Quesiton about FBS/BCS

cajunjacket

cajunjacket

Dodd-Like
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
11,703
Under the current BCS system, a non-BCS conference team will never be allowed to play for a BCS national championship (this is confirmed for the past amount of years with the BCS in place). Therefore, why are non-BCS conferences in Division I-A (FBS) football? This conundrum (not having a shot at the National Championship) is not true for any other major college sport. Why doesn't D I-A just kick out all non-BCS conferences? There is no point for them to play as we can see from this season and some seasons past.

Looking at this year's case: Utah. Utah beat Alabama (the #1 team for 5 weeks straight) by a margin larger than Florida (a team playing in the national championship with 1 loss). They also did this is the SEC's bowl game: the Sugar Bowl. Also, no one wants to schedule Utah, so it is difficult for them to beef up their OOC opponents. They are stuck between a rock and a hard place. I ask again: Why doesn't D I-A just kick out all non-BCS conferences .... or why don't non-BCS conferences do anything about it because it is obvious that the BCS will never allow them to compete for a national championship?

Oh yeah, and please don't reply with the: "the beauty of bowl games is that everyone gets a chance to win a bowl game" argument. That is so flawed. No one can feel that proud of being the winners of the Emerald Nuts Bowl, Meineke Car Care Bowl, [Insert Sponsor Name Here] Bowl etc.
 
cajunjacket said:
Oh yeah, and please don't reply with the: "the beauty of bowl games is that everyone gets a chance to win a bowl game" argument. That is so flawed. No one can feel that proud of being the winners of the Emerald Nuts Bowl, Meineke Car Care Bowl, [Insert Sponsor Name Here] Bowl etc.
Click to expand...

FEDEX Orange Bowl
NOKIA Sugar Bowl
TOSTITOS Fiesta Bowl
CHICK FIL A Bowl
CAPITAL ONE Bowl

why shouldnt kids be proud, like say Utah, which beat the crap out of Alabama and went 13-0.

how can you say that arent feeling proud? of course they are and of course they should be. comments like there are stupid.

if you had a great year at work, even if you didnt end up the top sales guy, why wouldnt you be proud?

are you proud of your Tech degree? were you number 1 in your class? is Tech number one in the rankings?

i see your greater argument, but saying that 18-21 year olds should not be proud for having a good year is plain dumb, imo

i can see that there are a few too many bowls, but the kids should still be proud for what they accomplish while maintaining perspective on what they did not accomplish
 
I think maybe he misworded what he was trying to say. The way I see it, no one at Utah said at the beginning of the year, "Hey, let's go win a bowl game against a good team!" No, they said "Let's win a championship." That's why you play the game. At every level of every sport, you play the game to win the championship. Except for 1A college football, that is. It really is kind of dumb. Sure, Utah can be proud of what they accomplished, but everyone, including them, knows that they didn't accomplish what they set out to do.

Of course, this is just going to degenerate into another playoff thread, because that is really the only answer.
 
That's not true. Utah just didn't have compelling wins before Alabama (who didn't want to be there and had their best player - andre smith- out).

Best Wins
Oregon State 31-28
TCU 13-10
BYU 48-24

So, why didn't Boise State make it in?

Best Win = Oregon 35-31

Compare these two teams with USC, who also did not get to compete in the MNC.

Wins
Ohio State 35-3
Oregon 44-10
UVA 52-7
Cal 17-3
ND 38-3
Arizona 17-10

Losses
Oregon State 27-21

The only win that wasn't a blowout was over Arizona, who beat BYU in their bowl game. And do you really think that Utah could beat USC in a bowl game? UT is their only bowl loss (or game they didnt win by 2 TDs since 03):

