Congressman proposes killing BCS

[nmmetsfan]

If I thought Congress wouldn't ultimately screw it up I would support this measure.

Moreover, I've often wondered if the non-BCS schools had some sort of anti-trust grounds since they have no chance at a national title and the BCS schools are hording most of the BCS money. It might be a stretch but it only takes one judge.

 

[schiezainc]

Don't these clowns have anything better to do?

Bail out Wall Street? Bail out the auto makers? Bail out the mortgage business? Bail out the Longhorns?

Bail out the Detroit Lions?

They're not miracle workers.

"And with the No. 1 pick in the 2009 NFL Draft, the Detroit Lions have selected ..... Pierre Brown, Texas A&M? What the ****?"

As long as it's not another darn under-achieving wide receiver.

Sorry....

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/players/115848

 

[fossywriter8]

I always found it interesting that NCAA Division I presidents say they don't want a playoff because it would interfere with their players' classes, while every other form of collegiate football, from NCAA Divsion I-AA (or whatever it's called now) to Division III to NAIA have no problem running playoffs.

 

[shotglass]

My biggest problem remains that the Troys, Boise States and Louisiana-Monroes of the world have no opportunity to reach their pinnacle -- a championship. And I don't mean a Sun Belt championship.

If you're Loras College, you have a route to a national title.

If you're Cheyney University, you have a route to a national title.

If you're Central Arkansas, you have a route to a national title.

If you're Syracuse, you have a route to a national title.

If you're Utah, no such route exists.

That's wrong.

 

[JayFarrar]

Syracuse has a route to the national title of worst major program in the country? Or do you mean something like lacrosse. Of course John Hopkins rules college lacrosse.
And just because, Central Arkansas is moving up to I-AA and won't be eligible for the playoff until 2010, so they have no route to the national title of anything in an sport.

 

[shotglass]

Syracuse has a route to the national title. You don't have to make value judgments in this argument, Jay.

And just because, Bucknell. So there.

 

[Mystery_Meat]

Syracuse and Utah have the same route to a national title -- get in the top two of the BCS, then win the BCS title game. If you want to make the case that Syracuse has an easier route to a BCS bowl, that's different. But everyone has the same opportunity to top the BCS ratings)

 

[shotglass]

Hmmm. I never looked at it that way.

Still haven't. Not when an unbeaten team doesn't get close to the top two of the BCS rankings.

(Incidentally, if anyone thinks an unbeaten team could get shut out of the FCS playoffs, please pipe up. I freely admit that I don't know the FCS as well as some.)

 

[schiezainc]

Syracuse and Utah have the same route to a national title -- get in the top two of the BCS, then win the BCS title game. If you want to make the case that Syracuse has an easier route to a BCS bowl, that's different. But everyone has the same opportunity to top the BCS ratings)

I don't care what sport you're playing. If you go undefeated in your schedule and that schedule was approved by the powers to be, you should have a chance to compete for that sports title.

In the NCAA, there are a whole bunch of teams that could go undefeated and, if they're lucky, the best they'll do is a lower-tier bowl game.

That, my friend, is why I refuse to watch college moneyball.

 

[shotglass]

Syracuse and Utah have the same route to a national title -- get in the top two of the BCS, then win the BCS title game. If you want to make the case that Syracuse has an easier route to a BCS bowl, that's different. But everyone has the same opportunity to top the BCS ratings)

I don't care what sport you're playing. If you go undefeated in your schedule and that schedule was approved by the powers to be, you should have a chance to compete for that sports title.

In the NCAA, there are a whole bunch of teams that could go undefeated and, if they're lucky, the best they'll do is a lower-tier bowl game.

That, my friend, is why I refuse to watch college moneyball.

Voila.

 

[Mystery_Meat]

Syracuse and Utah have the same route to a national title -- get in the top two of the BCS, then win the BCS title game. If you want to make the case that Syracuse has an easier route to a BCS bowl, that's different. But everyone has the same opportunity to top the BCS ratings)

I don't care what sport you're playing. If you go undefeated in your schedule and that schedule was approved by the powers to be, you should have a chance to compete for that sports title.

In the NCAA, there are a whole bunch of teams that could go undefeated and, if they're lucky, the best they'll do is a lower-tier bowl game.

That, my friend, is why I refuse to watch college moneyball.

But the statement put forth was that Syracuse has a path and Utah doesn't. That's not exactly true. If Utah or Boise State or any of the other mid-majors were to rank highly enough between the coaches and Harris polls and the computers, they too can be No. 1 or 2 in the final BCS standings. You're arguing something else -- that undefeated teams should always be in contention for a national title. If you're willing to say with a straight face that had Ball State gone unbeaten, they deserve a national title shot more than Oklahoma, Florida, Texas, USC, Penn State, Alabama or Texas Tech, then that's your call. I'm not sold.

