$#!@ the BCS

[A Monkey With a Gun]

There is no reason a team that goes 12-0 and 9-0 in the S E fucking C should be left out of the national championship hunt. The Southeastern Conference is hands down the toughest conference in the nation. The Big 12 North sucks. The Pac 10 only has USC and Cal. Top to bottom, the SEC is better than either.

Don't get me wrong. USC and OK deserve to play in the orange bowl. Both teams are stellar. But, damnit, so is Auburn. And the Tigers also deserve to play. Unfortunately, this ain't Chinese checkers, so AU gets screwed.

Fuck.



War Eagle.

[capacitor]

Now you know how USC feels last year, when they were shut out of the BCS despite being ranked No. 1 in the human polls.

[A Monkey With a Gun]

True, and I felt for USC. But Auburn has no chance for a split national championship. USC at least got that. We got nothing, nada, nil, mu.

The NCAA needs a playoff and it needs it now.

[Gorsnak]

Can't disagree there. And it wouldn't be hard, either. A little 8 team affair, to be comprised of the 8 conference champions that are highest in the rankings. This neatly solves any problems with unusually good mid-major teams and unusually weak major conferences (Big East, I'm looking at you!) in one fell swoop. Highly ranked second place teams from major conferences (this year would be Cal and Texas) will just have to suck it up. If you wanna be national champion, you gotta be conference champion first. First round goes the weekend before Christmas at the home fields of the top 4 seeds. Second round and consolation matches between first round losers go in the big 4 New Years bowls. Championship game goes one week later at a rotating site a la the Final Four.

Of course, this would make sense, so it will never happen.

[edwino]

Texas fan. Tell me about it. We don't even get a BCS berth -- granted we can't beat Oklahoma and therefore we technically don't deserve it. We had an Auburn fan at work last year (she has since moved) and man she must be pissed. Well, at least Texas doesn't have to go the Holiday Bowl again this year, not that the Cotton Bowl is that much better. I can see the mundane sportscasters now: The battle of the UTs! Which school is the true orange and white? How fucking amazing will that be? :rolleyes:

The only silver lining to the BCS is that it serves as an object of shared hatred for all college football. Texas and OU fans: sing together at the flaws in the BCS! Ohio State and Michigan fans link arms and shout in protests! Auburn and Alabama, embrace and hurl objects!

[Gorsnak]

The only silver lining to the BCS is that it serves as an object of shared hatred for all college football. Texas and OU fans: sing together at the flaws in the BCS! Ohio State and Michigan fans link arms and shout in protests! Auburn and Alabama, embrace and hurl objects!
Now wait just one cotton pickin' minute! If you think I'm going to link arms with some @#$%ing Buckeye, even for the sake of BCS-hatin', you've got another thing coming!

:D

[Snooooopy]

Texas fan. Tell me about it. We don't even get a BCS berth -- granted we can't beat Oklahoma and therefore we technically don't deserve it.


Well, maybe you can take heart in Cal's none-too-dominating victory over Southern Mississippi tonight. Cal's lead in the BCS race over Texas is so razor-thin that even a handful of changed votes would put Texas in the lead. And voters are not unknown to punish teams for winning games by margins that are judged to be not overpowering enough. Southern Mississippi was a 24-point underdog, but Cal won by only 10, pulling away in the final minutes with the help of an unusual special-teams play.

[A Monkey With a Gun]

Can't disagree there. And it wouldn't be hard, either. A little 8 team affair, to be comprised of the 8 conference champions that are highest in the rankings. This neatly solves any problems with unusually good mid-major teams and unusually weak major conferencesHell, I'd settle for a four team playoff, with the entrants decide by the polls. An eight team playoff would mean three games after the conference championships. Cap the regular season at 11, play the conference championships, and rotate the BCS bowl between the semifinals and the finals...... of course that leaves one left out.

But let the one left out get the pick of the litter of what's left. The bowls aren't going away, and I actually see no reason to get rid of the second tier bowls (Capital One, Peach, et al.).

I wouldn't mind a larger playoff, but the college season can't be extended too long.


On preview:Auburn and Alabama, embrace and hurl objects!Can we still hurl them at each other?

[A Monkey With a Gun]

That wasn't exacyly clear. I was advocating a four team playoff.

...of course that might leave Texas out........

[Jimmy Chitwood]

How is this the fault of the BCS? When there are three unbeatens, #3 gets screwed, with or without computers. I don't think the playoff system is a good idea anyway. First of all, it will never happen because nobody involved actually wants it to happen. Second of all, it doesn't solve anything. Teams that don't deserve to be in the hunt will be some years, and teams that deserve it won't be other years. How do you decide which one-loss team gets the fourth spot? What if the fourth seed wins the championship? What if there are five unbeatens, or none?

More importantly to me as a fan, though, it would take away the drama of September, October, and November. Who the fuck is going to care about the Red River Shootout when the loser is still going to be in the national picture either way? The way it works now, the whole damn season is the NCAA tournament. I'd rather have elimination games to watch every week of the season than wait for a mini-tournament featuring the same-old same-old every year. This particular year, and last year, it worked out so somebody was left out in the cold, but I think that's just an inevitable consequence of having 119 or however many teams gunning for a common championship over a short season. No system is going to satisfy everybody unless you can play 20-30 games per team.

[Gorsnak]

it will never happen because nobody involved actually wants it to happen
Oh, I'm reasonably confident that Tommy Tuberville does, at least this year. :)

[Jimmy Chitwood]

Well, that's another thing. Ask USC fans how the system's working out right now. Go read how they felt about it last year. It just changes too much year-to-year to be able to fix it with a complicated system. Taking out strength of schedule is a perfect example -- they keep trying to change it to fix last year's problems, and you're never going to fix it in everyone's eyes.

[edwino]

How is this the fault of the BCS? When there are three unbeatens, #3 gets screwed, with or without computers. I don't think the playoff system is a good idea anyway. First of all, it will never happen because nobody involved actually wants it to happen. Second of all, it doesn't solve anything. Teams that don't deserve to be in the hunt will be some years, and teams that deserve it won't be other years. How do you decide which one-loss team gets the fourth spot? What if the fourth seed wins the championship? What if there are five unbeatens, or none?
1) Plenty of people want it. Pretty much all college football fans want it. Probably even USC fans after last year's debacle. There are plenty of people against it.
2) Of course it solves something. At least the teams will meet on a field of play. In an 8 team playoff, which can be done by adding only one week to the season (probably sometime in mid-December when teams are idle anyway -- i.e. next week), all of these teams would meet on a field of play. There would only be one undefeated team left at the end. That's all anyone is asking for. A playoff system isn't perfect but it is a whole helluva lot better than coaches with agendas and computers with secret formulas determining who plays whom.
3) 8 team playoff is the way to go. You can do this with 8 bowls (including a loser's bracket). Keep the old bowls in place for the UNT and Bowling Green fans. The four premier BCS bowls (Orange, Fiesta, Rose, Sugar) will be the 2 semi-finals and the championship/loser final games. The other four bowls can either rotate from the larger bowl pool or can be elevated up (take the Cotton, Gator, Peach, and another one perhaps Capitol One or something -- the New Year's Day bowls). First round bowls get played next week. Semi-final round bowls get played New Year's Day. Finals get played a week later, which ends the season exactly 3 days after it is scheduled to end. If you are complaining that the season is too long, eliminate the conference championship games. Use the BCS system to rank the top 8 teams. The only sacrifices to be made are around team 8/9. This is far less of a tragedy than a "championship" system like the BCS that includes #19 Pitt and #14 Michigan but leaves out the #6 team in the nation.
4) Nobody argues that the computer conglomerated rankings are perfect. They work to an extent, but it is a travesty that they are used to exclude a team which has played perfectly from competing for a championship. Yes, there are always going to be Boise States (who probably should be in the mix also) who play a weak schedule and run the table. But schools in weak conferences know that if they want to compete at a national level, they need to improve their non-conference schedules, so we can come closer to comparing apples to apples. That's where a computer helps. Get to a reasonably fair level, and then let them sort it out on the field.

[A Monkey With a Gun]

Oh, I'm reasonably confident that Tommy Tuberville does, at least this year. :)Amen.

But it's also more than that. The SEC is going to be pissed off. The fact that the conference champion is being passed over is not going to go over well with the AD's within the conference. It looks bad for Georgia, Tennesee, Florida, Alabama, everybody.

And those guys have pull.

When USC got passed over last year, everybody felt bad. But they got a share of the championship, and well, nothing against USC or Cal, but the Pac Ten isn't the SEC. Passing over Auburn very well might kill the BCS.

It needs to die.

[edwino]

One more thing. As a die-hard Texas fan, California should go to the Rose Bowl. They've been waiting for decades for this. A Michigan/California Rose Bowl is the way it should be, and I would feel dirty to see Texas put into the BCS over California.

[Gorsnak]

Monkey, I believe you're overestimating the importance of the SEC in the grand scheme of things. Yeah, it's a good conference, but it's not, as some of its fans apparently think, the undisputed champion of conferences. In any given year, any of the major conferences can be home of the best collection of teams. Well, okay, in years past the ACC and Big East were maybe a small step down. Not much, though, and now the ACC is right up there, though the Big East is no longer any more significant than the WAC. If Auburn getting passed over has any larger impact on the BCS than the travesties in years past, it will only be because a few of the key players in forming the BCS were from the SEC. But I don't think it will have any impact at all, sadly, with the new BCS television contract having been signed through 2010.

[Jimmy Chitwood]

I didn't say nobody wanted a championship playoff, I said nobody who has a say wants it -- that is, the presidents of the schools, and the bowl people. Lengthening the season is a big problem, and adding bowls makes for crappier teams in the bowls on the bottom. That, plus the fact that they'll no longer be able to choose the matchups they want, means less money for those bowls. Eliminating conference championships is also not an option.

Eventually, for financial reasons, there probably will be some form of a playoff, and maybe it'll turn out to be like the NCAA basketball tournament -- a huge cash cow and a big event. I hope everyone realizes, though, that football isn't basketball, that nobody cares about regular season college basketball, and that the best team in the country rarely even makes it through to the basketball final.

[Leaper]

A relevant comic to this rant here (http://www.crimeweek.com/cidu/november15d.gif).

[A Monkey With a Gun]

Monkey, I believe you're overestimating the importance of the SEC in the grand scheme of things.
Heathen!

chuckle

I'll be the first to admit that we may overestimate our conference down here. BUT, since there is no doubt that the SEC is a major conference, and it's getting screwed, AD's across the nation will stop and think, "what if that happens to us?".

The BCS was origianlly supposed to expire after 2005, and after this fiasco I can't see any major conference supporting it. Nobody's happy with it. Just like a coach that hasn't performed, it will be thrown to the curb like the inept whore that it is. My prediction is a four team playoff. I'd support that.

The BCS contract will be renegotiated.



Damn I hope I'm right. This ain't fair and I'm pissed. Ironically enough, that last word works for the British usage, too

[duffer]

Yay! Another BCS rant!

Fuck, when will the fucking BCS "committee" get it through their thick fucking skulls that the majority (vast majority) of NCAA football fans want a playoff system? For fuck's sake! The NCAA allowed a 65th team to compete in a "play-in" game against number 64 for the Basketball tourny! Not only do they include 64 teams to compete for the championship, they allow an outsider to knock off a tourny team to even enter!

Do what I do folks. (And I admit I wouldn't if Wisconsin had actually played well the last two games.) Boycott. I'm not even trying for a joke response here.