Rose PSU W, 38-24
Rose Jan. 1, 2008 Illinois W, 47-17
Rose Jan. 1, 2007 Michigan W, 32-18
Rose Jan. 4, 2006 Texas L, 38-41
Orange Jan. 4, 2005 Oklahoma W, 55-19
Rose Jan. 1, 2004 Michigan W, 28-14
Orange Jan. 2, 2003 Iowa W, 38-17
 
the real problem is that there is no such thing as "the best team" and until that is realized all other arguments will continue.

that is why people that for some reason need some kind of resolution of who is "No 1" need a playoff. even though the playoff doesnt necessarily mean the "best" teams won, it is a definitive way to decide who the "winner" is.

why cant people be happy with knowing their team was really good, instead of some mythical "number 1" that it isnt clear what that means in the first place. best resume for the year or best team right now, or what

a playoff rewards the team for "best right now"
the computer polls reward teams for good resumes
the bowls (bcs) rewards teams with a combination of the two

the problem, really, is that fans want info that does not exist, that is, to "know" who the "best" team is
 
BuzzCzar said:
the real problem is that there is no such thing as "the best team" and until that is realized all other arguments will continue.

that is why people that for some reason need some kind of resolution of who is "No 1" need a playoff. even though the playoff doesnt necessarily mean the "best" teams won, it is a definitive way to decide who the "winner" is.

why cant people be happy with knowing their team was really good, instead of some mythical "number 1" that it isnt clear what that means in the first place. best resume for the year or best team right now, or what

a playoff rewards the team for "best right now"
the computer polls reward teams for good resumes
the bowls (bcs) rewards teams with a combination of the two

the problem, really, is that fans want info that does not exist, that is, to "know" who the "best" team is
Click to expand...

Heck, let's just stop keeping score altogether. While we're at it, everyone should get equal playing time - including the walk-ons. And if that's not enough, let's also remove the pads and tie flags around their waists.

If you don't want a clear-cut #1, then you need to just eliminate the post-season. Of course then the regular season becomes pointless too. What other sport - or even division - does not claim a final winner at the end of all games? It's really ridiculous not to have an overall champion.
 
BuzzCzar said:
the real problem is that there is no such thing as "the best team" and until that is realized all other arguments will continue.

that is why people that for some reason need some kind of resolution of who is "No 1" need a playoff. even though the playoff doesnt necessarily mean the "best" teams won, it is a definitive way to decide who the "winner" is.

why cant people be happy with knowing their team was really good, instead of some mythical "number 1" that it isnt clear what that means in the first place. best resume for the year or best team right now, or what

a playoff rewards the team for "best right now"
the computer polls reward teams for good resumes
the bowls (bcs) rewards teams with a combination of the two

the problem, really, is that fans want info that does not exist, that is, to "know" who the "best" team is
Click to expand...

This is completely true.

This is also the issue. We can crown a champ though a tourny, and be done with it just as it March Madness. How often, though, does the "anointed best team" not win that tourny? Pretty often.

They even head into it with 4 #1 seeds.

Were the Giants the best NFL team last year? No, but they were the NFL champions. Big difference.

A NCAA football playoff would name a champion in a play till you lose tourny. That is preferable to most than "the chosen two" format we now use.

I think it could be done in an 8 team format and preserve the bowls, too. But it won't happen soon. Too much money.
 
I just think that the bowl games are very unsatisfying, especially the BCS bowls. What's the point in watching Texas vs. Ohio State? or USC vs. Penn State? In the old system, if you were in one of the big bowls you knew you at least had a shot at a National Title. Now every single bowl game is meaningless except for the big one.

That's not satisfying.
 
Ish said:
I just think that the bowl games are very unsatisfying, especially the BCS bowls. What's the point in watching Texas vs. Ohio State? or USC vs. Penn State? In the old system, if you were in one of the big bowls you knew you at least had a shot at a National Title. Now every single bowl game is meaningless except for the big one.

That's not satisfying.
Click to expand...


uhh, to watch good football games. that is where the joy is supposed to be. not really in "being number one"
 
GTWannaBee said:
Heck, let's just stop keeping score altogether. While we're at it, everyone should get equal playing time - including the walk-ons. And if that's not enough, let's also remove the pads and tie flags around their waists.

