going undefeated (including a 77-7 win) counts for nothing if you lose badly at the end?

[The Sicatoka]

Kansas State 35

Oklahoma 7

The Sooners are not undefeated. If they would have lost by a TD or less I wouldn't have problems with it either. But losing by four .... touchdowns?

Sorry but USC and LSU should be playing.

Oh well, USC will win, it'll split the title and they'll have to do something real with the BCS down the road.

[CoteauRinkRat]

The BCS is really a joke, I can't believe there are people who actually defend the system.

[Bisonfan1234]

Kansas State 35

Oklahoma 7

The Sooners are not undefeated. If they would have lost by a TD or less I wouldn't have problems with it either. But losing by four .... touchdowns?

Sorry but USC and LSU should be playing.

Oh well, USC will win, it'll split the title and they'll have to do something real with the BCS down the road.

This is a prime example of why humans need to be taken out of the seeding system (whether or not we're talking about the Bowls or a play-off).

Your naive imperceptiblity is incomprehensible to me. What gives you the power to say that USC and LSU should be 1/2 over Oklahoma? How can you justify this? If it is simply because they lost to Kstate by 28, then you are indeed naive. So what that they lost by 28? LSU lost to Florida and USC lost to UC-Berkeley. There is no possible way for you to justify what you say unless you can prove that LSU and USC are better than OU. The only way you can do this is by creating a point system based on mesurable quntities (e.g. number of wins, number of losses, number of opponant's wins/loses, number of opponent's opponent's wins/loses, etc.) and then tally the score.

This has already (more or less) been done, and dispite biased human polls try to throw out OU, they've still managed to win the computers. In other words, if it had been only computers (IMO the fairest way) then OU would have had an even better score. Thus there is no possible way you can justify not have OU in the title game (or ranked 2nd if we're talking about a play-off).

[MinnesotaNorthStar]

I love it, I love it, I love it!!!

I've been waiting for a situation to prove the BCS was a crock of sh*t since it's inception. Oklahoma deserves a shot. So does USC and LSU. So do 13 other D1-A teams. There needs to be a playoff. It HAS to be settled on the field, not through some damn computer. Would the Sioux be playing for a National Championship on Saturday if D2 had the BCS in place? No. It'd be UNA and Saginaw Valley (maybe). Where are those teams? Watching with the Bison at home. Upsets can happen.

As for USC didn't play anybody, it's not their fault that the teams they played didn't play well all year. 4 teams that they played were preranked in the Top 25. They finished with a combined record a few games below .500. Plus, the PAC-10 isn't a very good conferece top to bottom. USC, however, didn't beat these teams...they dominated them. Margin of victory is not in the BCS equation, and it should be.

Settle it on the field...A playoff is the only answer. IMHO...Oklahoma and USC should be playing.

[airmail]

Definitely should be decided on the field. Not by a poll, not by a computer and a million numbers... let the players decide, and see who wants it the most. That is the only way to see who the real champion is.

Can you even be a champion without competing for a championship?

[Bisonfan1234]

Ok, i think i'm with you guys on a play-off.

However, who gets in? Auto-bids? Simply the top 16 get in?

How do you rank the teams? IMO it needs to be a computer and only a computer. Humans are biased.