Boycott these motherfuckers and let them know you're not watching. Call the local affiliate, write/call/e-mail ESPN, write a letter to your local paper's editorial page, do what you can.

Remember, the NCAA title game is analogous to the NFL deciding whom plays in the Super Bowl based on not only the record, but more important the teams they played and a computer algorithm.

[BobLibDem]

I'd love to see a 16 team playoff. The reason it won't happen is money- the NCAA makes money by the train car off of the existing bowl system. If someone with very deep pockets came in and made the NCAA an offer it couldn't refuse, we'd have a playoff.

[tomndebb]

I'd have to oppose these schemes to actually discover the "true" national champ. If we actually had a way to know who was "best," there would be so little to talk about at this time of year that families night actually have to speak to each other about real life issues at Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Year. ::: shudder :::

[Frank]

And we all know where it ends up if that happens. In the PIT!

I think the BCS is better than nothing. However many teams you involve, somebody is going to whine about being left out. The champions only idea has some merit to it, but remember, that's how the basketball championship used to be, and there was plenty of whining about that. (Maryland in the early 70s, anyone?)

[duffer]

I'd love to see a 16 team playoff. The reason it won't happen is money- the NCAA makes money by the train car off of the existing bowl system. If someone with very deep pockets came in and made the NCAA an offer it couldn't refuse, we'd have a playoff.

The more I think of this (and it's bugged me for years) the first thing we have to do is cut some of the bullshit Bowl games.

All taken from here (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=1790325)

Now really, let's look at some of these and I challenge anyone to defend these as serious "bowl" games.

Wyndham New Orleans Bowl

Champs Sports Bowl

GMAC Bowl

Plains Capital Fort Worth Bowl

Pioneer PureVision Bowl

Sheraton Hawaii Bowl

MPC Computers Bowl

I'll give a pass to the Motor City Bowl(cuz I don't want to get shot) and the Independence Bowl cuz I got laid there right good.)

Insight Bowl

EV1.net Houston Bowl (leet fuckers are everywhere!)

Mastercard Alamo Bowl. You have to be fucking kidding me here.

Continental Tire Bowl. See above.

Emerald Bowl. Again, see above.

Pacific Life Holiday Bowl. Anyone see a pattern?

Silicon Valley Bowl. This is getting too easy.

Gaylords Hotels Music City Bowl. Well, TWO Music City Bowls. Maybe they're extra special? :rolleyes:

Vitalis Sun Bowl. Wish I had tickets. Imagine the money I could make scalping these babies?

AutoZone Liberty Bowl, getting into respectable games so I'll end it here. (Go Badgers in the bullshit Outback Bowl!)

Now check out the networks carrying the games. 1 game goes to NBC. One game goes to FOX. One game goes to CBS.

All the others go to ABC/ESPN. 5 to ABC. 20 to ESPN.

The four-letter network is pimping these fucking games for ratings. The other five are shown on...

Well, now I'm getting into Reeder territory. Maybe I should let him really go off of these fuckers. Reeder, pretend Bush just kicked your dog then made up the Bowl schedule. You'll be able to rant about this better than I as you may even get a rant on corporate sports coverage.

I beg you to hit the four-letter network. You distract them with the verbage, I'll sneak up from behind. ;)

[duffer]

(Maryland in the early 70s, anyone?)

Unless Maryland dealt with a system where only 2 Division1 teams played for the title, it's a different beast. Or did they have to play other teams in a playoff format? I was born in '73 and not a rabid BB fan so I could be wrong.

[Frank]

Unless Maryland dealt with a system where only 2 Division1 teams played for the title, it's a different beast. Or did they have to play other teams in a playoff format? I was born in '73 and not a rabid BB fan so I could be wrong.
Only one team per conference was allowed into the NCAA playoffs. A couple of years there, Maryland was the second best (at worst, third best) team in the country, but did not get in the tournament because they lost the ACC playoffs. (At the time, the ACC was the only major conference with a tournament.)

[duffer]

Only one team per conference was allowed into the NCAA playoffs. A couple of years there, Maryland was the second best (at worst, third best) team in the country, but did not get in the tournament because they lost the ACC playoffs. (At the time, the ACC was the only major conference with a tournament.)

That's why I'm treading lightly here. I'm not a big BB fan unless it's the Badgers or Warriors. (There are no Golden Eagles!)

[Neurotik]

The SEC is the most overrated conference in sports. It's good, but it's not so clearly heads-and-shoulders over everyone else that it's such a travesty that Auburn isn't getting in.

Look at Auburn's non-conference schedule - Louisiana Tech, Citadel, Louisiana Tech. The Citadel's not even Division I-A for Pete's sake! And it only won 3 games in the second tier division! Look at some of their conference wins - mighty Mississippi, Miss. St., Arkansas, Kentucky, Alabama. Georgia, Tennessee and LSU were the only good teams they played all year.

At least USC took on and beat the ACC champion Virginia Tech, beat the #4 or 5 team in the nation in Cal. And beat Notre Dame, which Tennessee couldn't manage to do.

I'm not saying Auburn isn't a great team. They are. Heck, I'm not even saying that they don't deserve to be in the Orange Bowl, I think they very well might be better than either Oklahoma or USC. But let's not kid ourselves that Auburn's schedule was so much tougher than everyone else's just because they came out of the SEC.

[Airman Doors, USAF]

The mere fact that you started this thread is proof that the BCS has accomplished everything it intended to accomplish.

Let's see here: they cut out well over half of all teams from ever even having a chance at the national championship, they ensure that the conference champs play in a big money bowl game whether they deserve it or not, they skew the data towards the big conference teams, and they put weight on opinion polls which have the same teams in perpetuity.

The fix is in. That a team like Utah can even get a shake is because they gave the BCS people no choice. And the BCS likes it that way. Wanna know why? Because you're compaining about it. It may disgust you, but it keeps your interest piqued.

In other words, you're being used. How does it feel to be taken for a ride like this? I hate it, which is why I don't have any particular interest in college football. The pros are much better for having a playoff, if you ask me. But the BCS people never will, of course.

[Evil Captor]

Any bowl that has a decent-sized parade and so forth must be kept because it's more than a football game. I like the Rose and Orange Bowl parades better than I like the football games associated with them. I think New Orleans oughtta have a parade, too, and let their strippers loose for that one.

[Kel Varnsen - Latex Division]

How about we drop those stupid pre-conference games and have the conference champions play each other at the end of the season before the bowls?

[duffer]

Any bowl that has a decent-sized parade and so forth must be kept because it's more than a football game. I like the Rose and Orange Bowl parades better than I like the football games associated with them. I think New Orleans oughtta have a parade, too, and let their strippers loose for that one.

Please tell me you're hoping for female strippers! Otherwise, well, I'll accuse you of being on the BCS board of voters. :dubious: :D

[The Big Cheese]

expanding the season for a 4 or 8 game playoff wouldn't expand it by that much. The players wouldn't miss that much school, they only play on saturdays. In the 65 team bball playoffs they're playing thursday(probably travelling at least on wednesday unless you're Bobby Knight), friday and all weekend, then doing it the next week too. I bball they miss way more school than football players do, and football playoffs are over break. We have a playoff in high school, in the pros, why not college.

every year something is screwed up with this bcs, every year they tweak it and it never works. Let's get out of the dark ages now.

I'd like to see Utah play Auburn...i think.

[Gangster Octopus]

The SEC is the most overrated conference in sports. It's good, but it's not so clearly heads-and-shoulders over everyone else that it's such a travesty that Auburn isn't getting in.

Look at Auburn's non-conference schedule - Louisiana Tech, Citadel, Louisiana Tech. The Citadel's not even Division I-A for Pete's sake! And it only won 3 games in the second tier division! Look at some of their conference wins - mighty Mississippi, Miss. St., Arkansas, Kentucky, Alabama. Georgia, Tennessee and LSU were the only good teams they played all year.

At least USC took on and beat the ACC champion Virginia Tech, beat the #4 or 5 team in the nation in Cal. And beat Notre Dame, which Tennessee couldn't manage to do.

I'm not saying Auburn isn't a great team. They are. Heck, I'm not even saying that they don't deserve to be in the Orange Bowl, I think they very well might be better than either Oklahoma or USC. But let's not kid ourselves that Auburn's schedule was so much tougher than everyone else's just because they came out of the SEC.

Thank you Neurotik, this is so on the money. The entire SEC conference had two wins against other BCS teams and one of those, LSU over Oregon State was decided byt the OSU kicker missing three extra points. The SEC argument is always circular....Tennessee, Georgia, Auburn, Florida are all so good because they play each other...huh? It is a god conference of course, but I am so sick of the continual fawning over this conference. The BCS system sucks, but the right two teams will be playing.

[Yookeroo]

Only one team per conference was allowed into the NCAA playoffs. A couple of years there, Maryland was the second best (at worst, third best) team in the country, but did not get in the tournament because they lost the ACC playoffs. (At the time, the ACC was the only major conference with a tournament.)

This sounds more like a problem with how the ACC chooses its champion than it does with letting only conference champions into the NCAA tournament. (I hate conference tournaments.)

I like the idea that only champions get a chance to play for the national title. If you can't win you conference, why should you be allowed to play in the NCAA playoffs?

[Neurotik]

Thank you Neurotik, this is so on the money. The entire SEC conference had two wins against other BCS teams and one of those, LSU over Oregon State was decided byt the OSU kicker missing three extra points. The SEC argument is always circular....Tennessee, Georgia, Auburn, Florida are all so good because they play each other...huh?
Actually, they had three wins. Georgia beat a mediocre Georgia Tech team, LSU beat a decent Oregon State, and Kentucky beat an absolutely terrible Indiana team. Call me less than impressed.

Compare to the Pac-10, ASU took down the second place Big 10 team Iowa and a mediocre Northwestern, UCLA took down a pretty bad Illinois, and OSU missed taking down LSU by one point. And, as I said, USC beat the ACC champion and Notre Dame.

Or the Big 12, which had Oklahoma beat a mediocre Oregon, Texas beat mediocre Arkansas, Texas A&M to beat a mediocre Clemson, Oklahoma St. beat a mediocre UCLA, Colorado beat a bad Washington State and Nebraska beat Big East champ Pitt.

My guess is, you'd see a quick re-evaluation of the quality of the SEC if their football teams actually played non-Conference BCS teams with any regularity.

[A Monkey With a Gun]

My guess is, you'd see a quick re-evaluation of the quality of the SEC if their football teams actually played non-Conference BCS teams with any regularity.How about every year? You know, in the bowls.

2003 bowl records:

SEC: 5-2, including a national championship
Pac 10: 4-2
Big 12: 3-4

Y'all got something else that ain't complete and utter bullshit?

