Like A Mofo Posted November 10, 2009 Posted November 10, 2009 Can we start by changing the SEC refs so they are not doing everything in their power to ensure that Alabama or Florida make it to the BC$ title game?
erynthered Posted November 10, 2009 Posted November 10, 2009 Can we start by changing the SEC refs so they are not doing everything in their power to ensure that Alabama or Florida make it to the BC$ title game? They'll be playing each other in the SEC championship game, not the BCS title game. One will have a loss.
KD in CA Posted November 10, 2009 Posted November 10, 2009 They'll be playing each other in the SEC championship game, not the BCS title game. One will have a loss. That's what he's saying. If the refs can keep both teams undefeated until they play each other, it guarantees that the winner goes to the NC game. Conversely, what if AL gets upset but then they beat FL? If no one in the conference is undefeated than there's a chance no SEC team plays in the NC game. Big paycheck is lost. Just another way the BCS conferences can manipulate the current system and yet another problem that would disappear with a playoff. The incentive for conferences to favor certain teams would be greatly diminished as long as its champ was one of 16 in the playoffs rather than one of two.
erynthered Posted November 10, 2009 Posted November 10, 2009 That's what he's saying. If the refs can keep both teams undefeated until they play each other, it guarantees that the winner goes to the NC game. Conversely, what is AL gets upset but then they beat FL? If no one in the conference is undefeated than there's a chance no SEC team plays in the NC game. Big paycheck is lost. Just another way the BCS conferences can manipulate the current system and yet another problem that would disappear with a playoff. The incentive for conferences to favor certain teams would be greatly diminished as long as its champ was one of 16 in the playoffs rather than one of two. Gotcha.....
Ramius Posted November 11, 2009 Posted November 11, 2009 That's what he's saying. If the refs can keep both teams undefeated until they play each other, it guarantees that the winner goes to the NC game. Conversely, what if AL gets upset but then they beat FL? If no one in the conference is undefeated than there's a chance no SEC team plays in the NC game. Big paycheck is lost. Just another way the BCS conferences can manipulate the current system and yet another problem that would disappear with a playoff. The incentive for conferences to favor certain teams would be greatly diminished as long as its champ was one of 16 in the playoffs rather than one of two. The fact that the current season was almost "predestined" to be Texas/OU vs Fla/Ala in the national championship is what makes college football an even bigger joke. It encouraged UF to schedule a bunch of patty-cakes this season to ensure they only needed to focus on LSU and the SEC title game. If these teams are really that good, why are they all so afraid of proving it on the field?
KD in CA Posted November 11, 2009 Posted November 11, 2009 The fact that the current season was almost "predestined" to be Texas/OU vs Fla/Ala in the national championship is what makes college football an even bigger joke. Pretty much. Unless USC goes 12-0 and then we'll squeeze them into the picture. It encouraged UF to schedule a bunch of patty-cakes this season to ensure they only needed to focus on LSU and the SEC title game. If these teams are really that good, why are they all so afraid of proving it on the field? What are you talking about??? Florida is one of the few teams that didn't duck Troy and Charleston Southern this season!
LongLiveRalph Posted November 11, 2009 Posted November 11, 2009 The most ridiculous (and yet not at all unlikely) scenario I heard was on the Scott Van Pelt Show on ESPN Radio the other day, where he and somebody else were discussing how either Florida or Alabama gets upset before the SEC title game (say Auburn beats Bama), and then the 1-loss team beats the undefeated team (Bama knocks off FL), that the SEC champ (Bama) should still play in the BCS Championship Game, regardless of the other undefeateds. So...I thought the current system was so great because "every game is a playoff game." I guess not.
billsfan89 Posted November 12, 2009 Posted November 12, 2009 Major teams avoid Broncos like the plaugue. BCS college football is an insider's game that freezes out any school that threatens the heirarchy. First it's Utah, now Boise State offers to play anyone anywhere with no return game required. The response? Crickets. No playoff, make up your own cupcake schedule, avoid any real competition, and they want you to believe it's a REAL national championship. PTR Here is 2 things I will never understand about college football. 1- No playoff system? You pair up the best two teams (Subjectively ranked of course) and then have a bunch of other teams play in what essentially comes down to glorified exhibition games. I mean there is no way the NFL (Or any other legit sports league) just takes the teams with the best two records and plays them in the Super Bowl and then has the rest of the teams play in stupid meaningless empty games. 2- The teams make their own schedule AND you punish teams like Boise for not playing bigger teams when they want to. First off why do you let teams make their own schedule that is stupid to begin with. You are a billion dollar organization (The NCAA) why can't you make compelling schedules that are fair and interesting to the fans? AND second why are you punishing Boise state and rewarding other teams for essentially being pussies.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted November 12, 2009 Posted November 12, 2009 I'd rather have a flawed playoff than the charade the BCS is. Personally winning your conference should be your ticket to the playoffs but I know that will never happen. As for teams feeling "screwed" by a bye (or lack of one), I doubt any school, except for the ones that benefit from the joke of BCS, would pass up the chance to play. Utah and Boise State have both earned a shot to be national champions. The BCS schools are pussies. PTR Utah, maybe. Not Bozo State.
