Debate - The BCS National Championship Game

[Virgil]

Let me start by saying, I don't watch a ton of college football. I watch the big games, I watch rookies who the Bills could draft, and I watch the bowl games. I think I have a good understanding of how the BCS ranks teams and I read a lot about the different arguments against a playoff system.

 

With that being said, here's what I understand to be the logic of the BCS and the reason we don't have playoffs

 

~They are STUDENT athletes and they don't want a longer season

~The regular season games are meant to be taken seriously and as a deciding factor

~Teams with equal records are usually ranked by the rank of the team they loss to and their strength of schedule.

 

With that being said, how the hell can LSU play in a rematch against Alabama? This is infuriating to me. Alabama had their chance and they lost. It's that simple. LSU won the game, has a better record, then now have nothing left to prove against Alabama. Now, don't get me wrong, I think Alabama is the next best team after LSU, but again, we've already determined who is better between them. And here's the thing, if LSU wins, what did they prove? That they can beat the same team twice? And if LSU loses, then they have a split on the series. How does declare one team better than the other? Yes, in the NFL, teams will have rematches in the playoffs, but that is because the NFL HAS A PLAYOFF. The NCAA doesn't want this remember. They want the regular season to be more important.

 

As far as I'm concerned, the one loss team who lost to the highest ranked team, not LSU should be given their shot at LSU. Alabama already got it. So now, it's Oklahoma State's turn. If not them, then Stanford should be next on the list.

 

I'm not blindly hating here, I don't think. I'm not trying to last out at anyone. I would really like an argument here from someone who thinks the re-match is the right thing to do.

 

On a side note, I think they should make all conferences have a conference championship game. Then, add 1 more BCS game, let the Conference Champ's play in the BCS games, and then the top 2 ranked teams left play in the BCS national championship game. It only adds one game and dumps all of this crap where teams from that don't win their conference get to play in more important games. Cause Stanford playing in a higher game than Oregon, when Oregon won their conference is crap. Clemson shouldn't have needed to play VaTech again, because again, what do they need to prove. And this BCS game between two teams in the same conference is pure crap.

 

Thoughts?

[ajzepp]

And don't forget, Bama was at HOME when they played LSU! You're exactly right, they don't deserve to be there - and that's coming from a fan of the SEC.

[SageAgainstTheMachine]

Well, this is the kinda crap that happens in a system where 2 out of 119 teams make the postseason.

[ajzepp]

Well, this is the kinda crap that happens in a system where 2 out of 119 teams make the postseason.

 

Amen to that, brother. I hate the BCS. Obama was right to start stirring up some sh*t, I just wish he would have stuck with it.

[Cugalabanza]

I object to the redundancy of the term, "BCS Championship game." See "American Dodgeball Association of America."

[Gordio]

Let me start by saying, I don't watch a ton of college football. I watch the big games, I watch rookies who the Bills could draft, and I watch the bowl games. I think I have a good understanding of how the BCS ranks teams and I read a lot about the different arguments against a playoff system.

 

With that being said, here's what I understand to be the logic of the BCS and the reason we don't have playoffs

 

~They are STUDENT athletes and they don't want a longer season

~The regular season games are meant to be taken seriously and as a deciding factor

~Teams with equal records are usually ranked by the rank of the team they loss to and their strength of schedule.

 

With that being said, how the hell can LSU play in a rematch against Alabama? This is infuriating to me. Alabama had their chance and they lost. It's that simple. LSU won the game, has a better record, then now have nothing left to prove against Alabama. Now, don't get me wrong, I think Alabama is the next best team after LSU, but again, we've already determined who is better between them. And here's the thing, if LSU wins, what did they prove? That they can beat the same team twice? And if LSU loses, then they have a split on the series. How does declare one team better than the other? Yes, in the NFL, teams will have rematches in the playoffs, but that is because the NFL HAS A PLAYOFF. The NCAA doesn't want this remember. They want the regular season to be more important.

 

As far as I'm concerned, the one loss team who lost to the highest ranked team, not LSU should be given their shot at LSU. Alabama already got it. So now, it's Oklahoma State's turn. If not them, then Stanford should be next on the list.

 

I'm not blindly hating here, I don't think. I'm not trying to last out at anyone. I would really like an argument here from someone who thinks the re-match is the right thing to do.