[zamboniracer]

1) Plenty of people want it. Pretty much all college football fans want it. Probably even USC fans after last year's debacle. There are plenty of people against it.
2) Of course it solves something. At least the teams will meet on a field of play. In an 8 team playoff, which can be done by adding only one week to the season (probably sometime in mid-December when teams are idle anyway -- i.e. next week), all of these teams would meet on a field of play. There would only be one undefeated team left at the end. That's all anyone is asking for. A playoff system isn't perfect but it is a whole helluva lot better than coaches with agendas and computers with secret formulas determining who plays whom.
3) 8 team playoff is the way to go. You can do this with 8 bowls (including a loser's bracket). Keep the old bowls in place for the UNT and Bowling Green fans. The four premier BCS bowls (Orange, Fiesta, Rose, Sugar) will be the 2 semi-finals and the championship/loser final games. The other four bowls can either rotate from the larger bowl pool or can be elevated up (take the Cotton, Gator, Peach, and another one perhaps Capitol One or something -- the New Year's Day bowls). First round bowls get played next week. Semi-final round bowls get played New Year's Day. Finals get played a week later, which ends the season exactly 3 days after it is scheduled to end. If you are complaining that the season is too long, eliminate the conference championship games. Use the BCS system to rank the top 8 teams. The only sacrifices to be made are around team 8/9. This is far less of a tragedy than a "championship" system like the BCS that includes #19 Pitt and #14 Michigan but leaves out the #6 team in the nation.
4) Nobody argues that the computer conglomerated rankings are perfect. They work to an extent, but it is a travesty that they are used to exclude a team which has played perfectly from competing for a championship. Yes, there are always going to be Boise States (who probably should be in the mix also) who play a weak schedule and run the table. But schools in weak conferences know that if they want to compete at a national level, they need to improve their non-conference schedules, so we can come closer to comparing apples to apples. That's where a computer helps. Get to a reasonably fair level, and then let them sort it out on the field.



I'd prefer a playoff but I don't see it happening. The bowls are too well entrenched and having the bowls are incompatible with a playoff system. Multiple neutral-site bowl games cannot be used for first or second round playoff games in a 16 team playoff because they will not attract the sufficiently sizeable and big-spending crowds the bowl sponsors are after. Bowl games aren’t designed as playoff games. All they are are tourist attractions. Not that there is anything necessarily wrong with a tourist attraction, but bowl cities want big spenders to come to town early, spend money, go to the game, spend money, and then leave. In a 16-team playoff system using neutral sight bowl games, the first two rounds will not be able to attract sufficiently large out-of-town crowds to satisfy the bowls so the bowls are opposing the change. Fans aren’t made of money and fans need some time to make travel plans. Having the season end at the end of November or first week in December and then saying, OK, your first round game is next Saturday in Nashville, San Antonio, El Paso, San Diego or Boise simply isn’t going to lead a lot of fans to automatically open their wallets on such short notice and make travel plans. People need time to make plans, and to decide if they want to go to the first round game, the second round game or all of them. If there is a playoff system, the initial rounds are going to have to occur on the home stadiums of half the teams and by necessity cut the smaller bowls out of it entirely.

College administrators oppose the change too. Why, because at the moment when their school goes to a bowl game, even a small bowl game, they get a free vacation to the game and they like that a lot. They don’t have the headaches that come with hosting a home game and they get a free road trip, which everybody always likes.

[Neurotik]

How about every year? You know, in the bowls.

2003 bowl records:

SEC: 5-2, including a national championship
Pac 10: 4-2
Big 12: 3-4

Y'all got something else that ain't complete and utter bullshit?
2003 has no bearing on 2004. Since we're talking about this season's national championship, let's stick to this year, shall we? In 2004, did the SEC distinguish itself with its non-conference schedule and record? No, it didn't.

By the way, you forgot to mention that the Pac-10 includes a national championship, too.

[John Carter of Mars]

Actually, they had three wins. Georgia beat a mediocre Georgia Tech team, LSU beat a decent Oregon State, and Kentucky beat an absolutely terrible Indiana team. Call me less than impressed.

Kinda' forgot about Florida beating Florida State, didn't ya'?

[edwino]

I'd prefer a playoff but I don't see it happening. The bowls are too well entrenched and having the bowls are incompatible with a playoff system. Multiple neutral-site bowl games cannot be used for first or second round playoff games in a 16 team playoff because they will not attract the sufficiently sizeable and big-spending crowds the bowl sponsors are after. This is a good argument. But I counter with this: for most major conference winners, there are already two neutral-site games at the end of the season -- the conference championship and the hypothetical Bowl game.

Eliminate the conference championship games. These will be meaningless in a playoff system anyway, and I think most college football fans would take the old (and still persistent in many conferences) tied conference championship to have a playoff system. Take a well-located Bowl site -- for instance if #1 USC is playing #8 Georgia, take the Holiday Bowl in San Diego or let USC pick where it wants to go -- for the first round. Top seeds get to pick which first round Bowl they attend. For the Big 12, the conference championship was played this year in Kansas City. Let Oklahoma instead pick to play #7 Louisville in the Cotton Bowl.

Now all you are doing is adding one more neutral site game -- the national championship and less than a week of travel. There is no way that they will have problems selling tickets to that guy.

[John Carter of Mars]

*KicKs dust off of boots after returning from SEC Championship Game in Atlanta.*

First off: WAR EAGLE! What a scene! The Auburn team came into the stands with the fans after the game. The Auburn band played: "Louie, Louie" for about a half hour while everybody waved flags and danced. It was a great feeling. Sorry so many of you missed it.

Ya' know, Auburn's first priority every year is to win the State Chamionship. (Beat Bama) We did that for the third straight year. The second priority is to win the SEC. We did that. Along the way, other dragons such as LSU and Georgia were slain and there was the rare joy of beating Tennessee twice in the same year.

Would Auburn like the opportunity to play for the National Championship? Sure! Is not getting to do so going to ruin a truly remarkable season? Hell no! If we can beat a tough Virginia Tech team in the Sugar Bowl and go 13-0, most of us Auburn people will be delighted to laugh all winter while we whine about what Big Things our team would have done to USC or Oklahoma. But in the grand scale of things, the BCS championship falls somewhere behind what I've mentioned above, plus it's way behind finishing 13-0.

FWIW, the BCS isn't perfect, but it beats what was going on before. Most years since the BCS started, the game has produced a reasonable national champion. There have been a number of matchups due to the BCS that never would have happened under the previous system of bowl tie-ups.

I really don't think a four or eight team playoff will settle anything. Number five or number nine will be screaming bloody murder. Look at the basketball tournament that has been mentioned above. 65 teams are taken, and every year numbers 66 through 70 are screaming bloody murder.

Maybe the BCS is like democracy: It's not perfect, but it beats whatever else is out there.

Oh yeah: Did I say WAR EAGLE!? :D :D :D

[Gorsnak]

We're playing Texas? Dammit, that's just not right.

I take back what I said about a playoff. Let's go old school. PAC 10 and Big 10 in the Rose Bowl. Anything else just ain't right.

[Neurotik]

We're playing Texas? Dammit, that's just not right.

I take back what I said about a playoff. Let's go old school. PAC 10 and Big 10 in the Rose Bowl. Anything else just ain't right.
You know what, I agree. The BCS has totally ruined the Rose Bowl (the only bowl I care about). What a fucking gyp.

I mean, not that I can really argue with Texas edging Cal, they're the better team. But still. Fucking A. Texas has no place in the Rose Bowl. This is the third time in four years that the Rose Bowl has been fucked up by the BCS. The most egregious, of course, being two years ago when the filthy Orange Bowl stole USC and Iowa.

Fuck you, BCS! I was looking forward to a Cal-Michigan Rose Bowl. Now it's been ruined.

[Doctor Who]

We're playing Texas? Dammit, that's just not right.

I take back what I said about a playoff. Let's go old school. PAC 10 and Big 10 in the Rose Bowl. Anything else just ain't right.

And here's the thing... If you are going to fuck up tradition and put Texas in the Rose Bowl, then why not have a bowl game with the other two unbeatens - Auburn v. Utah? Instead we get to see Utah play Pittsburgh! Pittsburgh!

And look what they've done to Cal... Holiday Bowl with Texas Tech! Blech!

- Peter Wiggen

[edwino]

Well, that's it. I feel dirty.

[Zhen'ka]

One more thing. As a die-hard Texas fan, California should go to the Rose Bowl. They've been waiting for decades for this. A Michigan/California Rose Bowl is the way it should be, and I would feel dirty to see Texas put into the BCS over California.


Thanks for writing your post. As a Cal alum, one who has cheered through many losing seasons, this just hurts. The tradition is lost, and though I know that there are many disappointed fans tonight from other schools, I still feel bad about it.

That being said, can someone please explain to me how this happened? One story mentioned that Utah got a "non-BCS" bid, or something like that, which caused Cal to lose out on the Rose Bowl. If someone would briefly explain (or link to the rules for such things), I'd greatly appreciate it.

[A Monkey With a Gun]

2003 has no bearing on 2004. Since we're talking about this season's national championship, let's stick to this year, shall we? You said, "you'd see a quick re-evaluation of the quality of the SEC if their football teams actually played non-Conference BCS teams with any regularity.". I said that they do, and they do it annually. The SEC is respected because, though it doesn't happen all that often in the regular season, when they do play good non conference teams at the end of the season, they win more often than not. Year in and year out.

That's why it is perenially a good conference. Capiche? Why assume that this year is any different than past years? We can't say definitively yet which conference is the best this year because we haven't played the bowls yet. But it's idiotic to claim that the SEC is weak and overated because LSU struggled with Oregon State. I think you're just envious.

However, I will give props to the PAC 10. If anything, it's an underated conference, but the Big 12 is a joke.

[treis]

That being said, can someone please explain to me how this happened? One story mentioned that Utah got a "non-BCS" bid, or something like that, which caused Cal to lose out on the Rose Bowl. If someone would briefly explain (or link to the rules for such things), I'd greatly appreciate it.

There are six BCS conferences (SEC ACC Big 10 Big 12 Pac 10 Big East) all other conferences are 'non-BCS' conference. If a team from a non BCS conference finishes in the top 6 they are ensured a BCS bowl bid. Each of the BCS conference champs gets a BCS bowl bid plus 2 at large. USC Oklahoma Virginia Tech Michigan and Pitt won their conferences. The final BCS standings were 1) USC 2) Oklahoma 3) Auburn 4) Texas 5) Cal 6) Utah. Despite the fact that Cal was ranked higher than Utah, Utah gets the bowl bid becuase they are a non-BCS team that finished in the top 6. Texas gets the other at large bit becuase they barely edged out Cal. Cal not only gets screwed out of the Rose Bowl but to the tune of 8 million dollars or so.

[Zoe]

John Carter of Mars, Once again, you are able to put things into perspective. Winning the Iron Bowl was primary and the SEC secondary, but beautiful!. Playing for the MNC would be frosting, but unnecessary.


Neurotik: 2003 has no bearing on 2004. Since we're talking about this season's national championship, let's stick to this year.

So the teams aren't ranked before the first game is played this season? USC's previous disappointment had no bearing or influence on the thinking of the non-computerized ranking of teams? (I'm not saying that they don't deserve first place, btw.)

I'm all for play-offs of some sort. Does anyone complain about the route taken to determine who plays in the Super Bowl? Would something similar be workable to determine a National College Championship?

duffer, I agree with you -- that's twice this week -- about too many bowl games. And you can certainly take the Music City Bowl. Even most Nashvillians don't seem to get excited about it.


Tomndebb: I'd have to oppose these schemes to actually discover the "true" national champ. If we actually had a way to know who was "best," there would be so little to talk about at this time of year that families night actually have to speak to each other about real life issues at Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Year. ::: shudder :::
The SEC is special not just because of the strength of the teams, but because of the atmosphere and attitude of the whole schbang. It serves as the excuse for family gatherings all autumn and on through the holidays. I'm sure you know that once we're together, that's not all we really talk about. Why just Saturday we were discussing Kierkegaard's teleological suspension of the ethical. Of course, that evolved into the public relations of having to use the principle during the Auburn/Tennessee game which was about to start. But always, of course, we seek to do God's will even when it looks a little nasty on the field.

