Thoughts on the BCS Bowl line up

Discussion in 'Sports' started by Jimmy C, Dec 6, 2004.

  1. Jimmy C

    Jimmy C
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2003
    Messages:
    1,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think the BCS got it right for the championship. Auburn had a great season - but their non conference schedule was pathetic - and I think it cost them.

    OKs whipping of Colorado cinched them into the final, as did USCs domination of UCLA.

    BCS messed up by allowing the Big Least into the BCS after the conference was so depleted - rules are rules, but if Pitt was not in the BCS, we would probably have Texas Vs Utah - which would have been a great test for Utah - and a chance to show that they really belong. Cal would have been in the Rose - where they think they belong.

    Texas got what they wanted - a BCS bid in the Rose - now they have to show that they can handle big game pressure and beat Mich. Handeling pressure is not something Texas under Mac Brown has done well, look at this years OK game!

    Texas getting into the Rose, got A&M into the Cotton against TN - GO AGGIES WHOOP! The strength of schedule in the Big 12 South really paid off for OK and TX - the Big 12 South is well represented in the bowls - OK, TX, A&M, Texas Tech - all good teams in decent bowls

    I actually think Utah got the worst deal of any of the teams that made the BCS - beating Pitt does nothing for them, they needed to play at least TX.
     
  2. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Utah got no respect all season since they were in our weak sister conference. But the system fails again . . this is news to anyone??

    I saw how tough UCLA played USC. UCLA played a really poor schedule and its 6 wins were not over a single bowl-bound team!

    But THEY get to go to the Las Vegas Bowl and play my woeful Wyoming Cowboys who, good season or bad, NEVER win bowl games. Oh, wait, think they DID win a bowl game in the early 60's . .
     
  3. WallyGator

    WallyGator
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2003
    Messages:
    4,180
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think most folks are waiting for the USC-Oklahoma match-up. Beyond that, the BCS bowls are not very extra-ordinary. Texas backed into the Rose Bowl; just hope they don't follow their past lackadaisacal(sp) approach to bowls. Would have loved to see Utah really tested.
    WallyGator
     
  4. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,074
    Likes Received:
    102
    Come on, Dr. Bob; it's not been that long. The Cowboys last played in the 1993 Copper Bowl.

    Of course, you have to go back to the '60s to find a win ...
     
  5. Broadus

    Broadus
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2004
    Messages:
    716
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry, but the whole BCS is a fiasco. Cal doesn't go to a BCS game? Pitt goes to a BCS bowl? Auburn gets locked out of a national championship opportunity because they began the season rated something like 17th. That was a huge hurdle to overcome, too huge with Southern Cal and Oklahoma staying undefeated.

    I wish 1A college football would either have a legitimate playoff system or scrap the BCS and go back to the bowls picking the best teams available.

    BTW, USC and Oklahoma deserve to be playing in a championship game, but something is desparately wrong for Auburn to have practically no chance for a national championship. Going undefeated in the SEC is no small achievement.
     
  6. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    USC/Oklahoma get the bowl; Auburn got the shaft. :cool:
     
  7. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Auburn didn't get locked out because they started teh season 17th. Auburn got locked out because they loaded up on Lousiana Monroe, Lousiana Tech, and the Citadel. We BaptistBoarders could probably put together a team that may beat those guys. You can't complain about getting the shaft when you schedule Creampuff U. for your non-conference games.

    Cal got the shaft by going to Ole Miss (was it??), winning, and losing the Rose Bowl. But even then, they knew what they had to do. Everyone knew going into the season what the criteria was. For Cal to take a knee rather than scoring hurt them.

    But in the end, it is clear that USC and OU are the two best teams in the country. They deserve to play in that game. Auburn doesn't.

    The problem with tournaments and playoffs is that they do not always give you the best team at the end. If the National Championship is supposed to be about the "best team," then this is how you go about it, IMO.
     
  8. WallyGator

    WallyGator
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2003
    Messages:
    4,180
    Likes Received:
    0
    IMHO, the "best" team when? beginning of season, midway season, end of schedule, after bowl game, after playoff? They say on any afternoon, the best team could be off and lose. Same with bowl games, best team could have off day and lose. Playoffs, like college baseball, double elimanation? No, IMHO, when the smoke clears, the last one standing is the best team. BCS is a flawed system, an eight-team playoff, like II-A or III-A would be better.
     
  9. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think the answer to the "when" question is "the year." The poll system as it now stands usually has a decent consensus on who the best two teams are. The BCS may be flawed, but going to an 8 team playoff or 16 team playoff doesn't help any because there is always the 9th and the 17th (or the 33rd or 65th or whatever) team.

    You could take all the conference champions and play them in a tournament. That way, everyone has an equal shot, but even then, the two best teams may be in the same conference. I don't think a tournament shows anything other than the tournament winner, which is the best team on a given day, not the best team.
     