 

On a side note, I think they should make all conferences have a conference championship game. Then, add 1 more BCS game, let the Conference Champ's play in the BCS games, and then the top 2 ranked teams left play in the BCS national championship game. It only adds one game and dumps all of this crap where teams from that don't win their conference get to play in more important games. Cause Stanford playing in a higher game than Oregon, when Oregon won their conference is crap. Clemson shouldn't have needed to play VaTech again, because again, what do they need to prove. And this BCS game between two teams in the same conference is pure crap.

 

Thoughts?

 

 

Well you see Alabama had a couple things going for it. First, they started out the season ranked #2 so they had a little room for a loss there where as some team that started out unranked or #24 or so would probably not be able to recover from any loss. They pass the eyeball test. By that I mean I think anyone that has watched college football all year could agree that they definately have the look of the #2 team in the country. They did lose to LSU at home but keep in mind they probably would of won if their FG kicker would of done his job that day.

 

In the end I would of liked to see a different matchup, whether it be Boise St/Ok St/Stanford but keep in mind all these teams had their chances to seal their bid & failed to do so also. Okl St lost to a 29 point underdog, Boise St lost at home on a last second FG & Stanford in only their 2nd tough game of the year(they beat USC) got blown out at home against Oregon. So all these teams had their chances. A simple solution to this would be the plus 1 theory that you mentioned. Play all the major bowl games New years Day, pit #1 in the BCS vs #4 & #2 vs #3 & have the winners meet the following week. Have the existing Bowls rotate who hosts what with maybe a provision that if their is a Pac 10 or Big 10 team in the top 4 the Rose Bowl automatically gets that game & also have the BCS Bowls rotate the championship game. So in this scenerio, LSU would play Stanford in the Rose Bowl & Alabama would play Oklahom St in the Sugar Bowl. Winners of that week would meet in the Orange Bowl a week later. I don't understand what the downside of this would be. Bowls like the Orange Bowl, who continuosly to sell that game out because they usually have to take a crappy team from the Big East/ACC would have to be all for that since every few years they would be guaranteed top flight matchups. The networks would pay a ton for this & the season would not even last longer then it does now. Also, the NC would have a better chance to be a better game since the teams playing would also of played the week before instead of not playing for 6 weeks & iot would not take the teams 2 quarters to get back their timing. The only arguement I could think of is it would render the rest of the bowls meaningless but how is that differ from what it is now.

Edited December 5, 2011 by Gordio

[SageAgainstTheMachine]

I object to the redundancy of the term, "BCS Championship game." See "American Dodgeball Association of America."

 

Annoying redudancy is irritating.

[Wooderson]

Let me start by saying, I don't watch a ton of college football. I watch the big games, I watch rookies who the Bills could draft, and I watch the bowl games. I think I have a good understanding of how the BCS ranks teams and I read a lot about the different arguments against a playoff system.

 

With that being said, here's what I understand to be the logic of the BCS and the reason we don't have playoffs

 

~They are STUDENT athletes and they don't want a longer season

~The regular season games are meant to be taken seriously and as a deciding factor

~Teams with equal records are usually ranked by the rank of the team they loss to and their strength of schedule.

 

With that being said, how the hell can LSU play in a rematch against Alabama? This is infuriating to me. Alabama had their chance and they lost. It's that simple. LSU won the game, has a better record, then now have nothing left to prove against Alabama. Now, don't get me wrong, I think Alabama is the next best team after LSU, but again, we've already determined who is better between them. And here's the thing, if LSU wins, what did they prove? That they can beat the same team twice? And if LSU loses, then they have a split on the series. How does declare one team better than the other? Yes, in the NFL, teams will have rematches in the playoffs, but that is because the NFL HAS A PLAYOFF. The NCAA doesn't want this remember. They want the regular season to be more important.

 

As far as I'm concerned, the one loss team who lost to the highest ranked team, not LSU should be given their shot at LSU. Alabama already got it. So now, it's Oklahoma State's turn. If not them, then Stanford should be next on the list.

 

I'm not blindly hating here, I don't think. I'm not trying to last out at anyone. I would really like an argument here from someone who thinks the re-match is the right thing to do.