WAR EAGLE!

[NoClueBoy]

[QUOTE=A Monkey With a Gun the Big 12 is a joke.[/QUOTE]

Funny, but complete and utter bullshit.

Big XII sends seven teams to bowls this year, including two BCS bids. SEC also sends seven teams to bowls and has one BCS bid. If this year's Big XII is a joke, then this year's SEC is even more of a joke.

See? This is the kind of bullshit moronic grandstanding that happens each year because the Bowl System is a load of popular dung decided by an imperfect system of polls and "ranks" based on opinions only. (Yeah, even the computer rankings begin with someone's opinion of what decides the rankings.)

I for one would welcome some sort of playoff system if for no other reason than several conferances don't have conf championship games.

The system sucks. But don't trash the other MAJOR conferances just because your little puppy doesn't get the recognition your opinion of it demands.

[NoClueBoy]

Also, even though it's from an admittedly biased site, these tables (http://www.soonersports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_LANG=C&DB_OEM_ID=300&&ATCLID=88401) show just how strong the top 3 teams are in comparison to each other. Note especially ranked teams beaten and record of opposing road game teams.

If anything, I would say OU and Auburn should play, leaving USC in a no chance for the title bowl game.

[A Monkey With a Gun]

The system sucks. But don't trash the other MAJOR conferances just because your little puppy doesn't get the recognition your opinion of it demands.Point taken. I shouldn't have trashed the Big 12. There are some years that, even with my obvious SEC bias, I'd pick the big 12 as the strongest conference. Not this year, because of the implosion of the Big 12 North, but to call the entire big 12 a joke was moronic grandstanding on my part. I'll admit that, and apologize if I stepped on the toes of any Sooners, Longhorns, or any other fans of teams in the Big 12 South. The Big 12 South is just as strong as either of the two SEC divisions.

As far as my little puppy is concerned, I said in the OP that I think all three deserve a shot.

[Neurotik]

You said, "you'd see a quick re-evaluation of the quality of the SEC if their football teams actually played non-Conference BCS teams with any regularity.". I said that they do, and they do it annually. The SEC is respected because, though it doesn't happen all that often in the regular season, when they do play good non conference teams at the end of the season, they win more often than not. Year in and year out.
Over the past 5 years, their Bowl record is 19-17. That's good, but it's not dominant. Which is what I'm saying about the SEC. It's a very good conference, but it's not so good that it's a travesty that its champion isn't playing in the Orange Bowl.
That's why it is perenially a good conference. Capiche? Why assume that this year is any different than past years? We can't say definitively yet which conference is the best this year because we haven't played the bowls yet. But it's idiotic to claim that the SEC is weak and overated because LSU struggled with Oregon State. I think you're just envious.
I never said it wasn't a perenially good conference. And who said that the SEC is weak? I simply said it's overrated. Which it is. Everyone keeps on claiming that it's without a doubt the best conference out there. I'm just saying it's not so clearly better than the Pac-10, the Big 10 or the Big 12. I just pointed out the LSU and OSU game to show that it's not like the SEC is dominating its non-conference BCS schedule.

And what am I envious of? The only thing I really care about in college football is the Rose Bowl and a passing interest in UCLA and USC.

I'd also like to take this moment to note that my college gave Alabama a good thrashing in the 1936 Orange Bowl.

[NoClueBoy]

Monkey, you're cool. My harsh tone was simply a reaction.

Auburn isn't a puppy and is indeed getting screwed this year. For the last month, I knew that whether it was OU or Auburn going in to the Orange Bowl that there would be some bad feelings. I was so rooting for USC to lose so OU and Auburn could play because I personally feel that would make a better game. (Sorry USC fans, but it's my opinion.)

Let's direct our anger towards the BCS. It's full of problems. And whenever a new one shows up (like Colorado and Nebraska), they "tweak" the system to try to fix it. They are running out of tweaks.

[Trunk]

If anything, I would say OU and Auburn should play, leaving USC in a no chance for the title bowl game.

WHA?

USC has gone undefeated for 2 years straight. They ought to at least get a chance to play for it. :rolleyes:

It's almost looking like that's what you have to do anyway. Next year Auburn will come into the preseason polls in the top 4 and if they go undefeated THEN, then they'll play for the national championship. Their "loss" this year was their ranking in the pre-season polls.

I resisted supporting a playoff for a long time, but damn, now it's 2 years in a row with 3 undefeated teams. The BCS simply IS NOT conclusively determining a national champion.

Furthermore, because of all the "what conference goes where" scenarios, they can't even give us the best matchups for the games that AREN'T national championship games. Instead of Auburn-Texas and, say, Cal-Utah, we're getting Texas against 9-2 Michigan (who lost to OSU), PITT vs Utah (gah. I think I'll pass) and quick fellas . .. who's Cal playing?

Oh yeah. . .Texas Tech. . .they couldn't even draw an interesting game like Georgia, Tennesse, V. Tech or Florida State.

The whole thing is a beauocratic clusterfuck designed by and for the big conferences and doesn't show any respect for fans whatsoever.

And say what you will, I think there's a place for Utah and Boise State in the national championship picture. BSU did WHOOP Oregon State this year -- the same Beaver team that should have beat LSU and did a number on University of Oregon.

You know, if you go to an 8 team playoff, there will still be an unhappy #9 but there's still an unhappy #66 after the March Madness selections. You will go a lot further towards determining a true champion.

[Neurotik]

USC has gone undefeated for 2 years straight. They ought to at least get a chance to play for it. :rolleyes:
They lost to Cal last year.

[Trunk]

They lost to Cal last year.

right. I misremember last year as if LSU, OU and USC were all undefeated, not all with 1 loss.

Still, the point is that basically you need to have a great season in year N so that if you go undefeated (or have 1 loss) in year N+1, you're not shut out like Auburn was this year.

[Neurotik]

Still, the point is that basically you need to have a great season in year N so that if you go undefeated (or have 1 loss) in year N+1, you're not shut out like Auburn was this year.
I disagree. Last year shouldn't have a bearing on the standings. That's why they need to stop having any polls before the sixth or seventh week. Let's face it, coming in #1 and staying undefeated makes a team pretty much impossible to knock off, even if other teams are having undefeated seasons. Compare this to lower down where the rankings fluctuate even if the teams don't lose depending on the quality of the win.

[Trunk]

I disagree. Last year shouldn't have a bearing on the standings.

I totally agree with this. I'm just saying that's the way it is now.

As far as I'm concerned, there's nothing that distinguishes the seasons of USC and OU over Auburn but since the pre-season ranking of USC and OU was so much higher than Auburn's (which was ranked 16th, I think), Auburn basically had no chance.

[Ike Witt]

Just to make a point....USC and Auburn played last year and the year before. USC won handily both times. Also, USC and Auburn were both ranked in the top 5 when they played early last year. After 'SC throttled Auburn, the Tigers went into the tank and their final ranking was one of the things that hurt USC last year, that and some game that really should have had no weight in the matter.

The problem with the BCS isn't that it doesn't work, because the old system was flawed as well, the problem is that they keep promising something that is impossible to deliver without cheesing off somebody.

[Gatopescado]

Just to make a point....USC and Auburn played last year and the year before. USC won handily both times.

Thats what I was gonna say! :D And I don't know if it was the last time USC and Oklahomo played or not, but I recall #1 ranked OU coming to town and leaving with its ass in its hat! Ah, what a game!

GO TROJANS! BACK-TO-BACK!

[Gatopescado]

Oh, I forgot to post what I came here for:

Fuck the BCS for screwing Cal! (I know I should be glad for the one-and-only loss they were involved with last year, but TEXAS? Oh, the Humanity!)

I don't see how Auburn can bitch in the slightest. Not once, all season, were they ranked #1 or 2. This is not a situation like last year at all. They are third, which makes them the second loser.

Dosen't matter. Trojans would slaughter them.

[Trunk]

I don't see how Auburn can bitch in the slightest. Not once, all season, were they ranked #1 or 2. This is not a situation like last year at all. They are third, which makes them the second loser.


Well, they can bitch simply because they went undefeated in a big, tough conference and now have no shot whatsoever at the national title because of the system.

Not that they would have under the old system, but there's still a reason to bitch.

[John Carter of Mars]

Just to make a point....USC and Auburn played last year and the year before. USC won handily both times.

"Handily" only applies if you think a come-from-behind touchdown in the last moments of the game for a 24-21 win in 2002 equals handily.

I went to the Auburn/USC game last year and at the time I thought that USC was the most prepared and complete team I'd ever seen at an opening game. I'll give you handily in 2003. (23-0, USC)

[Linus Van Pelt]

I hope everyone realizes, though, that football isn't basketball, that nobody cares about regular season college basketball, and that the best team in the country rarely even makes it through to the basketball final. (emphasis mine)

Along these lines, I propose eliminating all playoffs in all sports at any level. After all, the Cardinals were clearly the best MLB team last year. And there's no question that the Lakers were easily the superior team in the superior conference and deserved the NBA title. The only way to solve these travesties of justice is to have sportswriters vote on every championship.

I also wholeheartedly agree with those that say that a playoff system would do horrible things to the regular season. After all, as it stands now, every single game is crucial. If every single game weren't crucial, then a team might lose a game at the end of the season and it wouldn't mean anything. But that can't happen because there are no meaningless games for those that want to compete for the "national championship". Because every single game is critical, after all.

[Gangster Octopus]

Also, even though it's from an admittedly biased site, these tables (http://www.soonersports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_LANG=C&DB_OEM_ID=300&&ATCLID=88401) show just how strong the top 3 teams are in comparison to each other. Note especially ranked teams beaten and record of opposing road game teams.

If anything, I would say OU and Auburn should play, leaving USC in a no chance for the title bowl game.

Those tables show USC beating an unranked Virgina Tech, but Va Texh finished 8th. In fact USC was the only team to beat two teams rated in the top 10 at the end of the season. ANd the NCAA strength of schedule rankings are suspect as well, because they just use the opponent's records as a ranking. Most comuter rankings of SOS rank USC higher than Auburn. Not that I am saying that is right, just that I wouldn't put a lot of weight on the NCAA ranking.

[NoClueBoy]

See? Aren't those tables wonderful?

By picking and choosing from among them, any of us can make a case for any of the three teams involved.


;)

[shelbo]

Cal fan checking in.

First, Second and Third: FUUUUUUCCCCCCKKKKKKKKKK!!!!!!

Fourth:

I would understand if the BCS decided to honor tradition -- in that case the Rose Bowl would be Cal v. Michigan, or even USC v. Michgan. That would be great, fine with me.

I would understand if the BCS decided to match up the best teams to play against one another -- in that case the Rose Bowl would be Cal v. Texas, or even Auburn v. Texas. Not my first choice, but it is at least logical.

What is just fucking maddening is the current system, where the tradition of the PAC-10 v. Big-10 match-up is lost, WITHOUT matching up the best teams. JUST FUCKING STUPID.

Fifth: Fuck -- we should have beat SC. We fucking HAD THEM. Stupid kicker.

[The Universe Lashes Out]

Just imagine, if we had a playoff, we could be having these exciting first-round games coming up:

1. USC
8. Michigan

4. Texas
5. Cal

2. Oklahoma
7. Utah

3. Auburn
6. Virginia Tech

Wouldn't that be great? But no, instead we are stuck watching a couple good games and a bunch of crappy ones.

