BCS Disaster Looming? (Page 2)

Well, I guess I'm a purist here because I hate the idea of a playoff system.  I also pretty much hate the BCS, but at least it somewhat resembles a "Bowl Season".

For me, I don't care whether or not a "true champion" is crowned.  Even if a team wins in the BCS championship game, there will *still* be tons of speculation about whether or not Team X could have beaten them if only they weren't screwed by the Sagarin portion of the algorithm.

Whatever.

Just pit conference champion against conference champion in  old-school bowls, and remember that bowl games are supposed to be rewards for teams and their fans after a great season ... one more game, one more reason to wear the school colors and one more reason to drink beer with family and friends.  If AP says the champ is one team and the coaches & USA Today say the champ is another team, so be it.

Seriously, I just have never understood the need for there to one definitive champion in college football.

By the way, USC squeaks in against Bama in the BCS game, and blows their doors off!  

They have 11 teams, they could have a championship game.  But, I'll bite, if they don't have enough teams for a conference championship, then why don't they do what the PAC10 does and require every team to play every other team in the conference?

That would require at least a team like Ohio State to drop two of their power house non-coference foes like Troy, Youngstown St., Ohio U, and pick up two more conference games.  So instead of 4 non-conference games they would only have 2.

But I'm tired of hearing how the Big 10 is so good and they just beat up on each other every year, but yet they don't have a conference championship game and they don't play every team in  the conference.  At least with the PAC10 no championship game makes sense when everyone plays everyone else in the conference.

Of course the majority of that was done when Penn. State was an independent.

Not to mention he's coached longer than any other coach.

Coach more seasons=play in more bowl games

I definately think if PSU goes undefeated the should be the BCS National Championship game no matter what anyone else does.  Is the Big 10 the top conference in the country? Probably not, but Penn state is a good team regardless.  I really don't give a hill of beans that OSU lost twice in the BCS National Championship or what the SEC overal record the last 10 years is in bowl games, or even what Joe Pa's record is.  Penn State went undefeated in a fairly decent conference, it is not like they are playing in the WAC. 

Now do I think PSU would stand a chance in a 16 team playoff of winning the National Championship, not really but using the current system I think they deserve a chance.

I didn't mean remove the Big East and ACC from the BCS consideration, I meant remove the Automatic bid for ALL the conference champions. Sometimes the best team in a conference is still a bad team.

Hey, my coach is 20-9-1 in Bowl games.

Really?  Even if Alabama and Texas Tech win out?  I hate the BCS, but given what we have, the undefeated conference champions of the two toughest conferences in the country seem more deserving than the undefeated conference champ of the 4th-rated conference. 

One of the BIG problems is the polls, pre-season polls and polls before the BCS polls come out.  The problem becomes certain teams are over rated and certain teams are underrated in these pre-season and early polls. 

This transferes into the teams that are over rated don't drop far enough when they are inevitably exposed (Yes this is you Ohio State) and it becomes difficult for teams that where not ranked or where not highly ranked to climb in the polls given their early season rankings.

Do away with all polls until the first BCS poll comes out.  That would solve a lot of problems.  But of course these early polls are driven by the talking heads on sprots talk shows and magazines, so they have to have something to draw viewers/readers. (seriously look at the pre-season or week one poll: Ohio state, West virginia,  Clemson, in the top 10; Alabama 24, Penn State 22)

Don't forget about BALL STATE!   8-0.

I don't even care if that's really her. I love the intarweb

That the more overrated better teams in the big ten get to play the bottom rungs of the SEC?

Honestly, statistically it says nothing at all, though you can grasp at whatever straws you please with your inferences.

Rad-Onc PA - 2008-11-03 3:20 PM

the bear - 2008-11-03 3:57 PM

Rad-Onc PA - 2008-11-03 2:53 PM So if %'wise the B10 has a worse record against other conferences than it does against the SEC, what does that say about the SEC???

That the more overrated better teams in the big ten get to play the bottom rungs of the SEC?

Honestly, statistically it says nothing at all, though you can grasp at whatever straws you please with your inferences.

It was posted as sarcasm, but I don't know how to use red font ....... since when do the top teams in b10 play bottom teams in SEC? Check Cap One Bowl results...B10 #2 vs SEC #2......B10 has WON THE LAST 3 (and 7 of the last 10) That would be the likes of Fla, Auburn, and LSU....BOTTOM of the SEC??? Go to the Outback Bowl....#3 teams from each conference....3-3 the last 6 years. Hmmmm..... yep, def SEC dominance at the top....(snerk). I guess all I can infer from the head to head games that would lead to the SEC being better is the #1 team in each conference played and SEC won 2 in a row. Maybe since the nat'l champ is all that matters, the SEC teams weren't really trying in the other bowl games...

The Capital One bowl isn't always the #2 SEC team.  Last year you got the #3 team.

Rad-Onc PA - 2008-11-04 8:16 AM

DerekL - 2008-11-03 5:30 PM

Rad-Onc PA - 2008-11-03 3:20 PM

the bear - 2008-11-03 3:57 PM

Rad-Onc PA - 2008-11-03 2:53 PM So if %'wise the B10 has a worse record against other conferences than it does against the SEC, what does that say about the SEC???

That the more overrated better teams in the big ten get to play the bottom rungs of the SEC?

Honestly, statistically it says nothing at all, though you can grasp at whatever straws you please with your inferences.

It was posted as sarcasm, but I don't know how to use red font ....... since when do the top teams in b10 play bottom teams in SEC? Check Cap One Bowl results...B10 #2 vs SEC #2......B10 has WON THE LAST 3 (and 7 of the last 10) That would be the likes of Fla, Auburn, and LSU....BOTTOM of the SEC??? Go to the Outback Bowl....#3 teams from each conference....3-3 the last 6 years. Hmmmm..... yep, def SEC dominance at the top....(snerk). I guess all I can infer from the head to head games that would lead to the SEC being better is the #1 team in each conference played and SEC won 2 in a row. Maybe since the nat'l champ is all that matters, the SEC teams weren't really trying in the other bowl games...

The Capital One bowl isn't always the #2 SEC team.  Last year you got the #3 team.

Oh, excuse me.... So what you are saying is the SEC is a 3 team league? Either that or you are saying the SEC isn't deep as #3 in the league is in the "bottom rungs" , as you put it, of the league. Just GIVE UP....There is parity in college football. It's is NOT the SEC and everyone else....It is more likely USC then Florida....THEN everyone else. I am not saying the SEC isn't good. They are darn good. I am saying the pac10, B10, B12, (some) ACC and Big.E. teams are all pretty much equal....

I made one post stating that the #3 team in the SEC played in the bowl last year.  Settle down.  You might want to take a look at who you're responding to before you ramble.