 

On a side note, I think they should make all conferences have a conference championship game. Then, add 1 more BCS game, let the Conference Champ's play in the BCS games, and then the top 2 ranked teams left play in the BCS national championship game. It only adds one game and dumps all of this crap where teams from that don't win their conference get to play in more important games. Cause Stanford playing in a higher game than Oregon, when Oregon won their conference is crap. Clemson shouldn't have needed to play VaTech again, because again, what do they need to prove. And this BCS game between two teams in the same conference is pure crap.

 

Thoughts?

 

LSU is the best team in the country and Alabama is the second best team. That's just the way it works. Btw, if you watched the Alabama LSU game, the Alabama kickers missed 4 FGs. They controlled most of the game, shut down LSU's offense and just barely lost in OT. I personally, can't wait to see the rematch. I love watching these two NFL caliber defenses face off.

[BuffOrange]

Well, this is the kinda crap that happens in a system where 2 out of 119 teams make the postseason.

 

Ha, that is very well put.

 

There are actually some even more asinine anti-playoff points than the ones mentioned in the OP, such as "nobody would care about the other Bowls"...as if anyone cares about Clemson-WVU now.

 

The one defense of the BCS I used to buy was that it was better than the old system. But when you think about it even that's not true much of the time. It's only better when there are two and exactly two undefeated teams. When there's zero, one, or three undefeated teams I'd rather have the old system of a bunch of random bowl matchups and a vote at the end.

[DrDawkinstein]

I'll start by saying I'm a huge SEC homer, and I watch a lot of college football across all the conferences (prefer it greatly over the NFL).

 

I'd say the only team that has a reason to B word about the rematch is OK St., and even they are marginal. Maybe if their 1 loss was to Oklahoma (a team ranked in the Top-5 for a good part of the season) they would have a chance. But to lose to Iowa St. would knock ANYONE out of contention.

 

I'm not psyched on the rematch, but I do feel Bama deserves it the most. LSU is by far the top team in the country when you look at who they played, and how well theyve beaten their opponents. Given the fact that Alabama's only loss was to that team, and it was only a matter of 1 missed/made field goal, puts them ahead of OK St.

 

When discussing who the #2 team should be, you need to forget about who #1 is (and which conference they are from). It's not about it being "All SEC", it's which #2 team had a better season. And in that case, Alabama had the better season. Or even if you want to say their seasons were equal, Alabama's loss was to a much better team than Iowa St.

 

Part of me would like to see OK St. in the Championship, just so all the "SEC haters" could shut up after OK St. loses, but unfortunately we do not get that.

 

At the end of the day, when the Championship match-up is LSU/Alabama, you can not say that the top 2 teams are not in the game.

[KD in CA]

I object to the redundancy of the term, "BCS Championship game." See "American Dodgeball Association of America."

 

Actually, I think that's title is correct. Obviously it is not a championship of college football and thus I won't bother watching it (I already saw these team play this season), but I suppose it is a 'championship' of two pre-ordained teams. It's kinda like having a championship of whiffleball against your brother in the backyard. It doesn't really matter if the kid down the block is better or not.

[DrDawkinstein]

As far as I'm concerned, the one loss team who lost to the highest ranked team, not LSU should be given their shot at LSU. Alabama already got it. So now, it's Oklahoma State's turn. If not them, then Stanford should be next on the list.

 

And this BCS game between two teams in the same conference is pure crap.

 

 

As far as the OP goes, I agree with the need for a playoff system, but want to address the quotes I cherry-picked.

 

It sounds like you DONT want the top 2 teams to play in the Championship. Just because they already played, doesnt mean a lesser team should make the Championship. It's not "OK St's turn", they needed to earn a chance to play in that game, and they lost that chance by losing to Iowa St. And definitely not Stanford, they lost at home to Oregon, and didnt even win their conference! So your argument against Alabama applies even more so to these other teams.

 

Again, like it or not, the two best teams in the country are LSU and Alabama.

[NoSaint]

Let me start by saying, I don't watch a ton of college football. I watch the big games, I watch rookies who the Bills could draft, and I watch the bowl games. I think I have a good understanding of how the BCS ranks teams and I read a lot about the different arguments against a playoff system.

 

With that being said, here's what I understand to be the logic of the BCS and the reason we don't have playoffs

 

~They are STUDENT athletes and they don't want a longer season

~The regular season games are meant to be taken seriously and as a deciding factor

~Teams with equal records are usually ranked by the rank of the team they loss to and their strength of schedule.