[Jimmy Chitwood]

Along these lines, I propose eliminating all playoffs in all sports at any level. After all, the Cardinals were clearly the best MLB team last year. And there's no question that the Lakers were easily the superior team in the superior conference and deserved the NBA title. The only way to solve these travesties of justice is to have sportswriters vote on every championship.

I also wholeheartedly agree with those that say that a playoff system would do horrible things to the regular season. After all, as it stands now, every single game is crucial. If every single game weren't crucial, then a team might lose a game at the end of the season and it wouldn't mean anything. But that can't happen because there are no meaningless games for those that want to compete for the "national championship". Because every single game is critical, after all.

OK, number one, fuck you. Would you like me to italicize that so you understand it better?

Number two, I'm not even sure what you're trying to get across, much less what point you think you're making that gives you the right to be such a condescending prick. You keep repeating "every single game" like it's something I said, when I didn't say anything remotely like that. I said there's a meaningful game to watch almost every week. That's every single week to you, you smarmy bastard. Any time USC or Oklahoma took the field this season, they could have lost their chances at a national title. I like that. You get to number one and try to hold on. It's not like anything else we have in sports. People wonder why college football Saturdays are such a phenomenon in this country, and I think that's the answer right there. It's the only sport where you don't have to wait until the end of the season for a game that means something. With Oklahoma/Texas, FSU/Miami, Michigan/Ohio State, and games like that, you know going into the season that somebody's going to come out of that week with very little hope of winning a national champion. Compare that to any other sport with a playoff system -- what was the last November basketball game you saw that felt like it really mattered, for instance?

I realize that most people don't care about how much fun the season is right now, they just want there to be an indisputable #1. I can respect that; it's a pretty obviously attractive proposition. I don't dispute that a playoff system would make the last day of the season more satisfying for the teams involved. I just don't think, as everyone else seems to, that putting in a playoff is a) feasible or b) any less prone to controversy. College football doesn't fit neatly into a four-team bracket every season. Trying to force it to just because you've had some angry teams for a couple of years seems like a bad idea to me. Unlike you, I don't really have to be a cock about it.

[Linus Van Pelt]

Just out of curiosity, if you didn't know what I was trying to get across, how did you know that I was being condescending to you?

For the record, the second point was not, in fact, directed at you. That's why I only quoted you where you stated that "the best team in the country rarely even makes it through to the basketball final." I then responded to that point, albeit sarcastically.

In my next paragraph, I was making a seperate point regarding the argument that some people use in defense of the current system that "every game" in the regular season is important. I didn't direct it at you, nor did I quote your comments about football in October because, as you pointed out, that's not what you said. I don't know that anyone has mentioned it in this thread so far. But others have, such as Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany. "'You're not going to see a playoff in the next decade,' Delany said. 'In the BCS, every game really does matter.'" (from this (http://cbs.sportsline.com/collegefootball/story/7566599) article from CBS sportsline). My tounge-in-cheek statement refered to this type of argument and was making (an apparently too veiled) reference to OU and their loss to Kansas State at the end of the 2003 season. Despite the fact that "every game really does matter", that game was meaningless to OU as far as their BCS bid was concerned. It was, I repeat, not directed at you. And it certainly was not written to be patronizing to you or anyone else on the board. I enjoy arguing sports and while I occasionally use sarcasm to make a point, I try to avoid personal insults during those debates, even here in the Pit.

[RTFirefly]

I really don't think a four or eight team playoff will settle anything. Number five or number nine will be screaming bloody murder. Look at the basketball tournament that has been mentioned above. 65 teams are taken, and every year numbers 66 through 70 are screaming bloody murder. But it's what they're screaming bloody murder about that's different.

In the NCAA hoops tournament, everybody agrees the team that won is really, truly the national champ. Nobody thinks Team #66 was robbed of the championship. All they're screaming bloody murder about is that they wanted to at least get in the door and see if they could last a couple of rounds, but they didn't get that chance. So it's a big difference.

I really think a 4-game playoff would do it, with the semifinal round being two of the four BCS bowls; the two winning teams would play one more game for the championship. I mean, when in the memory of anyone here, at this point in the year, have there been more than four teams that have convinced a lot of people besides their partisans that they might be the best in the country?

This year, there's three of them: Southern Cal, Oklahoma, and Auburn. Utah could be the fourth team if we were doing it this year, just to give a mid-major team a genuine put-up-or-shut-up opportunity, since nobody's arguing that the ACC, Big 10, or Big East champs belong in a national championship game.

But if there's ever been five or more teams at the top, with none of them being clearly more or less deserving than the others of being in a national championship game, I sure don't remember that year. Four would do it; all you need is one more game, one week after New Year's weekend. If that game's rotated around the four BCS bowl sites, then it's just one more pot of money to be divided among the same pockets; should make everybody happy there.

[Bob55]

The SEC is the most overrated conference in sports. It's good, but it's not so clearly heads-and-shoulders over everyone else that it's such a travesty that Auburn isn't getting in.

Monkey, I believe you're overestimating the importance of the SEC in the grand scheme of things. Yeah, it's a good conference, but it's not, as some of its fans apparently think, the undisputed champion of conferences.


20% of Top 25 teams this year are in the SEC. Many of the other teams are from the ACC, another southeastern conference which plays many games against SEC opponents. The SEC and ACC are two of the toughest conferences out there (I could make the argument for top two, maybe top three), and I can't understand how a PAC-10 team is even in the running.

[Gorsnak]

I can't understand how a PAC-10 team is even in the running.
I know you can't. You're from Tennessee. But don't worry, it's a curable condition. :)

[Jaade]

Funny, but complete and utter bullshit.

Big XII sends seven teams to bowls this year, including two BCS bids. SEC also sends seven teams to bowls and has one BCS bid. If this year's Big XII is a joke, then this year's SEC is even more of a joke.

See? This is the kind of bullshit moronic grandstanding that happens each year because the Bowl System is a load of popular dung decided by an imperfect system of polls and "ranks" based on opinions only. (Yeah, even the computer rankings begin with someone's opinion of what decides the rankings.)

I for one would welcome some sort of playoff system if for no other reason than several conferances don't have conf championship games.

The system sucks. But don't trash the other MAJOR conferances just because your little puppy doesn't get the recognition your opinion of it demands.

Darlin', I'm so glad you clarified this later in the thread. I was afraid that we wouldn't be friends anymore after you trashed my conference.

[slight hijack] Monkey with a Gun, you live in Glynn County? I have seen you in so many threads but either never noticed, or you changed your location at some point. Is that where you are from, or did you move there? [/slight hijack]

[Bob55]

I know you can't. You're from Tennessee. But don't worry, it's a curable condition. :)

Worse, I'm from Florida. I'm just slightly southeast biased :)

[Gorsnak]

My point was just that the SEC simply isn't as dominant as its fans argue. Oh, in any given year it might be. But then the next year it might get creamed. For example, in...ummm....99, I think it was? Everyone was saying the Big 10 sucked that year and the SEC was clearly dominant, and then the Big 10 went 5-2 in the bowls including 2-1 against the SEC (Michigan over Bama in the Orange in OT, Spartans over Gators in Citrus, and Purdue missed a fg in overtime against Georgia in the Outback, I think it was). You just can't tell. The SEC plays very respectably in the bowls, but it hasn't been particularly dominant. And neither have any other conferences. Michigan, Florida St, Tennessee, Miami, Texas, Nebraska, UCLA, Washington, Ohio State (well, okay, forget Ohio State), Wisconsin - match up any two, and if you don't tell me which year it is, I don't have a clue who'll win a single game. It's parity, my friend.

[Nightime]

In the absence of any real way to choose between the undefeated, I guess USC beating Auburn last year is as good a way as any.


The SEC and ACC are two of the toughest conferences out there


USC already beat the ACC champion this year.



I can actually see reasons why not to get rid of the BCS. But one question: why does the BCS give us such bad matchups?

Why not have Texas vs Auburn and then still have Cal vs Michigan in the Rose Bowl?

[Gorsnak]

Why not have Texas vs Auburn and then still have Cal vs Michigan in the Rose Bowl?
They couldn't. 6 conference champions leaves only 2 at-large bids, and any non-BCS conference team in the top 6 of the BCS rankings is guaranteed to get in, so Utah gets one of those. So either Cal or Texas had to be left out. Actually, this year Utah isn't really the problem - the pity is they got a crappy matchup. Finally break the bigtime, and then get stuck playing the champion of a Big East that had its two best programs bolt for the ACC, instead of getting to prove itself against a real team. Should've matched them up with Auburn, or even the Hokies or Wolverines. The unfortunate truth is that without Miami or Virginia Tech, the Big East (in football, at least) is no stronger than the MAC or WAC or CUSA, but they'll remain in the BCS. This is just going to make the whole thing look even more ridiculous, when the 7-4 Mountaineers play in the Sugar while 10-1 Louisville or Marshall or whoever get stuck playing in the Liberty Bowl on that atrocious blue field.

I really do think it would improve things if the BCS started just taking the top ranked 8 conference champs. It wouldn't be the arbitrary pick between Cal and Texas like this year. Everyone would know at the beginning of the season what they have to do - win the conference. No excuses. And the mid-majors would have their chance to show up against the big name programs, which would lead to some interesting games, not least because they'd no doubt win some of them, and perennial top-25 programs getting their teeth kicked in by Fresno State on New Years Day would be an interesting spectacle.

[Linus Van Pelt]

20% of Top 25 teams this year are in the SEC. Many of the other teams are from the ACC, another southeastern conference which plays many games against SEC opponents. The SEC and ACC are two of the toughest conferences out there (I could make the argument for top two, maybe top three), and I can't understand how a PAC-10 team is even in the running.

Bob55, I think your reasoning may be a little circular. People have said that the SEC is over-rated. Your response is that it has to be a tough confrerence because "20% of Top 25 teams this year are in the SEC". In other words, you're saying that the SEC can't be over-rated because of the number of teams in the SEC that have been rated highly.

There is one thing I would like to make clear, BTW. While I feel that the BCS simply contains an extra initial, that it's a system put in place to preserve the status-quo (not to mention the money) for the big conferences while attempting to molify the fans that were crying out for a change, it is marginally better than the previous system. At least, with #1 & #2 playing each other, there is an attempt, however inadequate, to decide it on the field.

While I'm on the subject (and because this is the place to rant), quite frankly I've never been able to even come close to comprehending how people could have ever decided that it's reasonable to determine a championship in any sport by voting on it. As a sports fan who has watched any number of "paper champions" go down in defeat, I'm astounded that the idea was ever considered, let alone implemented and apparently given respect. In my mind, until a reasonable playoff is in place there will never be a real national champion in college football. Not that my opinion means a thing to those making the decisions.

[A Monkey With a Gun]

[slight hijack] Monkey with a Gun, you live in Glynn County? I have seen you in so many threads but either never noticed, or you changed your location at some point. Is that where you are from, or did you move there? [/slight hijack]Moved here about a year and a half ago. Got laid off from my job in Atlanta and said, "Fuck it, I'm gonna move to the beach and be a bartender".