PromoTheRobot Posted November 12, 2009 Author Posted November 12, 2009 How many Bowls are there? According to Wikipedia, in 2006 there were 32 bowl games, so half of the FCS schools could go to a bowl. PTR
Tortured Soul Posted November 12, 2009 Posted November 12, 2009 FYI, it's not as simple as the original article makes it out to be. Boise St. is asking for a larger payout than anyone else has ever asked for in a one-and-done arrangement. If they wanted to, they could accept less money now for one of these arrangements to increase their chances of getting the uber payout of a BCS game down the road.
Acantha Posted November 12, 2009 Posted November 12, 2009 FYI, it's not as simple as the original article makes it out to be. Boise St. is asking for a larger payout than anyone else has ever asked for in a one-and-done arrangement. If they wanted to, they could accept less money now for one of these arrangements to increase their chances of getting the uber payout of a BCS game down the road. It's funny really, when it was announced that the WAC hired a publicity firm to help get them to a BCS game, everyone laughed about it. And immediately everyone is up in arms at the first propaganda piece they put out.
PromoTheRobot Posted November 15, 2009 Author Posted November 15, 2009 I have a question. How does a team that gets spanked by Oregon retain it's #9 ranking, then go on to give up 55 points to Stanford at home? How much you wanna bet USC only drops a couple of points in the rankings? The reality is USC is a pretty mediocre team and has no business being ranked, but because they are USC they get a tongue bath from the sports writers no matter what. PTR
Lori Posted November 15, 2009 Posted November 15, 2009 I have a question. How does a team that gets spanked by Oregon retain it's #9 ranking, then go on to give up 55 points to Stanford at home? How much you wanna bet USC only drops a couple of points in the rankings? The reality is USC is a pretty mediocre team and has no business being ranked, but because they are USC they get a tongue bath from the sports writers no matter what. PTR Don't think they were No. 9 in the AP poll after last week, and they're now down to 22nd. In fact, the BCS rankings (where they were ninth) don't include the AP votes.
/dev/null Posted November 15, 2009 Posted November 15, 2009 Don't think they were No. 9 in the AP poll after last week, and they're now down to 22nd. In fact, the BCS rankings (where they were ninth) don't include the AP votes. But the BCS does include the Harris poll IIRC. And they have USC at #10: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/ncaa/polls/harris/
PromoTheRobot Posted November 15, 2009 Author Posted November 15, 2009 But the BCS does include the Harris poll IIRC. And they have USC at #10: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/ncaa/polls/harris/ This is proof for the need of a playoff. Teams are ranked not on how good they are, but how big their reputations are. And one you're in the club it's nearly impossible to get knocked out. No BCS ranked team should ever lose by 5 TDs at home. PTR
Lori Posted November 15, 2009 Posted November 15, 2009 But the BCS does include the Harris poll IIRC. And they have USC at #10: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/ncaa/polls/harris/ Harris poll is a mix of former coaches, players, and administrators along with some current and former media (who seem to be soundly outnumbered on last year's list): http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/news...ept_17_2008.pdf Just sayin' -- if you want to B word about the BCS numbers, don't blame the "sports writers." Thanks.
Acantha Posted November 15, 2009 Posted November 15, 2009 This is proof for the need of a playoff. Teams are ranked not on how good they are, but how big their reputations are. And one you're in the club it's nearly impossible to get knocked out. No BCS ranked team should ever lose by 5 TDs at home. PTR But they're not BCS ranked. I really don't get your point here.
jjamie12 Posted November 15, 2009 Posted November 15, 2009 Can't help but notice that not a single person in this thread opining that there should be a 16 or 24 team playoff has mentioned anything about the players. Like how four more weeks of football games starting in December affects the kids' ability to take finals, for example. Or why those same kids should risk injury (and subsequent paydays) four more times a year just so people can B word about which teams got screwed out of the 'playoff' instead of getting screwed out of the BCS.
Recommended Posts