BCS Insanity

Originally posted by whodey
I will go on record now that my Buckeys have lost and say that I hope Oregon gets their shot at the NC. I think they should be #1 as well as Dixon on the team being the Heisman frontrunner.

Oregon? C'mon!!! Are you saying that because they trounced Michigan? Or just because they impressed you somehow.

It's a shame there's so many good football teams in the South, they tend to fade from the BCS eye once they lose 2 or 3 times with each other.

The Georgia Bulldogs beat the crap out of Auburn today, the same team that beat the National Champion Gators.. will they get credit for that?

Originally posted by myteamtrulystinks
It is not that simple. Why would you go to a major conference when you can just be undefeated in the WAC? Often two top six teams are in the same conference. Some conference don't have all the teams play each other so the two top teams could have the same record (even undefeated) would you take only one? Would you encourage that? Three teams co ...[text shortened]... ig the best conferences or play lots of out of conference game or no shot at the championship.

Every conference has a way of determining its champion, most by a conference championship game. Show me a single vconference this year where there won't be an outright champion or one decided by the "stupid" tiebreaker of Team A having beaten Team B.What is a "weak" conference isn't written in stone; the ACC used to be considered a second rate conference until Florida State started winning national championships. I personally think the WAC should get an automatic bid, esp. after Boise State's run of last year. The elitist attitude of yours towards the "big" conference is absurd; if they are sooooooooooo strong then they'll clobber the mid-majors in the playoff (like Oklahoma "routed" Boise State last year). At any rate, I see no reason to allow second place teams to compete against first place teams for a national championship; a chance at the championship should be earned.

As to other objections, I think there would be a lot more money in a playoff system than there is now. My plan would only require two extra semi-final games a week after the 4 main bowls, which would be the first round. We already have a BCS Championship game; it would just be a couple of week's later in my system (still within the semester breaks).

Originally posted by SmookieP
Oregon? C'mon!!! Are you saying that because they trounced Michigan? Or just because they impressed you somehow.

It's a shame there's so many good football teams in the South, they tend to fade from the BCS eye once they lose 2 or 3 times with each other.

The Georgia Bulldogs beat the crap out of Auburn today, the same team that beat the National Champion Gators.. will they get credit for that?

Doesn't Georgia still have a shot at the SEC title?

EDIT: They can still win the east if they win their next game and Tennessee loses one of their last two. Tennessee has the tiebreaker based on their 35-14 whipping of the Dawgs.

Screw it all man. You have convinced me. It should be the undefeated teams first. National Championship game Kansas vs. Hawaii. There it is. LOL

BC got fluked again, btw. They fluked once and have been fluked twice, go figure. Do you think Michigan and OSU were guilty of looking ahead to next week's matchup for the Rose Bowl rights? LSU took care of business, but they have several tough games ahead of them. Don't look now, but Oklahoma may figure prominently into the fray, especially if they were to beat an undefeated Kansas in the conference championship game. Good thing Oregon has a cake walk the rest of the way (of course that may hurt them since LSU and Oklahoma were to win out against much tougher competition).

Should be interesting to see how it all plays out.

Lets say kansas beats missouri. A very nice cap to a good season including a good win out of conference over Illinois which beat Ohio state (and I know you don't like the big ten but I think you'd concede that Ohio State is a good team and Illinois is the 3rd best team in the Big 10 which is worth something). then Kansas loses to a one loss team in Oklahoma. Now, you'd say there is no tie because there is a championship game. But i'd rather see all three or two of the three in any championship.
P.S. If I am an elitist snob than your system is unnecessarily redistributionist (plus it rewards teams that play Utah State and other teams that are the bottom 10 in the nation) instead of teams which play bowl eligible teams each week.

Originally posted by myteamtrulystinks
Lets say kansas beats missouri. A very nice cap to a good season including a good win out of conference over Illinois which beat Ohio state (and I know you don't like the big ten but I think you'd concede that Ohio State is a good team and Illinois is the 3rd best team in the Big 10 which is worth something). then Kansas loses to a one loss team ...[text shortened]... are the bottom 10 in the nation) instead of teams which play bowl eligible teams each week.

Think USC felt that way a few years ago? How about Auburn? When there are three, it will become a popularity contest. Picture this....If Kansas loses to OU in the Big 12 Championship game (assuming that means Oklahoma wins out), Oregon wins out, LSU wins out and Hawaii wins out. Hawaii will be undefeated and the other three will have one loss. Should Hawaii be in the Championship game in lieu of teams with one loss? Some will argue yes because they haven't been beaten. Some will argue that their schedule wasn't nearly as strong as the other three. Answer that with a straight face and see who you choose.

Originally posted by shortcircuit
Screw it all man. You have convinced me. It should be the undefeated teams first. National Championship game Kansas vs. Hawaii. There it is. [b]LOL

BC got fluked again, btw. They fluked once and have been fluked twice, go figure. Do you think Michigan and OSU were guilty of looking ahead to next week's matchup for the Rose Bowl rights? LSU took c ...[text shortened]... n out against much tougher competition).

Should be interesting to see how it all plays out.[/b]

Michigan looked like it tanked by not playing Henne or Hart (you can bet their "injuries" wouldn't have kept them out of a OSU game!). Ohio State got outplayed at home; it was no "fluke".

I watched Hawaii against Fresno State (until I fell asleep in the 3rd quarter). Colt Brennan remains the best QB in the country IMO with a super quick release, exceptional accuracy and a cannon arm. I have my doubts that Hawaii can beat Boise State and Washington (and Brennan got shook up AGAIN in the 4th quarter), but if they do they'd make a great team to play in the championship. Kansas and Hawaii would be a terrific shootout, like Boise and Oklahoma was last year (though Boise had a more impressive record including a thrashing of 10-3 Oregon State).