[Trunk]

They couldn't. 6 conference champions leaves only 2 at-large bids, and any non-BCS conference team in the top 6 of the BCS rankings is guaranteed to get in, so Utah gets one of those. So either Cal or Texas had to be left out. Actually, this year Utah isn't really the problem - the pity is they got a crappy matchup. Finally break the bigtime, and then get stuck playing the champion of a Big East that had its two best programs bolt for the ACC, instead of getting to prove itself against a real team. Should've matched them up with Auburn, or even the Hokies or Wolverines. The unfortunate truth is that without Miami or Virginia Tech, the Big East (in football, at least) is no stronger than the MAC or WAC or CUSA, but they'll remain in the BCS. This is just going to make the whole thing look even more ridiculous, when the 7-4 Mountaineers play in the Sugar while 10-1 Louisville or Marshall or whoever get stuck playing in the Liberty Bowl on that atrocious blue field.


Translation: The BCS is a TOTALLY FUCKED UP system.

It was designed to give us an undisputed champion at the cost of things like ruining the tradition of the Rose Bowl.

What it did, however, was still NOT give us an undisputed champion, while giving us shitty matchups and ruining the tradition of things like the Rose Bowl.

The BCS is fucked in so many ways. I can't remember a year in my life that I was less excited for the bowl games.

[Gorsnak]

I can't disagree with any of that.

[Neurotik]

20% of Top 25 teams this year are in the SEC. Many of the other teams are from the ACC, another southeastern conference which plays many games against SEC opponents. The SEC and ACC are two of the toughest conferences out there (I could make the argument for top two, maybe top three), and I can't understand how a PAC-10 team is even in the running.
Exactly my point. SEC gets its rep from having highly ranked teams. Why do they have highly ranked teams? Well, these guys play in the toughest conference, so they get the benefit of the doubt. How do we know they play in the toughest conference? Well, they have highly ranked teams. And on and on the circle goes.

The SEC played 8 BCS non-conference games (including Notre Dame) and went 4-4, beating Georgia Tech, Florida State, Indiana and Oregona State. They lost to Notre Dame, Clemson, Rutgers and Texas. None of those teams were conference champs, but they did include the ACC runner up and the third place (and second best) Big 12 team.

The Pac-10 played 14 BCS non-conference games (including Notre Dame and Utah) and went 5-9. Not the best record, but at least they made the attempt. They have two fewer teams in the conference than the SEC, but almost doubled their non-conference BCS games. Those games included the Big 10 conference champ, the ACC conference champ, the Mountain West conference champ and the first non-BCS team to earn a BCS berth, the second, third and fourth place Big 10 teams, the Big 10 runner up, and last year's BCS title winner. By far the toughest non-conference BCS schedule.

The ACC played 15 BCS non-conference games (including Utah) and went 9-6. It's worth noting that most of the wins were vs. the Big East, which is about as borderline a BCS conference as it gets. Those games included the Pac-10 conference champ, the Mountain West conference champ and the first non-BCS team to earn a BCS berth, the Big East runner up, third and fourth place teams. Not bad.

The Big 12 played 9 BCS non-conference games (including Utah) and went 6-3. Those games included the Big East conference champ, the Mountain West conference champ and the first non-BCS team to earn a BCS berth, and the Big 10 runner up.

The Big 10 played 15 BCS non-conference games (including Notre Dame) and went 8-7. The less said about who they played, probably the better.

The Big East played 16 BCS non-conference games (including Notre Dame) and went 7-9 but bless their hearts they tried. Those games included the ACC champ and the ACC runner up.

So, let's sum up. The SEC played the fewest non-conference BCS schools, had the second easiest non-conference BCS schedule, and had the third worst non-conference BCS record. Remind me again why talk of that being the toughest conference is based on anything except reputation.

It does look like the ACC was one of the toughest, though - they played the second most non-conference BCS schools, had the second best record and had the second toughest schedule.

[Linus Van Pelt]

Exactly my point. SEC gets its rep from having highly ranked teams. Why do they have highly ranked teams? Well, these guys play in the toughest conference, so they get the benefit of the doubt. How do we know they play in the toughest conference? Well, they have highly ranked teams. And on and on the circle goes.

Boy that sounds familiar.

And it's yet another problem that I have with polls used to determine "champions". Once a team or a conference gets a reputation, they get an unearned bonus in their rankings. Will it cause a terrible team to be ranked well? Not usually. But those prejudices can definately cost a team a few steps in the polls (or give a team a few unearned steps). In a hotly contested year, it can easily make the difference between playing in a big bowl and not doing so.

[Bob55]

Exactly my point. SEC gets its rep from having highly ranked teams. Why do they have highly ranked teams? Well, these guys play in the toughest conference, so they get the benefit of the doubt. How do we know they play in the toughest conference? Well, they have highly ranked teams. And on and on the circle goes.


I can see what you mean by circular, but the problem is the SEC is is forced to play at half of their games against SEC teams which are tough games, and the way the BSC is now set up there is no advantage in playing tough on-the-road nonconference games anymore. I'll agree that the BCS is better than what was in place before, but also think something should be done to allow teams like Auburn and Utah a shot at the title. USC is a good team, but I just don't know how good and it's hard to compare their worth by just them vs. Oklahoma (anyone can win 1 game) since most of their other games are against PAC10 teams, while at least Auburn had to play in what I believe the toughest conference against many ranked opponents. If USC beat Oklahoma and Auburn then I would agree they're the best team out there without a doubt. Something they probably could do, but we'll never know.

[Neurotik]

I can see what you mean by circular, but the problem is the SEC is is forced to play at half of their games against SEC teams which are tough games, and the way the BSC is now set up there is no advantage in playing tough on-the-road nonconference games anymore.
I absolutely agree. Despite what it sounds like, I'm not really blaming the SEC at all. There's no doubt it's a tough conference and I definitely agree that it's a shame that Auburn isn't getting a shot at the title. I'm just get annoyed when I hear people making the argument that the SEC champion is inherently more deserving than the Pac-10 or Big 12 champion and this should be taken on faith.

I also agree about the non-advantage of playing tough road games. I was very disappointed that strength of schedule was no longer a BCS factor. It's not a stretch to say that there are some 2 loss teams that are better than some one loss teams. However, to be honest, Auburn could have done a bit better than the Citadel.

I also agree with your statement that USC is a good team, but maybe not as good as Oklahoma or Auburn. I've seen them play several times this year (I'm not a USC fan, btw) and they look shaky sometimes.

[Jaade]

Moved here about a year and a half ago. Got laid off from my job in Atlanta and said, "Fuck it, I'm gonna move to the beach and be a bartender".

Well then, I wonder if I saw you over the Thanksgiving break. :)

[unhijack]

Guys, what some of you fail to realize is that in the South, we consider the SEC to be the top of the line. We have some intense rivalries here, and I don't see how it's invalid that "20% of the SEC" is ranked in the top 25. They wouldn't stay ranked if they lost all their games. Georgia, Florida, Auburn and Tennessee almost always have great teams, and the games they play against one another are tough. College football is King of Sporting Events in the South, and likely always will be. The teams in the SEC would not be highly ranked if they sucked, just because they are in a tough conference. Where is Vanderbilt ranked? These boys have earned the praise they get. David Greene broke a NCAA Division I-A record this year, with 41 wins as a Georgia Bulldogs quarterback, which previously belonged to who? Peyton Manning, former Tennessee Vols quarterback.

Auburn deserves a shot at the National title. I HATE to say this, being a huge Dawgs fan, but Auburn rolled over Georgia like they were playing Vanderbilt. I'm not going to say that Georgia didn't have its own role in the loss, but you don't hold a team like Georgia to 6 points without some serious ability.

[Airblairxxx]

Guys, what some of you fail to realize is that in the South, we consider the SEC to be the top of the line.

Well, what you fail to realize is that in California, we consider the SEC to be an overrated joke. Your champion played The Citadel. Say that with me . . . THE CITADEL. A Division 1-AA military school that has produced more cheesy novels than football talent.

GROW A PAIR AND START PLAYING SOMEBODY!

Let me throw something at you: 6-2. That's the Pac-10's record against the SEC in the last eight games played between the conferences. This includes this season's gift to LSU from Oregon State. This also includes the aforementioned 23-0 pasting last year that Auburn received from USC. There was also the two losses by Alabama to UCLA three and four years ago; one of those games was at Alabama, the Tide were ranked in the top 5 in the preseason, and ended up 3-8. Overrated, anyone?

What I REALLY HATE about the BCS is that I, a UCLA alumnus and fan, feel the need to pipe up and defend the Condoms of Southern Cal and the uppity Cal Golden Bears, when at all other times I compare both teams unfavorably to the cat gack I have to clean up in my closet when I get home tonight. I know that debate is healthy, but this just isn't right.

P. S. Reggie Bush DID fumble.

[John Carter of Mars]

However, to be honest, Auburn could have done a bit better than the Citadel.



Well, what you fail to realize is that in California, we consider the SEC to be an overrated joke. Your champion played The Citadel. Say that with me . . . THE CITADEL. A Division 1-AA military school that has produced more cheesy novels than football talent.

Wanna' know how the Citadel game came about?
A) Auburn scheduled a three game series with Georgia Tech, one game each at Tech's home field at Grant Field(2003), one game in the Georgia Dome (2004) and one game in Auburn(2005)
For reasons known only to themselves, Tech canceled the 2004 game.

B)So Auburn schedules Bowling Green, a team that was ranked in the top 25 at one point this year. The early schedules released by Auburn had Bowling Green listed on them.

Then, at the last moment in the world of colege football scheduling, Oklahoma offered Bowling Green $100,000 more to play them than Auburn was paying. Bowling Green paid Auburn the $25,000 default fine and scheduled Oklahoma, thus coming out $75,000 ahead.

C)This left Auburn scrambling for an opponent, ANY opponent with an open date on the Saturday that Bowling Green had vacated. Virtually every team in America already had their schedules completed at that late date. The Citidal was it. Period.
So, while Auburn did play the Citidal, it's not like Auburn went out actively searching for such a game.

Auburn won four games against teams that had nine wins this year. That's more nine-win teams than the entire Pac-10 beat.
It's more nine-win teams than the entire Big-12 beat.
It's more nine-win teams than the Pac-10 and Big-12 beat COMBINED!
The NCA strength of Schedule ranklings have Auburn's schedule ranked at #9.
USC and Oklahoma are 20-something and 30-something.

Behold the media: When USC slips by a weak UCLA team, on a neutral field by five points, it's because "IT's a RIVALRY!" But the same media complains that Auburn's eight point win at Alabama is "unimpressive". Like Auburn/Alabama is NOT a rivalry?

When Oklahoma has to come from behind to beat Oklahoma State and Texas A & M it's because those games were On The Road! Like Auburn's 24-point win over Tennessee in Knoxville wasn't On The Road?

I'll buy that the USC-Oklahoma matchup is the media's darling.
I'll buy that voters that started off with USC and Oklahoma ranked numbers 1 & 2 want to save face by not changing their vote.
But don't try to justify that which can't be justified. Just admit that it's a popularity contest and this year, USC and Oklahoma won out.

I don't even care very much about who plays for the BCS. I'm looking forward to a trip to New Orleans to watch a great game between Auburn and Virginia Tech.

Go Tigers!

[Trunk]

Auburn deserves a shot at the National title. I HATE to say this, being a huge Dawgs fan, but Auburn rolled over Georgia like they were playing Vanderbilt. I'm not going to say that Georgia didn't have its own role in the loss, but you don't hold a team like Georgia to 6 points without some serious ability.

Yes you do.

Georgia was the most overrated team in college football this year. They were 34th in total offense and 12th in total defense.

