Cripes Posted November 27, 2006 Share Posted November 27, 2006 A lot of the arguments against the BCS every year focus on which team is getting jobbed out of its "deserved' spot in the title game. Same crap this year. But how come we don't hear or read as much about the BCS (and the former Bowl Alliance's) actual match-making performance over the years, where there have been plenty of the deserved who still got served up like a virgin to the Aztecs. Of the 14 "arranged" championship games since 1992, seven have been complete wipeouts. USC 55, OU 19. Miami 37, Nebraska 14. FSU 46, Va. Tech 29. Nebraska 42, Tennessee 19 Florida 52, FSU 20 Nebraska 62, Florida 24 Alabama 34, Miami 13 Granted, the old Bowl Alliance games didn't include Pac 10/Big 10 teams that otherwise would have been involved (92, 96, 97), but this to me proves more than anything that deserving teams usually aren't the best teams. I sniff another smokin' on the horizon with Josh Booty tossing up four or five picks against OSU, which will push the BCS' mission beyond the 50 percent failure threshold. And one more prick (I hope) into the stubborn hide of super conference presidents Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted November 27, 2006 Share Posted November 27, 2006 FSU 46, Va. Tech 29. That was actually a good game. IIRC VT led 29-28 at the start of the 4Q but Peter Warrick just killed the Hookies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cripes Posted November 28, 2006 Author Share Posted November 28, 2006 Yeah, I forgot the game was close heading into the fourth...but I think Vick & Co. collapsed very badly at that point (when was his fumble, and the blocked punt?). Kind of like the '93 Bills after halftime in XXVIII. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokinandjokin Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 I'm not sure what the point of this thread is, other than BCS = BAD. However, don't assume a playoff system completely avoids the possibility of a trouncing in the title game. The Super Bowl was a complete washout fourteen times in twenty years: XXXVII Jan. 26, 2003 Tampa Bay 48, Oakland 21 XXXV Jan. 28, 2001 Baltimore 34, N.Y. Giants 7 XXXIII Jan. 31, 1999 Denver 34, Atlanta 19 XXXI Jan. 26, 1997 Green Bay 35, New England 21 XXIX Jan. 29, 1995 San Francisco 49, San Diego 26 XXVIII Jan. 30, 1994 Dallas 30, Buffalo 13 XXVII Jan. 31, 1993 Dallas 52, Buffalo 17 XXVI Jan. 26, 1992 Washington 37, Buffalo 24 XXIV Jan. 28, 1990 San Francisco 55, Denver 10 XXII Jan. 31, 1988 Washington 42, Denver 10 XXI Jan. 25, 1987 N.Y. Giants 39, Denver 20 XX Jan. 26, 1986 Chicago 46, New England 10 XIX Jan. 20, 1985 San Francisco 38, Miami 16 XVIII Jan. 22, 1984 L.A. Raiders 38, Washington 9 I don't think the #1 vs. #2 'ugly' games are the fault of the BCS/Bowl Alliance. It's more a function of the two teams having more than a month off between games. Typically, one team responds to the layoff much better than the other team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cripes Posted November 28, 2006 Author Share Posted November 28, 2006 I thought of the NFL analogy, but the problem there is that there's no seeding like there would be with a real bowl championship series (the '89 Broncos would have been a fifth or sixth seed, for instance). My point wasn't to underline the obvious playoff need, but that the BCS controversy is always about who is and is not getting a fair shake for the title game from voters and computers...while I don't hear enough questions to the presidents and the BCS apologists (Kirk Heibstreit) about how they continue to believe a regular season schedule is enough to decipher who's most deserving of a shot. I just think it would be a new tactic to use by having them explain how a No.1-No.2 matchup like USC-OU can turn into a 36-point clunker...and that it's happened so often. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokinandjokin Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 I just think it would be a new tactic to use by having them explain how a No.1-No.2 matchup like USC-OU can turn into a 36-point clunker...and that it's happened so often. 850607[/snapback] That is true, and it would call into question the need/effect of a 50-day layoff, in the case of this year's Ohio State team (Nov 18 - Jan 8.) Proponents say that the BCS forces every regular season game to be considered a playoff game, and they like it because it places all of the importance on the regular season, with teams playing each week. So then why make the continuity of the regular season irrelevant by waiting nearly two months to play the title game? As we all know, it makes no logical sense. I mentioned it in another thread...Boise State's performance in a BCS bowl this January will be watched very closely, and could do more for a playoff argument than any #2 vs. #3 squabbling ever would. I think it would be a real eye-opener if BSU lumped up a top-5 team from a major conference (i.e. NOT the Big East champ. We already saw Pitt lose to Utah in '04.) If it will improve the system, I hope they light it up against a highly regarded team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cripes Posted November 28, 2006 Author Share Posted November 28, 2006 If it will improve the system, I hope they light it up against a highly regarded team. 850635[/snapback] Since they're being pegged for the Fiesta Bowl against OU perhaps, well...maybe it's an experiment that can wait for next year. : Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.