Do you agree with BCS ratings?

#1
K Zed

K Zed

A Volunteer in hard times
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
1,011
Likes
0
#1
last year, it was Florida, Oklahoma, Texas, and USC. ALL only had 1 loss and had good teams about them. But do you think it is fair that Texas and USC were cut out of the running? Discuss here what you think of this.

Personally, i think in these situations, we need to have something like the "Final Four" in basketball. Have all the teams go up against each other and earn their way to the BCS. For example, it could've been Oaklahoma/USC and Texas/Florida.

Obviously, this wouldn't work if Bama was among them all because that would've made 5, then, i'd agree to the polls, but still. I'd say let the teams go at it! what about you all? I hope this isn't a moronic thread. I just need something to talk about.
 
#2
#2
Yeah, I like that idea, too. This is the "Plus One" format where there would be a "play-in" game to the Championship.

Of course, like you said, the difficulty arises in just how many teams you have with the same record. Personally, I think a "plus one", or a "plus two" would be great.

Something like this:

#1 & #2 receive byes
#6 vs #3
#5 vs #4
lowest ranked winner plays #1
highest ranked winner plays #2
Winners of those games meet in the championship

That's the scenario I'd prefer, but if that would be too long, the plus one format would be fine by me, too:

#1 vs #4
#2 vs #3
Winners meet in championship.

Surely it can't be THAT hard to add in an extra week or two so that teams with the same records can settle the championship on the field and not in the polls.

But, all this is most likely wishful thinking...*sigh*
 
#4
#4
although the BCS is not perfect and creates controversy every year, the fact of the matter is if a playoff was implemented in college football it'd take away from the regular season. at most i would like to see a plus one with #1 v. #4 and #2 v #3 playing each other in the first round. however, a solution, this does not make. honestly we would still have the same problem, if there are two or three teams that "deserve" to be in the 4 spot the fan base of the team(s) left out will be crying foul. my solution is treat every game like a playoff game, because each and every one IS. what really needs to happen is the ncaa needs to decide a universal tie breaker in conference tie breakers to avoid debacles like last year. i believe you can't be in the playoff without a conference championship, a rule that the BCS needs to apply to the NC. now with a play in game system let's look at how last year would have most likely turned out. remember this is assuming that the BCS makes a rule that a team must win a conference championship.

last year there were seven teams from power conferences that had one loss, as well as an undefeated utah. out of those seven (texas tech, penn st, usc, uf, oklahoma, texas, and bama) only usc, penn st, uf, and oklahoma "deserve" to be considered because they won their conference championships (though i believe texas should have gone to the big 12 championship).

1.after uf lost they destroyed any and everyone that got in their way

2.usc is usc, they dominated just about every team they played excepct oregon st.

3.oklahoma did not deserve to be in the big 12 championship but they did win it and that's all that matters in this scenario.

4.penn st plays in the big ten which is considered a power conference which we all know is laughable, but as long as big ten is viewed as a power conference it deserves consideration.

but now you've got quite a predicament.
-texas beat oklahoma and is better than oklahoma and probably better than penn st., this is where the conference championship rule comes into play. texas is ranked higher in the BCS, however they did not play in the big 12 championship. you could make a valid argument for either team
-bama has been undefeated until the sec championship. not quite the same as texas but they do possess an argument
-utah can also make a valid arguement as they are undefeated overall, and being in the mtn west conference (a conference that is most likely better than the big ten)

so you have three teams that could believe they need to be in the playoff. as opposed to two, usc and texas, which believe they deserve to be in the NC

a playoff does not solve any problems, and could potentially create more
 
#6
#6
after reading this, i see there are just too many holes here. Somehow, the NCAA needs to find a way to fix stuff like this, but how I don't know...

I'll say that it will probably be harder for us to go to the BCS now since it seems like ESPN and the entire media is against us. The way we got the '98 championship was going undefeated, which is what no one did last year.
 
#8
#8
No need for conf cahmpionships in the pac 10 or big east- they play round robin (clear champ each year- unless 3 way tie). Big ten needs one bad.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#9
#9
I used to think auto bid to playoff by winning the conf until 07. UT almost beat LSU for the title, but we did not deserve to be in the national champ picture- we had 3 nasty losses.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#10
#10
maybe the NCAA should take time and set up the rest of the conferences like the SEC is. East and west division champs, then SEC champ game. Could make things a bit easier, but then some other issues, like all things, will pop up.