They only scored 13 against 6-5 Marshall, who gave up 56 to Bowling Green and 31 to Akron.

The only teams Georgia spanked this year sucked. They didn't beat a single good team by more than a touchdown (SC by 4, ARK by 6, FLA by 7, G.Tech by 6).

FWIW, the Sagarin (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbc04.htm) ratings have The SEC ranked 5th, behind the PAC-10, the BIG-12, the ACC, and the "independents" (a conference to the ratings).

Auburn only deserves a shot at the national title in the fantasy world of there being a college football playoff. Given the current system, there's no doubt that OU and USC should be playing for it.

[John Carter of Mars]

Yes you do.



The only teams Georgia spanked this year sucked. They didn't beat a single good team by more than a touchdown (SC by 4, ARK by 6, FLA by 7, G.Tech by 6).


Dammed if the selective memory in this thread isn't amusing!

Did you intentionally choose to omit Georgia's 45-16 beating of defending National Champion and 9-2 LSU, or did that score simply not fit into your pre-determined notion?

[Linus Van Pelt]

Guys, what some of you fail to realize is that in the South, we consider the SEC to be the top of the line. We have some intense rivalries here, and I don't see how it's invalid that "20% of the SEC" is ranked in the top 25. They wouldn't stay ranked if they lost all their games. Georgia, Florida, Auburn and Tennessee almost always have great teams, and the games they play against one another are tough. College football is King of Sporting Events in the South, and likely always will be. The teams in the SEC would not be highly ranked if they sucked, just because they are in a tough conference.

I don't think that anyone here is seriously saying that "The SEC completely sucks but gets all the high rankings anyway." What people are saying is that yeah, the SEC is good, just not the be-all and end-all of all the conferences and that they get some extra points on reputation.

[Neurotik]

Auburn won four games against teams that had nine wins this year. That's more nine-win teams than the entire Pac-10 beat.
And all of those 9 win teams came from within their own conference.

There were 4 nine win teams in the SEC. Wanna hear their non-conference schedule? UNLV (2-9 in the MWC), Louisiana Tech (6-6 WAC) twice, Notre Dame (6-5 Independent, and ND won the game), Georgia Southern (9-3 in Division 1-AA, hey, there's another one!), Marshall (6-5 in the MAC), Georgia Tech (6-5 in the ACC), Oregon State (6-5 Pac-10), Arkansas St. (3-8 in the Sun Belt), Troy (7-4 in the Sun Belt), Louisiana Monroe (5-6 in the Sun Belt), and the Citadel (3-7 in Div. 1-AA).

Wow, that's a ball buster of a schedule. Two Division 1-AA teams, even. In fact, here's something interesting. The Pac-10 played only one Division 1-AA team all year, Arizona vs. North Arizona. The SEC played 5.
But don't try to justify that which can't be justified. Just admit that it's a popularity contest and this year, USC and Oklahoma won out.
What can't be justified? It's perfectly justifiable that USC and Oklahoma are playing in the Orange Bowl over Auburn. Auburn took on a Division 1-AA school and chickened out against playing another BCS school. USC took on and beat two 10 win teams, including the ACC conference champ and the #5 team in the nation. Oklahoma at least played another BCS team, albeit a mediocre one in Oregon.

Maybe the real reason Auburn pussied out against other BCS schools is that they got fucking annihilated last time they stepped out of their conference in the regular season and tried to keep up with the big boys: 23-0 against USC and 17-3 against Georgia Tech last year. This year, they apparently learned their lesson from LSU who also had to beat a Division 1-AA school on their road to the conference championship.

Auburn's a great team. And in a perfect world, they'd get to prove they're the best team in the country in a playoff or something. But it's not a perfect world, only two teams get to play for the national championship. And it's not a crime that Auburn's not in there. They played a soft non-conference schedule.
Guys, what some of you fail to realize is that in the South, we consider the SEC to be the top of the line.
No, everyone here understands that. What you fail to realize is that nobody outside of the South considers the SEC to be any better than the Pac-10, Big 10, or Big 12.
They wouldn't stay ranked if they lost all their games.
Nope, but maybe they wouldn't win so many if they actually played good non-conference teams. And stayed away from feasting on the Division 1-AA teams.
Georgia, Florida, Auburn and Tennessee almost always have great teams, and the games they play against one another are tough.
Yet another appeal to reputation.
The teams in the SEC would not be highly ranked if they sucked, just because they are in a tough conference.
No one says the SEC teams suck. They certainly don't.
Auburn deserves a shot at the National title.
No doubt. They deserve just as much of a shot as USC or Oklahoma this year, or USC last year. But that's not how the system is set up, unfortunately. Only two teams get a shot at the end of the year, so someone has to miss out. It's a shame that this year Auburn is the one who gets shafted, but it's not anymore egregious than if USC or Oklahoma had been left out this year.







[/QUOTE]

[Linus Van Pelt]

... The Pac-10 played only one Division 1-AA team all year, Arizona vs. North Arizona...

Yeah, but the Lumberjacks held the game close until the 4th quarter!

Of course, the U of A sucked this year and it's really not relevant to the discussion at hand, but this is probably the only chance I'll ever get to mention my alma mater in any discussion of college football on a national level.

[John Carter of Mars]

Auburn took on a Division 1-AA school and chickened out against playing another BCS school.

Must I add you to the list of annoying posters that don't read the thread before they post? Read my post #91 before you reveal your ignorance by spewing inane crap.

[Munch]

Must I add you to the list of annoying posters that don't read the thread before they post? Read my post #91 before you reveal your ignorance by spewing inane crap.
I like the part where the post you quoted by Neurotik quoted your post at #91, then you accused him of not reading his post. That's my favorite.

[Neurotik]

Must I add you to the list of annoying posters that don't read the thread before they post? Read my post #91 before you reveal your ignorance by spewing inane crap.
I read it. Auburn should have matched Oklahoma's offer. Or outbid another team. If Oklahoma can get a scheduling change that quick, surely Auburn could have done the same.

Whatever the reason, Auburn had a weaker non-conference schedule than the other two contenders. In fact, the SEC as a whole had the weakest non-conference schedule of any of the major conferences.

If the SEC wants to keep claiming it's the toughest conference out there and its champion should get special consideration for it, they need to step it up and prove it during the regular season. Until that happens, they need to shut up and accept that the current system winds up shafting someone every year, and this year it's their turn.

If the SEC wants to complain that the current system sucks and a playoff is needed, I support that. If Auburn wants to complain that they deserve it over USC or Oklahoma because those two struggled against teams more often than Auburn, that's a reasonable argument. But they don't get to complain that they deserve a title shot over the other undefeated BCS teams simply because they come out of the SEC.

[Trunk]

Dammed if the selective memory in this thread isn't amusing!

Did you intentionally choose to omit Georgia's 45-16 beating of defending National Champion and 9-2 LSU, or did that score simply not fit into your pre-determined notion?

LSU was for shit. They beat ONE ranked team, and they needed a final 30-second TD to do it.

They missed going 8-3 by the virtue of 2 (or was it 3) missed extra points against Oregon State.

They're the only team out there that makes me think I might be wrong about UGA being the MOST overrated.

[Trunk]

When we're evaluating the SEC, let's not overlook Mississippi State losing to Division I-AA, University of Fucking Maine.

Yeah, the same Mississippi State that Florida lost to.

I'm not talking about hockey.

[Jaade]

And all of those 9 win teams came from within their own conference.

There were 4 nine win teams in the SEC. Wanna hear their non-conference schedule? UNLV (2-9 in the MWC), Louisiana Tech (6-6 WAC) twice, Notre Dame (6-5 Independent, and ND won the game), Georgia Southern (9-3 in Division 1-AA, hey, there's another one!), Marshall (6-5 in the MAC), Georgia Tech (6-5 in the ACC), Oregon State (6-5 Pac-10), Arkansas St. (3-8 in the Sun Belt), Troy (7-4 in the Sun Belt), Louisiana Monroe (5-6 in the Sun Belt), and the Citadel (3-7 in Div. 1-AA).

Wow, that's a ball buster of a schedule. Two Division 1-AA teams, even. In fact, here's something interesting. The Pac-10 played only one Division 1-AA team all year, Arizona vs. North Arizona. The SEC played 5.

Maybe the real reason Auburn pussied out against other BCS schools is that they got fucking annihilated last time they stepped out of their conference in the regular season and tried to keep up with the big boys: 23-0 against USC and 17-3 against Georgia Tech last year. This year, they apparently learned their lesson from LSU who also had to beat a Division 1-AA school on their road to the conference championship.

No, everyone here understands that. What you fail to realize is that nobody outside of the South considers the SEC to be any better than the Pac-10, Big 10, or Big 12.

Nope, but maybe they wouldn't win so many if they actually played good non-conference teams. And stayed away from feasting on the Division 1-AA teams.

Yet another appeal to reputation.

No one says the SEC teams suck. They certainly don't.





Southern will be a Division 1-A team one day, don't doubt that. The Ga/GA Southern game has potential for a decent rivalry once the GSU makes Div 1-A and has more experience under their belt. GA didn't play Southern because it would be an easy win. Southern is taking the steps to go from Div 1-AA to Div 1-A.

You say in one breath that the SEC teams don't suck, but the rest of your statements indicate that you do kinda think they suck:

Nope, but maybe they wouldn't win so many if they actually played good non-conference teams. And stayed away from feasting on the Division 1-AA teams.


Auburn pussied out against other BCS schools is that they got fucking annihilated last time they stepped out of their conference

...tried to keep up with the big boys...

Auburn took on a Division 1-AA school and chickened out against playing another BCS school.

It seems to me, and I could be wrong, that your opinion is that the SEC plays division games so much because they are afraid to play other, "better" teams in the other conferences.

On preview: DID someone say that Auburn deserves a shot simply because they are in the SEC? I don't remember seeing that, please correct me if I just missed it.

[John Carter of Mars]

I like the part where the post you quoted by Neurotik quoted your post at #91, then you accused him of not reading his post. That's my favorite.

It was obvious that he read part of it. But I don't see how he could have posted this: "Auburn took on a Division 1-AA school and chickened out against playing another BCS school." If he had bothered to comprehend the whole thing.

By Neurotic: If the SEC wants to complain that the current system sucks and a playoff is needed, I support that. If Auburn wants to complain that they deserve it over USC or Oklahoma because those two struggled against teams more often than Auburn, that's a reasonable argument. But they don't get to complain that they deserve a title shot over the other undefeated BCS teams simply because they come out of the SEC."

I don't think you can find where I, personally, claimed that Auburn deserved to be in the BCS game simply because they play in the SEC. Others here have come pretty close to claiming that, though.

Somewhere earlier in this thread I stated that I didn't give too much of a damn about who played for the BCS trophy. If Auburn can beat Virginia Tech and finish 13-0 I'll be delighted with this season.

The BCS was supposed to provide a clear National Champion and take the popularity contest aspect out of things. Slowly over the years factors have been removed from the BCS formula until we're right back with a popularity contest.

Without the BCS, this year's bowl games would have been something like: USC/Michigan, Auburn/Texas, Oklahoma/California and Utah/Virginia Tech. If all the undefeateds won out, there would have been a controversy. We've still got a controversy, with, as a whole, worse games.

[John Carter of Mars]

LSU was for shit. They beat ONE ranked team, and they needed a final 30-second TD to do it.

They missed going 8-3 by the virtue of 2 (or was it 3) missed extra points against Oregon State.