 

With that being said, how the hell can LSU play in a rematch against Alabama? This is infuriating to me. Alabama had their chance and they lost. It's that simple. LSU won the game, has a better record, then now have nothing left to prove against Alabama. Now, don't get me wrong, I think Alabama is the next best team after LSU, but again, we've already determined who is better between them. And here's the thing, if LSU wins, what did they prove? That they can beat the same team twice? And if LSU loses, then they have a split on the series. How does declare one team better than the other? Yes, in the NFL, teams will have rematches in the playoffs, but that is because the NFL HAS A PLAYOFF. The NCAA doesn't want this remember. They want the regular season to be more important.

 

As far as I'm concerned, the one loss team who lost to the highest ranked team, not LSU should be given their shot at LSU. Alabama already got it. So now, it's Oklahoma State's turn. If not them, then Stanford should be next on the list.

 

I'm not blindly hating here, I don't think. I'm not trying to last out at anyone. I would really like an argument here from someone who thinks the re-match is the right thing to do.

 

On a side note, I think they should make all conferences have a conference championship game. Then, add 1 more BCS game, let the Conference Champ's play in the BCS games, and then the top 2 ranked teams left play in the BCS national championship game. It only adds one game and dumps all of this crap where teams from that don't win their conference get to play in more important games. Cause Stanford playing in a higher game than Oregon, when Oregon won their conference is crap. Clemson shouldn't have needed to play VaTech again, because again, what do they need to prove. And this BCS game between two teams in the same conference is pure crap.

 

Thoughts?

 

 

Well, i think if LSU loses to an OK State or stanford you have just as many issues as the bama rematch. If LSU, OK State, and say bama are all one loss teams are you any clearer in the picture than if lsu-bama split a series? Long story short, LSU has such a solid hold on 1, that losing to anyone in the final game would make the picture a mess.

Edited December 5, 2011 by NoSaint

[UConn James]

With that being said, here's what I understand to be the logic of the BCS and the reason we don't have playoffs

 

~They are STUDENT athletes and they don't want a longer season

~The regular season games are meant to be taken seriously and as a deciding factor

~Teams with equal records are usually ranked by the rank of the team they loss to and their strength of schedule.

 

 

Yeah, that NCAA Basketball Tournament that adds a possible 6 games for the winner? Totally unpopular!!!

 

The big-time schools want it this way, where they can get by on their legacies and what they've done in the past few years rather than possibly taking them out of their comfort zones and making teams prove it against any and all comers.

[BuffaloBill]

Given that there is never likely to be playoffs in Div I football the BCS is likley the best solution available. I have no issues with an LSU Bama rematch because they are the best two teams in the country. No doubt this opininion no matter who offers it or how it is formed is subjective. Even in a playoff system on a given day in a given game the lessor of the two teams might prevail. That is simply the nature of sport.

[BuffOrange]

I'll start by saying I'm a huge SEC homer, and I watch a lot of college football across all the conferences (prefer it greatly over the NFL).

 

I'd say the only team that has a reason to B word about the rematch is OK St., and even they are marginal. Maybe if their 1 loss was to Oklahoma (a team ranked in the Top-5 for a good part of the season) they would have a chance. But to lose to Iowa St. would knock ANYONE out of contention.

 

I'm not psyched on the rematch, but I do feel Bama deserves it the most. LSU is by far the top team in the country when you look at who they played, and how well theyve beaten their opponents. Given the fact that Alabama's only loss was to that team, and it was only a matter of 1 missed/made field goal, puts them ahead of OK St.

 

When discussing who the #2 team should be, you need to forget about who #1 is (and which conference they are from). It's not about it being "All SEC", it's which #2 team had a better season. And in that case, Alabama had the better season. Or even if you want to say their seasons were equal, Alabama's loss was to a much better team than Iowa St.

 

Part of me would like to see OK St. in the Championship, just so all the "SEC haters" could shut up after OK St. loses, but unfortunately we do not get that.

 

At the end of the day, when the Championship match-up is LSU/Alabama, you can not say that the top 2 teams are not in the game.

 

Do you think there should have been a Michigan-Ohio St rematch a few years ago? IIRC Florida's loss was to Ole Miss at home, while Michigan's loss was to the #1 team - and it was in Columbus, not Ann Arbor. I think it's fair to say Michigan had the better loss.