CLEAN UP THE BCS!!!
 
#11
#11
I think we should have a championship committee that decides it at the end of the season. Some years only two teams (05 tex and usc only teams neccessary). Year by year it could change without damaging the out of conf.

Right now you must win your conf with some impressive out of conf wins to guarantee a spot in the title game. In a playoff system- you would never see us play ucla or any other decent out of conf- or usc ohio st. Too much risk
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#12
#12
The bcs has done what was intended- match up 1 vs 2. Better than the old system
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#13
#13
College football is somewhat unique as far as collegiate sports are concerned. No matter what is done to improve the process, there are limitations that must be recognized. And in view of those limitations, the National Championship will always be, to a great extent, a mythical one.
 
#15
#15
bassvol said:
I used to think auto bid to playoff by winning the conf until 07. UT almost beat LSU for the title, but we did not deserve to be in the national champ picture- we had 3 nasty losses.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

i don't like the auto bid to the BCS bowls i think they should be the best teams in the BCS rankings/traditional match ups i.e. rose bowl big ten v. pac 10

but i do believe to get into the NC you need a conference championship

as for the playoff system i think that i shouldn't matter about conference championship either, i was just presenting the potential arguments each team would present, really the four spot could have been filled with 3 or 4 teams i was just basing the rankings on my personal feelings about how the BCS should be run

UT in 07 would have gone to a BCS game, and did not "deserve" to if they won, however with the current system they did deserve to go a BCS game if they won, because that is the rule

i guess what i'm trying to say here is that the current BCS system needs to be tweaked instead of making a new one, it's not perfect but it's the best that i think we can do
 
#16
#16
just peep the user name, the BCS system makes me want to punch someone in the uvula.
 
#17
#17
Playoff"s won't happen until they figure out a way to make more money than the Bowl Games. The reason there is no playoff system in place now is because the Bowls generate too much money for the schools and the NCAA. The only conferences that want the playoffs are either not going to bowl games or have enought money that it does not matter to them.

Money drives all trains no matter what track the train is on.
 
#20
#20
I agree with the 1998 rankings. The rest of them since then, I couldn't care less. I just want to win the SEC every year. That national stuff is crap shoot.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#21
#21
Why not?
Click to expand...

I thought that texas should have been, they both had one loss. texas lost to ttu on the last play of the game, whereas oklahoma got beat by texas head to head by ten points. the only reason that oklahoma is ranked higher in the BCS at that point is because the BCS doesn't take into account head to head matchups, just the quality of the team that you lose to. i have no information to back this up but i think most people believe texas should have been in the big 12 championship (at least out of the people i know).:mf_surrender:

anyway my main point here is that there are a number of teams that could make an argument that they should have been the one in the NC and a playoff system would just make more controversy.
 
#22
#22
K Zed said:
last year, it was Florida, Oklahoma, Texas, and USC. ALL only had 1 loss and had good teams about them. But do you think it is fair that Texas and USC were cut out of the running? Discuss here what you think of this.

Personally, i think in these situations, we need to have something like the "Final Four" in basketball. Have all the teams go up against each other and earn their way to the BCS. For example, it could've been Oaklahoma/USC and Texas/Florida.

Obviously, this wouldn't work if Bama was among them all because that would've made 5, then, i'd agree to the polls, but still. I'd say let the teams go at it! what about you all? I hope this isn't a moronic thread. I just need something to talk about.
Click to expand...


Florida did "go at it" in the sense that they beat then #1 Alabama and followed it up in their next game by beating then #1 Oklahoma.
 
#23
#23
I honestly think Texas played over their heads that game, got some help from the refs, and that OU was better overall. Either way, the Sooners annihilated the team that took down Texas, so I don't think it's a cut and dry decision for Texas.
 
#24
#24
once again you can make an argument for either team, this is proving my point as we present different views...

in my opinion texas should have gone to the big 12 game and would have most likely beaten mizzou because they beat the tar out of them earlier in the year

in the current big 12 system oklahoma was chosen (because, well, it's garbage), they go based solely on that rule. however through my SEC goggles the first tie breaker should have been a head to head, so in that sense they don't "deserve" to.
 
#25
#25
Head to head tiebreaker doesn't work in a three way tie.

When OK blasted TT it sealed the deal, but I'm don't remember the exact way the big 12 broke the tie
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top