But Syracuse and Utah, by the letter of the BCS law, have the same opportunity to win a BCS title. I'd be willing to be that Utah will have an easier path next season, because they'll be higher in the preseason poll than Syracuse will be. I'm pretty sure that's been the case for a while with those two teams.

 

[Oz]

But Syracuse and Utah, by the letter of the BCS law, have the same opportunity to win a BCS title. I'd be willing to be that Utah will have an easier path next season, because they'll be higher in the preseason poll than Syracuse will be. I'm pretty sure that's been the case for a while with those two teams.

They both have an opportunity, sure, but it's still slanted to the BCS conferences. No one talked about Utah for a BCS championship game, but some people did mention USC, even though there's Oregon State as a common opponent and the fact that the Mountain West went 6-1 against Pac-10 opponents this season.

And look at Kansas a year ago -- had it beaten Mizzou and then Oklahoma for the Big 12 title, it would have played for the national championship, despite coming from nowhere. You can do that in a BCS conference. The Utahs and BYUs and Ball States aren't given the same benefit of the doubt as a Syracuse would, based on conference affiliation alone.

 

[Mystery_Meat]

But Syracuse and Utah, by the letter of the BCS law, have the same opportunity to win a BCS title. I'd be willing to be that Utah will have an easier path next season, because they'll be higher in the preseason poll than Syracuse will be. I'm pretty sure that's been the case for a while with those two teams.

They both have an opportunity, sure, but it's still slanted to the BCS conferences. No one talked about Utah for a BCS championship game, but some people did mention USC, even though there's Oregon State as a common opponent and the fact that the Mountain West went 6-1 against Pac-10 opponents this season.

And look at Kansas a year ago -- had it beaten Mizzou and then Oklahoma for the Big 12 title, it would have played for the national championship, despite coming from nowhere. You can do that in a BCS conference. The Utahs and BYUs and Ball States aren't given the same benefit of the doubt as a Syracuse would, based on conference affiliation alone.

Getting into a BCS bowl is slanted towards BCS conferences, yes, because they have tie-ins that the non-BCS conferences do not. But it's still a matter of getting the highest BCS rating to get a title game bid. The computers don't give bonus points to a Big 12 or Big Ten team just because that's where they play.

Nowhere outside OF Southern California has USC been seriously touted as deserving of a spot in the title game. People have made the case that they're one of the best teams in the country (I'd still take Oklahoma and Florida over them by a long road). But nobody's out there complaining that USC got jobbed out of a title shot. That died with the Oregon State loss (and that not enough teams ahead of them lost). Using Oregon State as a common foe and the Mountain West's record against the Pac 10 is sort of specious -- especially when the only two quality wins were Utah-Oregon State and New Mexico-Arizona.

As for Kansas -- if they went undefeated last year, nobody would have flinched about them in the national title game because of the teams they would have beaten, but you make it sound like it's simply the Big XII name getting them in. Conversely, you could have made a very good case for TCU in the national title game had they gone unbeaten, because they would have beaten Oklahoma, Utah and BYU.

Syracuse could have gone unbeaten and still been behind an unbeaten Utah because the voters have more esteem for the Mountain West than the Big East this season. People aren't complaining about Utah in a BCS bowl, they're complaining about Cincinnati.

 

[Oz]

As for Kansas -- if they went undefeated last year, nobody would have flinched about them in the national title game because of the teams they would have beaten, but you make it sound like it's simply the Big XII name getting them in.

KU would have beaten two ranked teams last yera had that happened, Mizzou and OU. Otherwise, the schedule was as soft as they came, so yes, the Big 12 affiliation would have been the major reason they would have made a championship game. Because if that same team comes from the Mountain West, no one votes them in.

 

[Mystery_Meat]

KU would have beaten two ranked teams last yera had that happened, Mizzou and OU. Otherwise, the schedule was as soft as they came, so yes, the Big 12 affiliation would have been the major reason they would have made a championship game. Because if that same team comes from the Mountain West, no one votes them in

Except Kansas itself had no name recognition in football at the time, so they would have overcome that handicap. Beating Missouri and Oklahoma would have given them two late-season wins against top-5 opponents, and that would have carried a lot of weight. Plus unlike this season, where you had a pretty good idea of who was good and who wasn't, last year damn near everyone had a shot at the top 8, so if South Florida, Boston College, Oregon, Kentucky and South Carolina can sneak in, why not Kansas?

If Utah or TCU had an undefeated record with wins over Missouri and Oklahoma, they were getting in the title game last year.

KU would have beaten two ranked teams last yera had that happened, Mizzou and OU. Otherwise, the schedule was as soft as they came, so yes, the Big 12 affiliation would have been the major reason they would have made a championship game. Because if that same team comes from the Mountain West, no one votes them in.