If you don't want a clear-cut #1, then you need to just eliminate the post-season. Of course then the regular season becomes pointless too. What other sport - or even division - does not claim a final winner at the end of all games? It's really ridiculous not to have an overall champion.
Click to expand...

what???

i love keeping score and winning. but since not every team can play every other team, it wont really work out.

a playoff will also leave teams upset, say its eight teams and you are number 9. based on RANKINGS that are FLAWED from the get go.

unless you have a large enough pool of teams, then there will not be a "fair" system

but my post had nothing to do with being competitive -- the opposite, really, play the f'n games. win your games. just because i dont care if the AP has a different No1 than the BCS of the Harris doesnt mean anything about competitiveness. its just the realization that there is no good way to name a number one

a playoff advances the team playing the best AT THE END OF THE SEASON, it says nothing about what you have done so far - except through seeding. in college you do not have enough "cross divisional" games to be able to properly seed teams like you do in the NFL where you have about 30 teams (instead of 120)

a playoff would name a "champion" but SO WHAT? does it really make the FOOTBALL better?

i personally, prefer all the controversy. that is part of what college football is

also, you obviously are not familiar with another format used in many sports around the world, where you have a "season champion" based purely on points and then a "cup champion" that you win by going through a knock out competition. so the regular season has a champion, and then there is also a "playoff" champion. they are separate and distinct and both are coveted.

in NCAA basketball, some conferences give the automatic bid to the season winner, some conferences give it to the conference tournament winner (introduced for making more $$), some can give an automatic berth to both

probably the biggest example is the English Premier League (season) and the FA CUP (elimination tourney)

the only way the "regular season" is pointless is if only the winner is allowed to feel proud -- because there is only one of those, and still other teams had good years and should be proud of their success.

this THERE CAN BE ONLY 1 mentality, i dont get it
 
BuzzCzar said:
the problem, really, is that fans want info that does not exist, that is, to "know" who the "best" team is
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone really wants to know that. The only reason we argue about it is because that's the method the BCS decides to use to crown a champion. People don't want to know who the "best" team is...as many have pointed out, there really is no such thing. They want to know who wins. Even using such subjective criteria as they do now, they still call it the national champion, not the national best team. That's what people want. They want a champion.

As the saying goes, you play to win the game, not to make yourself look like the best team in the land.
 
stinger78 said:
This is completely true.



Were the Giants the best NFL team last year? No, but they were the NFL champions. Big difference.
Click to expand...

Do you think the Giants were the best team at the end of the year? I think so, by a wide margin. they played every playoff game on the road, and they beta the team that went 16-0 in the regular season on a neutral field.

Regardless, the winner of a tourney deserves to be crowned champion. It the only truly measureable way to determine who's the best; who wins on the field/court.
 
BeerNutts said:
Regardless, the winner of a tourney deserves to be crowned champion. It the only truly measureable way to determine who's the best; who wins on the field/court.
Click to expand...

ok, so do you think if Texas and Oklahoma play three times that the same team wins each time?

or is there still then a question of "which team is better" since much more likely there will be a split outcome

was Texas Tech really better than Texas? clearly no, but they "won on the field"

again, playoff scenario is "here and now, 1 time" not necessarily "best team over the long haul"

it depends what you want to see rewarded
 
If Utah started preseason top ten, then they probably would have played for the championship.

That Utah didn't make it this year is an indictment on the poll system in general, not the BCS exclusionary conference system in particular.
 
Ish said:
I just think that the bowl games are very unsatisfying, especially the BCS bowls. What's the point in watching Texas vs. Ohio State? or USC vs. Penn State? In the old system, if you were in one of the big bowls you knew you at least had a shot at a National Title. Now every single bowl game is meaningless except for the big one.

That's not satisfying.
Click to expand...
I don't buy that.

