BCS stinks

The alleged national championship game between Florida and Oklahoma is what the bcs said we should see. But in the meantime, Utah is undefeated, USC destroys Penn State, Texas has still only lost one game, and every other NCAA sanctioned division has a playoff. Yep, D1 football is a great system all right. The football (bowl and ncaa) barons are getting rich while we watch and debate.
I am not even watching the "National Championship Game" because I don't think it's legitimate.

Here's 1 argument: Texas beat Oklahoma on a neutral site, lost with 1 second to go AT Texas Tech, but Oklahoma is in the championship game? Florida lost AT HOME.

Of course there are similar arguments for other positions. For example, OU destroyed Texas Tech (who beat Texas) - but that was IN (AT) OKLAHOMA.

I am OK with the bowl system but that system does NOT determine a national champion.

I understood that OU and Florida got in based on computer portion of BCS. If so, GIGO!

If I were voting it would be Texas versus Utah.

"I understood that OU and Florida got in based on computer portion of BCS. If so, GIGO!"

You're wrong. Florida was 3rd to 5th in the computer portion and #2 in the human polls. They were voted in overwhelmingly.



"If I were voting it would be Texas versus Utah."

And some other putz might vote in Richmond. Nobody cares how you'd vote but, possibly...you.

You know, figure skating, gymnastics etc.

how University hierarchys across the country embrace the March Madness method of crowning a college Basketball Champion and the BCS methodology for their football teams at the same time.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/college/orl-sportsbowls01010109jan01,0,1859287.story

Of course, I am opposed to a D-1 playoff (LOVED LOVED LOVED the old system), but that aside, the logistics for a playoff system are hardly the same as the glorified high-school games that comprise the playoffs in other divisions. They can't even fill the stands for their home playoff games. When it's Texas or Michigan or Nebraska, you need to be able to accomodate tens of thousands of people - and on short notice.

would be vastly superior to the BCS.

I think a plus three this year would likely be:

USC v. Utah

Texas/OSU winner v. Fla/OU winner

Plus the winners of those two games in a Championship Game

I just don't get it. It was great the old way - it was fun, it was wild, and you generally had a number one at the end of it. Sometimes you had co-champions - so what?

It was just a million times more fun and lots of the games had meaning.

I don't support a college football playoff at all (for a variety of reasons) but I will say this: if they do have it, then we can scrap the system of playing all the post-season games in warm weather. I think that was the point of bowls in the first place - a sort of fun vacation for teams and fans. The first Rose Bowl game was an addition to the already existing Tournament of Roses, after all. But if people continue to insist (as I suppose they will in this win or go home mentality we have now) that there must be AN ULTIMATE CHAMPION then let's say goodbye to the cozy climes and have playoffs at the Big House, in Nebraska, in the pouring rain in Seattle or Oregon, or in the winds of Happy Valley.

I feel sorry for people who will never have known the old system. They will have missed a lot of joy.

In the glory days you speak of, it was decided by the votes of a group of sportswriters and a group of "coaches."

My preference is simply that if there is to be a national champion, that the champion be decided on the field and not by popular vote or a computer program.

and it generally was decided on the field anyway.

But it was a fun time for all - that's my point, and college sports should be fun. It's a way for everyone to re-connect to their student days. I like that.

I think there is a real issue, if there were a playoff, with extending the season too far into January. They'd have to eliminate at least one game off the regular schedule, and it would have to be a non-conference game -IMO, there are already not enough conference games. In the Big Ten, teams regularly rotate out two opponents, which is ridiculous. They should all play everyone in the conference. But the advent of the Super Conferences has mucked that all up.

I still don't see why you take something that was perfectly good and then break it.

there was a time when the national "champions" were crowned by the writers and the coaches before the Bowl Games were played.

Lisa, if you are peaking in here, I'm not disagreeing with you (necessarily,) just sharing data.

I'll say it again, in 20+ years in Las Vegas I've never met a single respected handicapper who relied on strength of schedule. It's ludicrous by definition in college football because the sample size is so limited and the teams scamper into conference play so early in the season. That's how you get bullshit like the Pac 10 undervalued and the Big 12 absurdly overstated. Twenty or 30 years ago you never even had the phrase strength of schedule in the sporting vocabulary. Now it's frantically grasped, touted as trump card in any argument, a convenient copout for talk show hosts and fans in general.

In pro sports with large quantities of games, like the NBA, strength of schedule has validity because you can see one conference piling up victories and won/loss superiority over many months, all different points of the season, and dozens/hundreds of games to rely on for evaluation.

In an imperfect system you have to at least open up the vote. It would be like the Masters pairing the top two players on Sunday then allowing only one of those two players to win, regardless of other evidence that surfaced throughout the final round. In most cases, and particularly in the past 20 years if you know Masters history, there is separation and class difference, one of the two leaders will prevail. But in the BCS it's a case of idiocy, pretending every year is identical in terms of balance or imbalance. When you've got everyone bunched going into the final hole, like this year, the BCS is a farce.