 

[schiezainc]

The problem I have with the BCS, besides the aforementioned undefeated teams not guaranteed to get a shot at a title issue, is that if you applied this system to decide the NBA, NFL or MLB titles, no one would take it seriously.

I mean, think about it. Last year New England and Dallas would have competed in the Super Bowl, leaving the Giants on the outside looking in. Would the two best teams (record-wise) have played each other? Yes. Would it have been a legit championship for the winner? I can't see how you could say it was.

Dallas proved in the playoffs that they weren't as good as their record and the Giants became champions by doing what you're suppose to in sports..beating everyone you play.

In the NCAAs, if you don't get respect by the computer, it doesn't matter if you have the best team or not, you've got no chance at vying for a title.

It's just not as much fun without a level playing ground.

 

[BB Bobcat]

You're arguing something else -- that undefeated teams should always be in contention for a national title. If you're willing to say with a straight face that had Ball State gone unbeaten, they deserve a national title shot more than Oklahoma, Florida, Texas, USC, Penn State, Alabama or Texas Tech, then that's your call. I'm not sold.

I'd suggest that any undefeated team deserves a right to play on the field for the national championship: not necessarily directly into a single-game championship, but certainly into an 8-team field.

If I were drawing up an NCAA playoff, I'd say that any Division I-A team that is undefeated automatically gets a spot in the 8-team field. After that, take the 6 champs of the BCS conferences and one or two at-large teams. That way, every single team in the nation actually has it within their control to win the national championship. If no one beats you, you will be the national champ, whether you are Ohio University or Ohio State.

 

[Mystery_Meat]

You're arguing something else -- that undefeated teams should always be in contention for a national title. If you're willing to say with a straight face that had Ball State gone unbeaten, they deserve a national title shot more than Oklahoma, Florida, Texas, USC, Penn State, Alabama or Texas Tech, then that's your call. I'm not sold.

I'd suggest that any undefeated team deserves a right to play on the field for the national championship: not necessarily directly into a single-game championship, but certainly into an 8-team field.

If I were drawing up an NCAA playoff, I'd say that any Division I-A team that is undefeated automatically gets a spot in the 8-team field. After that, take the 6 champs of the BCS conferences and one or two at-large teams. That way, every single team in the nation actually has it within their control to win the national championship. If no one beats you, you will be the national champ, whether you are Ohio University or Ohio State.

What do you do if Ball State won against Buffalo and you had three non-BCS undefeateds?

 

[BB Bobcat]

You're arguing something else -- that undefeated teams should always be in contention for a national title. If you're willing to say with a straight face that had Ball State gone unbeaten, they deserve a national title shot more than Oklahoma, Florida, Texas, USC, Penn State, Alabama or Texas Tech, then that's your call. I'm not sold.

I'd suggest that any undefeated team deserves a right to play on the field for the national championship: not necessarily directly into a single-game championship, but certainly into an 8-team field.

If I were drawing up an NCAA playoff, I'd say that any Division I-A team that is undefeated automatically gets a spot in the 8-team field. After that, take the 6 champs of the BCS conferences and one or two at-large teams. That way, every single team in the nation actually has it within their control to win the national championship. If no one beats you, you will be the national champ, whether you are Ohio University or Ohio State.

What do you do if Ball State won against Buffalo and you had three non-BCS undefeateds?

In the highly unlikely chance that occurred, I'd say one of the BCS champs would be bounced. Tough cookies for them. It may be unfair, but it's more fair than now, when four of the BCS conference champs are screwed out of a shot at the title.

 

[2muchcoffeeman]

You're arguing something else -- that undefeated teams should always be in contention for a national title. If you're willing to say with a straight face that had Ball State gone unbeaten, they deserve a national title shot more than Oklahoma, Florida, Texas, USC, Penn State, Alabama or Texas Tech, then that's your call. I'm not sold.

I'd suggest that any undefeated team deserves a right to play on the field for the national championship: not necessarily directly into a single-game championship, but certainly into an 8-team field.

If I were drawing up an NCAA playoff, I'd say that any Division I-A team that is undefeated automatically gets a spot in the 8-team field. After that, take the 6 champs of the BCS conferences and one or two at-large teams. That way, every single team in the nation actually has it within their control to win the national championship. If no one beats you, you will be the national champ, whether you are Ohio University or Ohio State.

What do you do if Ball State won against Buffalo and you had three non-BCS undefeateds?

In the highly unlikely chance that occurred, I'd say one of the BCS champs would be bounced. Tough cookies for them. It may be unfair, but it's more fair than now, when four of the BCS conference champs are screwed out of a shot at the title.

And that, folks, is why we need a 16-team playoff.

http://www.whatifsports.com/decmadness/bracket.asp?r=1