It is not that hard. You don't play anyone good. You don't get to be in a nation championship game. You are hawaii. You have a former NFL coach as your coach. It is a fun trip you could probably schedule a team like penn state or rutgers or west viginia or any team that isn't tied up in the first week in december or thanksgiving week. People like the trip. But they did not play anyone. It isn't a lottery. You did not earn a trip to play.

Originally posted by myteamtrulystinks
Lets say kansas beats missouri. A very nice cap to a good season including a good win out of conference over Illinois which beat Ohio state (and I know you don't like the big ten but I think you'd concede that Ohio State is a good team and Illinois is the 3rd best team in the Big 10 which is worth something). then Kansas loses to a one loss team ...[text shortened]... are the bottom 10 in the nation) instead of teams which play bowl eligible teams each week.

If Oklahoma beats both Missouri (which it has already) and Kansas, you think that one or both of them should get another possible shot against the Sooners for the national championship?? Why??

No team plays bowl eligible teams every week (certainly not Ohio State or some of the others you mention). I'd reward teams with exceptional records with a chance to beat BCS Conference champions; if they can't, they can't. If they can, like Boise State did last year, then why shouldn't they have the chance to win a national championship? They'd have to win 3 games against BCS Conference champions; certainly if they did so, they'd deserve to be called "champion".

Originally posted by myteamtrulystinks
It is not that hard. You don't play anyone good. You don't get to be in a nation championship game. You are hawaii. You have a former NFL coach as your coach. It is a fun trip you could probably schedule a team like penn state or rutgers or west viginia or any team that isn't tied up in the first week in december or thanksgiving week. People l ...[text shortened]... trip. But they did not play anyone. It isn't a lottery. You did not earn a trip to play.

Boise State isn't anyone? They were the no6 team in the country last year and are in the top 20 this year. And they play Washington which also happens to be the toughest out of conference team Ohio State played this year. If Hawaii wins out, they'll be in the BCS and they deserve it.

No hawaii does not play anyone in conference and one terrible pac 10 team does not make up for it. Missouri which plays a tough conference and has one loss plus played a better out of conference game deserves it more. Otherwise why have major conferences? everyone should just play no one and cry how in america everyone deserves a chance.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Michigan looked like it tanked by not playing Henne or Hart (you can bet their "injuries" wouldn't have kept them out of a OSU game!). Ohio State got outplayed at home; it was no "fluke".

I watched Hawaii against Fresno State (until I fell asleep in the 3rd quarter). Colt Brennan remains the best QB in the country IMO with a super quick re ar (though Boise had a more impressive record including a thrashing of 10-3 Oregon State).

I am becoming bored with your persistent "no fluke" shouts. If it weren't a fluke, then why isn't Illinois undefeated this year? The reason, they are not that good! They are a good solid team, no better than 4th in that conference, IMO. They won on this particular day, like any dog can. That does not mean Ilinois is a better team, it means they were on that day. Hawaii has played no one of major caliber and would be a joke in the BCS. They have a quarterback who excells in the system and outs up good numbers because of it. Let's not forget that Andre Ware, David Klingler, Ryan Leaf (and I can keep going) did similar things in their college systems and were all NFL busts (i.e. not great QB's). I believe Hawaii would be beaten by at least 7 teams in the Big 12, at least half of the Pac 10, at least half of the Big 10, and at least 7 teams in the SEC. How can that team be a contender?

Originally posted by shortcircuit
I am becoming bored with your persistent "no fluke" shouts. If it weren't a fluke, then why isn't Illinois undefeated this year? The reason, they are not that good! They are a good solid team, no better than 4th in that conference, IMO. They won on this particular day, like any dog can. That does not mean Ilinois is a better team, it means they were on ast half of the Big 10, and at least 7 teams in the SEC. How can that team be a contender?

Nobody cares what you "believe"; you were probably saying the same BS about Boise State last year. Brennan will be a first round pick and we'll see if he becomes a great NFL QB or not; he's got a better shot than last year's ridiculous Heisman Trophy winner, Smith from OSU (who got drafted in the 5th round by Baltimore and hasn't even been activated even though the Ravens desperately need help at QB). Hawaii's a contender because they're unbeaten and they play in a conference which, while not BCS automatic, has put together a decent record against the BCS conferences in most years (though not this year).

Like I said, guys like you think that what you "believe" is more important than the results on the field.

Originally posted by myteamtrulystinks
No hawaii does not play anyone in conference and one terrible pac 10 team does not make up for it. Missouri which plays a tough conference and has one loss plus played a better out of conference game deserves it more. Otherwise why have major conferences? everyone should just play no one and cry how in america everyone deserves a chance.

You never even bother to respond to my points; you just repeat the same blather. What is and isn't a "major" conference changes over the years. 6 conferences get automatic bids; that's an incentive to be in those conferences. Besides it's not like anybody can just join one of the 6 BCS conferences if they feel like it; I guess the other schools shouldn't even bother to play.

Why you people are sooooooooooo opposed to mid-majors having a shot against the "powerhouses" I don't understand. If you're right it'll just be an easy victory for the big shots. Just like last year when Oklahoma creamed Boise State!

Originally posted by no1marauder
You never even bother to respond to my points; you just repeat the same blather. What is and isn't a "major" conference changes over the years. 6 conferences get automatic bids; that's an incentive to be in those conferences. Besides it's not like anybody can just join one of the 6 BCS conferences if they feel like it; I guess the other schools shouldn't ...[text shortened]... asy victory for the big shots. Just like last year when Oklahoma creamed Boise State!

Just out of curiosity, do you root for any of these teams?