For example, we may not enjoy going to or care about the Humanitarian Bowl... but you know who does? Fresno State!

Ya'll keep missing the point. Bigtime. Bowls were never intended to decide who was No. 1. That's left to the media and the pollsters. They were created to showcase teams. Occasional cross conference play helps prevent your recruitment and tactics from getting too "inbred". It also gives NFL scouts additional looks at players, on a national stage.

So the question is... should 68 programs be showcased? Or a scant 8? (My guess is that we would hardly ever be one of the 8.) More importantly: What do the players, coaches, and ADs want?
 
gth816f said:
I don't think anyone really wants to know that. The only reason we argue about it is because that's the method the BCS decides to use to crown a champion. People don't want to know who the "best" team is...as many have pointed out, there really is no such thing. They want to know who wins. Even using such subjective criteria as they do now, they still call it the national champion, not the national best team. That's what people want. They want a champion.

As the saying goes, you play to win the game, not to make yourself look like the best team in the land.
Click to expand...

i really like the way you put that, and i can see the point

a champion is what it is, and as you say, no claim to be the "best team" just the winner of the contest, whatever its form

a tourney is what we are used to, i guess, in american sports culture. most sports in most countries do not have playoffs, they decide the champion by who was best over the course of the year...

all soccer leagues in Europe operate this way for example
 
BuzzCzar said:
ok, so do you think if Texas and Oklahoma play three times that the same team wins each time?

or is there still then a question of "which team is better" since much more likely there will be a split outcome

was Texas Tech really better than Texas? clearly no, but they "won on the field"

again, playoff scenario is "here and now, 1 time" not necessarily "best team over the long haul"

it depends what you want to see rewarded
Click to expand...

It's pretty obvious what everyone wants. We want a champion.
 
I don't see why folks bash the minor bowls so much.

It's free, extra, football, with a guaranteed nonconference matchup between two winning schools. What's not to like?
 
I raised the same question in another thread. It is completely counter-productive, and, at some level, an insult to all of those schools to tell them that no matter what they do, no matter if they beat everyone on their schedule, they will never win a national title. Imagine being told that before you ever step on a football field. "You can go ahead and beat everyone you play, but you still won't be the best".

And BuzzCzar, I'm sorry, but you're really off base with the mindset of "why do we have to find a champion?" or "we should just be happy to watch football". I don't know about you, but I take pride in Georgia Tech when they do well, and yes, if we won the Mythical National Championship or if we won in a playoff format, I would consider us "Champions" and the best team in the country? Why wouldn't I? Especially in a playoff format where we would have to play several of the best teams in the country to lay claim to champion. As the current system stands, you're right, no one can lay claim to being the best in most years, because the process is extremely subjective. I can't really say this year that Florida/Oklahoma is better than USC or Utah or Texas.

What many people apparently fail to realize about the playoffs is that the regular season gets you to the playoffs. Yes, it's reflecting who's the best over the course of the year. The Patriots didn't finish the job, so they didn't play the best over the course of the YEAR, which is EVERY GAME PLAYED. Ideally, in college football, you won't even make it to the playoffs without a two-loss record at the most unless you win a conference, again meaning that throughout the season, you played the best in your conference.

No one can hide behind the "the regular season won't matter" mantra when it comes to the subject, because guess what? If it did, the national title game tomorrow would be Boise State vs. Utah. Period. Throw out all your resumes and whatnot, because they did what every football team is supposed to do: Win. Your. Football. Games. And they did it against D-1A competition. If that's not good enough (which is what we're being told year in and year out), then why are those schools in D-1A?
 
beej67 said:
That Utah didn't make it this year is an indictment on the poll system in general, not the BCS exclusionary conference system in particular.
Click to expand...

But you can't hold the BCS responsible for the behavior of a few, sick twisted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole NCAA? And if the whole NCAA is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? I put it to you, beej67 - isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen!

(sorry, your line really made me think of that quote)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top