  10. Broadus

    Broadus
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2004
    Messages:
    716
    Likes Received:
    0
    Obviously, there is no perfect system. If you're going to have some sort of a playoff, though, at least have something more than the foolishness of the BCS. Southern Cal got shafted last year, and Auburn, as well as Cal, got it this year. At least Southern Cal was able to be declared national champ in one poll. Auburn has no chance. Please, someone justify Pitt going to a top-rated bowl.

    If you take the top sixteen teams, as I-AA does, no one seriously gripes about no. 17 not making it. I've followed I-AA since they've had a playoff system (a Georgia Southern grad), and I can't think of any year it's been a big issue. Surely all agree that no. 17 is much less likely than no. 3 to win the championship. The BCS is a compromise between a playoff system and the traditional bowls, and it has created more problems than it has solved.

    Somehow, though, I suspect this is not the last word!
     
  11. Alcott

    Alcott
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,456
    Likes Received:
    93
    Then are you in favor of getting rid of all playoffs in any sports on any level?
     
  12. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, but I think college football is a different animal and part of the intrique of it is the debate about who is better. I just don't seen any need to have a playoff.

    I do think the college presidents are disingenuous claiming it about about class time and going into the second semeseter.

    If you were bent on playoffs, you could keep the current bowl system and do it this way. Right now, the season for most teams ends in teh middle to end of November. Bowls begin the end of December leaving four weeks of nothing. Bowls are usually bad to start becuase teams haven't been in game shape for a month. You could take those four weeks and play off the top 16 teams and designate one bowl a year as the championship game (similar to the BCS). Teams who lost in the playoffs would fill the other BCS bowls.

    I just don't think it is necessary.
     
  13. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    BTW, I don't think USC got shafted last year. Every team, going into the season, knew what the rules were. USC should have played by those rules just as Cal should have this year. When the rules encourage big scores, you can't take a knee and then complain that you got shafted. You can say "character" matters more, but you can't complain you got shafted. You knew what you had to do and you didn't do it.
     
  14. Broadus

    Broadus
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2004
    Messages:
    716
    Likes Received:
    0
    Larry,

    Weren't the rules changed a few years ago to discourage running up scores? Somewhere in the back of my cluttered and dysfunctional memory I recall a reaction to the gaudy scores by some schools seeking to enhance their poll position.

    Bill
     
  15. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    It was to some degree, but margin of victory I think is still somewhat of a factor, but not as much as before. Don't they call it "quality wins" or something? I don't know how they figure it all out. I think it does play a factor for sure in human polls.
     
  16. EaglewingIS4031

    EaglewingIS4031
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2004
    Messages:
    248
    Likes Received:
    0
    It was Southern Miss! Please do not insult mine and Brett Farve's alma mater that way. We may not be in a BCS conference but we are the largest school in Mississippi! I know you are from Michigan so you are forgiven. ( I'd have to do a lot of praying before I forgave a southerner for calling us Ole Miss!)
    It was classy for Cal to take a knee against us, and we appreciate it. But it was so STUPID!
     
  17. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, my apologies ... I am a southerner who couldn't remember who they played. I am originally from the South, and have lived in the north for about 11 years now.
     
  18. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    1) Yes, they did. If Auburn had started the season 1st or 2nd, they would be playing in the BCS (non)Championship Game.

    If USC or Oklahoma had started 17th, then that team would have been left out of the BCS (non)Championship Game.

    2) That is not true. The SEC is harder to go undefeated through than the Big 12 or the PAC 10, regardless of a team's three non-conference games.

    Since we are going to have to continue with this BCS mess for another five years, maybe non-conference games shouldn't count in the BCS standings.
     
  19. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't think so, Ken. Auburn started 17th for a reason. Going undefeated in teh SEC is good. But when you schedule creampuffs in your non-conference schedule, you can't complain when you get locked out of the BCS championship game. If Auburn had started first or second, they probably would have fallen because of their non conference wins. They are not "quality wins."

    USC or OU didn't start 17th because of last year. Auburn doesn't have that privilege. Chances are, they will start higher next year because of their success this year.

    But all that being said, the two best teams are playing in the championship game and that is what the BCS was supposed to do. IT was not supposed to cover up for weak non-conference schedules. Auburn should go out and schedule some decent teams to play.
     
  20. whatever

    whatever
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    2,088
    Likes Received:
    0
    Cool, another Golden Eagle! BS (math), 1987.

    Taking a knee in that situation is the right thing to do, IMO. Sometimes you do the right thing and it costs you. I don't think it was stupid.

    And you would think people here in SEC country would know better, but I get that "Ole Miss" thing all the time around here.
     

Share This Page

Loading...