 

I like watching the SEC more than other conferences and their top two teams are better than anyone's. I think some of the "SEC haters" come out of the woodwork when you take it any farther than that. A lot of conferences have 3rd & 4th place teams that are comparable to Arkansas and Georgia.

[UConn James]

Given that there is never likely to be playoffs in Div I football the BCS is likley the best solution available. I have no issues with an LSU Bama rematch because they are the best two teams in the country. No doubt this opininion no matter who offers it or how it is formed is subjective. Even in a playoff system on a given day in a given game the lessor of the two teams might prevail. That is simply the nature of sport.

 

Meh.... For a handful of deserving teams to not even have a chance to play for all the marbles.... it's wrong. If someone claims to be the best, then they need to win or they're not the best.

 

We're not asking for a 64-team bracket here.

 

An 8-team playoff that will mean an additional 3 games (well, an additional two games... b/c one would take the place of a traditional bowl game) for a NC that is determined on the field among teams that have won their conferences and/or have an at-large bid --- is that too much to ask?

 

Apparently, when you're forced to ask a bunch of good-ol'-boys, the answer is always Yes. Can't risk letting go of Their Precious.

[DrDawkinstein]

Do you think there should have been a Michigan-Ohio St rematch a few years ago? IIRC Florida's loss was to Ole Miss at home, while Michigan's loss was to the #1 team - and it was in Columbus, not Ann Arbor. I think it's fair to say Michigan had the better loss.

 

I like watching the SEC more than other conferences and their top two teams are better than anyone's. I think some of the "SEC haters" come out of the woodwork when you take it any farther than that. A lot of conferences have 3rd & 4th place teams that are comparable to Arkansas and Georgia.

 

Good question! Very different scenario though...

 

1. The Florida loss was to #11 ranked Auburn, in Auburn.

2. Florida won their Conference Championship (OK St, Stanford, etc, have not)

3. Florida played 5 games against teams that were (at the time) ranked in the top 10

4. Florida had the toughest schedule in the nation by opponent winning percentage.

 

Ohio St was ranked #1 based on the same type of Conference Love that people complain about regarding the SEC. Up until this point, the Big-10 was "THE Conference". They were dismantled in the Championship game by Florida, 41-14. Thus starting the SEC's reign of dominance.

 

None of the teams mentioned in this year's discussion had the type of season that the 2006 Gators had. If they did, I'd be on their side of the argument. Again, OK St. is the closest one, but they did not have that type of season.

 

Edit: I forgot that the Big-"12" doesnt have a Championship anymore, and OK St IS in fact at the top of the Conference. So I'll give them that...

Edited December 5, 2011 by DrDareustein

[Ramius]

Should be Ok St vs LSU, but alas, we're stuck with what is likely to be another boring crap-fest.

 

However, over on the college football forum, i posted my 2 playoff alternatives and how things would have lined up. Feell free to go check it out.

[/shameless plug for the college forum]

[BuffOrange]

Good question! Very different scenario though...

 

1. The Florida loss was to #11 ranked Auburn, in Auburn.

2. Florida won their Conference Championship (OK St, Stanford, etc, have not)

3. Florida played 5 games against teams that were (at the time) ranked in the top 10

4. Florida had the toughest schedule in the nation by opponent winning percentage.

 

Ohio St was ranked #1 based on the same type of Conference Love that people complain about regarding the SEC. Up until this point, the Big-10 was "THE Conference". They were dismantled in the Championship game by Florida, 41-14. Thus starting the SEC's reign of dominance.

 

None of the teams mentioned in this year's discussion had the type of season that the 2006 Gators had. If they did, I'd be on their side of the argument. Again, OK St. is the closest one, but they did not have that type of season.

 

Ahh my bad, got my years mixed up, I thought that was the year they lost to Ole Miss.

 

I still think what it comes down to though is that like a college basketball fan complaining about seeding, you'll adjust your criteria depending on who is being discussed: how far you go in your conf. tournament, bad losses, good wins, last 10 games, home/road is all stuff that NCAAB fans weigh differently for different teams depending on what's convenient for what they want to argue. Now bad losses are less important than winning your conference when your primary point previously seemed to be OK St having a worse loss...they did win their conference.