They're the only team out there that makes me think I might be wrong about UGA being the MOST overrated.

Rationalize much?

[Trunk]

Rationalize much?
southern much?

[John Carter of Mars]

southern much?

Very Southern!

[Neurotik]

Southern will be a Division 1-A team one day, don't doubt that. The Ga/GA Southern game has potential for a decent rivalry once the GSU makes Div 1-A and has more experience under their belt. GA didn't play Southern because it would be an easy win. Southern is taking the steps to go from Div 1-AA to Div 1-A.
Well, when that day comes, I'll stop saying that Georgia Southern doesn't help the SEC's cause when it wants to claim that it's the hands down toughest conference.
It seems to me, and I could be wrong, that your opinion is that the SEC plays division games so much because they are afraid to play other, "better" teams in the other conferences.
You mean Division 1-AA games? The only other reason to play them would be to build an in-state rivalry if a team is soon to be Division 1-A or something. Or to help an old assistant's team to get some national exposure, which happens in NCAA basketball quite frequently.

As for them afraid to play other, better conferences? Yeah, I think there's some of that. Look at last year's SEC. They played 15 games against non-conference BCS teams and got absolutely dusted, compiling an 4-11 record. They notice that an easy schedule doesn't stop LSU from playing for the championship, not even playing against a Div 1-AA team. It's even more advantageous now, since SoS has been eliminated as a factor. So why not just play easy teams and not risk losing, knowing if you compile a good conference record, you'll get ranked highly simply off of the conference's rep.
On preview: DID someone say that Auburn deserves a shot simply because they are in the SEC? I don't remember seeing that, please correct me if I just missed it.
That's how I read the OP.

[whole bean]

what was the last November basketball game you saw that felt like it really mattered, for instance?

Pacers/Pistons

John from Mars has a really good point concerning the media's love affair with USC as exemplified in the very different ways that USC/UCLA and Bama/Auburn were dealt with . . . Auburn should have done more . . . SC was in a rivalry . .. horseshit!

I do agree that the SEC has not done all that it can to maintian its reputation. It's one thing to have a Vandy and a Kentucky, but to have a Vandy, a Kentucky, a Miss. State and an Ole Miss, well you're not doing any thing for your conference strength argument. But why all the hate from the West Coast? Part of the SEC's strength argument is that, if you're Florida for example, you play two in-conference in-division games against teams that in any given year have a good shot of beating you (Ga and Tenn). You also play an LSU and Arkansas, then FSU (non-conf.). Year in and year out, you play three maybe four top twenty conference games. Are they always the best (top five teams)? No. But a top twenty team has a helluva a lot better chance of sneaking up on you than a shit bag nothing program.

I think a playoff is necessary to prevent the argument taking place. It's curious to USC fans deriding the SEC for riding a reputation when reputation (pre-season polls) is a major factor in USC's current rank.

I think the west coast is still jealous that Valdosta is widely regarded as the best HS program despite De La Salle's last five years (did I just bring up high school football?)

[Airblairxxx]

I think the west coast is still jealous that Valdosta is widely regarded as the best HS program despite De La Salle's last five years (did I just bring up high school football?)

Yes, you did, from out of nowhere, and with absolutely no relation whatsoever to the debate, and how can you be jealous of something you've never heard of over something you don't care about?

(And it was De La Salle's last 15 years.)

[Neurotik]

But why all the hate from the West Coast?
Because we're annoyed with the assumption that the SEC is the toughest conference, even though the SEC teams duck out of scheduling games against teams from other major conferences. And when they do end up playing them, they don't tend do that well. The past two seasons, the SEC is 8-15 vs. the other BCS conferences.
Year in and year out, you play three maybe four top twenty conference games.
Then, we have to ask ourselves, why are they top 20 teams? Is it because they distinguish themselves outside their conference against tough opponents? Sometimes, certainly. The last couple seasons, I'd say no. Take Tennessee, for instance. The last three seasons, the only major conference teams they've played is Notre Dame (lost both times), Miami (lost) and Rutgers (which they won). And they've lost their last two bowl games, as well - to Clemson and Maryland. They only seem to be able to rack up an impressive record against second-tier non-conference opponents and in-conference games.

Or take a look at Florida. This is what they've done the past three season as far as non-SEC major conference teams: Florida State 3 times (won once, lost twice), Miami twice (lost both times). They've lost their last two bowl games, as well, against Iowa and Michigan.

Can't say anything about Georgia the past few years. They've talked the talk and walked the walk.

So, some of the teams (Florida and Tennessee) that people keep talking about as being the reason that the SEC is so much better than the other conferences, can't beat good teams from other major conferences. But they kept being used as evidence that the tough in-conference schedule is what keeps the SEC on top.
I think the west coast is still jealous that Valdosta is widely regarded as the best HS program despite De La Salle's last five years (did I just bring up high school football?)
I think you're overestimating how many people have heard about Valdosta. You're certainly overestimating how many people care.

[whole bean]

Dammit, I knew I should have put one of those stupid ass smiley faces after that highschool footbal comment to clarify that it was a joke but I didn't think the ilk on this board, having memorized the schedules and records of teams they don't follow, would be so obtuse as to miss the apparent sarcasm . . my appologies :D :D :D :D

Now on to your points, Florida is a fine example of a reason why the SEC is a tough conference. Their last three years, they've been a shadow of their Ol' Ballcoach days past, but still they damn near squeaked out a win against both Miami and Florida State in '03 (each game by last minute score), they were the only team to beat 1/2 of the National Champs last year and they beat (for the 13th time in 14 years) this talk walkin UGA program. My point is that fundamentally sound struggling program is much more likely to raise up for a big game especially when there's a rivalry at stake and the SEC is filled with those sort of programs. Don't focus so much on non-confernce competition and lose sight of the number of really good conference games a team has to play. Playing Tennesse for the second time was waaaaaaaaaaaayyyy harder than playing Colorado or UCLA.

BTW, I admitted that the SEC has had three or four perenially weak teams, but they've also had three to five perenial powerhouses.

[whole bean]

as to UF's UGA and LSU victories, I was obvioulsly referring to 2003 wins.

Neurotik said: I think you're overestimating how many people have heard about Valdosta. You're certainly overestimating how many people care.

eh? you tellin me all these folks babblin about who played which 9-2 team and which non-conference opponent don't know what the winningest highschool football program of all time is? College football players don't spontaneously generate and with the rare exception of a kicker or receiver, here and there, they tend to play highschool ball. My comment was, as stated, a joke, but I bet you most college football fans know about De La Salle, Valdosta . . .

Still, I wanna know how a USC advocate can possibly complain about the SEC relying on reputation when USC's preseason rank is one of the primary reasons it is number one.

[Munch]

they were the only team to beat 1/2 of the National Champs last year
You mean other than Cal (who beat USC)?

[whole bean]

You mean other than Cal (who beat USC)?

actually I meant the only team to beat LSU, but the way that I put it, yes, I would have to include Cal. I should have said "the only team to beat LSU, 1/2 of the Natonal Champs." Sorry for any confusion . . no slight meant to Cal.

[Neurotik]

eh? you tellin me all these folks babblin about who played which 9-2 team and which non-conference opponent don't know what the winningest highschool football program of all time is?
Yep. I never heard of it, I had to look it up. Just as how I've had to look up the schedules and such to find out about non-conference opponents. I've got none of this memorized.
Now on to your points, Florida is a fine example of a reason why the SEC is a tough conference.
Bzzzt. Time out. There's no doubt the SEC is a tough conference. The question is, are they the hands-down toughest conference?
Their last three years, they've been a shadow of their Ol' Ballcoach days past, but still they damn near squeaked out a win against both Miami and Florida State in '03 (each game by last minute score),
Oregon State nearly squeaked out a win against LSU this year. A loss is a loss is a loss. You want to be counted as good, you'd better win.
they were the only team to beat 1/2 of the National Champs last year
Except Cal...
and they beat (for the 13th time in 14 years) this talk walkin UGA program.
They did. Good on them. Too bad they couldn't beat FSU but once the last three years, or Miami, or Michigan, or Iowa. Then maybe we'd be talking about them being able to beat someone outside their own conference.

But they didn't, so we're not.

[whole bean]

I was using UF as an example of a down on their luck squad that's still tough in conference play, the near losses were evidence of their potential, the wins against UGA and LSU a realization of that potential. What you've done is take my example of a middle of the road squad who's risen to the occassion in conference play (living up to potential demonstrated in non-conference play) and made that the embodiment of every SEC team's non-conference play. That is the height of disingenuinness.

I have neither the time nor the energy to see how many of those non-conference losses in the SEC came from conference basement dwellers, either perenials (Vandy, UK, Ole Miss) or down on their luck squads (e.g. Bama), but I think it would add interesting depth to those otherwise shallow statistics. Additonally, I would like to see a comparison of the various conferences non-conference opponents - some years playing Notre Dame means something, some years it doesn't.

Finally, I agree that the SEC is not the only tough conference and this brings me to my point. The backlash to the OP has largely been a criticism of the SEC being overrated. My question is by whom? Not the press. Not the coaches. The fans? Yeah, they detemrine rankings. The media lovefest that is anything to do with USC and Oklahoma makes me wonder where this overrating comment finds it locus.

[Gangster Octopus]

Still, I wanna know how a USC advocate can possibly complain about the SEC relying on reputation when USC's preseason rank is one of the primary reasons it is number one.

Well USC did go 12-0 and somebody has to be #1. What real riles is comments like this in the OP:

There is no reason a team that goes 12-0 and 9-0 in the S E fucking C should be left out of the national championship hunt. The Southeastern Conference is hands down the toughest conference in the nation. The Big 12 North sucks. The Pac 10 only has USC and Cal. Top to bottom, the SEC is better than either.


It riles becuase it is without any basis in fact. It is an assertion made as if it is a first principle. It isn't, there is plenty of reason to doubt the assertion.

[Neurotik]

I was using UF as an example of a down on their luck squad that's still tough in conference play, the near losses were evidence of their potential, the wins against UGA and LSU a realization of that potential. What you've done is take my example of a middle of the road squad who's risen to the occassion in conference play (living up to potential demonstrated in non-conference play) and made that the embodiment of every SEC team's non-conference play. That is the height of disingenuinness.
Um, how dense are you?

You were the one who used UF as an example of why the SEC was a tough conference. So I used UF as a counterpoint. The issue of the entire SEC's non-conference play has been already discussed here. Read the whole thread and then come back.
Finally, I agree that the SEC is not the only tough conference and this brings me to my point. The backlash to the OP has largely been a criticism of the SEC being overrated. My question is by whom?
By the OP and a few other posters here. PTI was just discussing how the SEC was easily the toughest conference and how Auburn should probably be taking the place of one of the two teams. And they've discussed it on College Gameday on ESPN.

[whole bean]

Um, how dense are you?

My density is approximately 61-67 pounds per cubic foot, with breathe exhaled and 56-62 pounds per cubic foot when I inhale. Now was there really any need to be nasty?

When I stated that you disengenuously used UF's bad year non-conference performance I was referring to this statement "Too bad they couldn't beat FSU but once the last three years, or Miami, or Michigan, or Iowa. Then maybe we'd be talking about them being able to beat someone outside their own conference."

I have read the entire thread, as is suggested by this statement,"I have neither the time nor the energy to see how many of those non-conference losses in the SEC came from conference basement dwellers, either perenials (Vandy, UK, Ole Miss) or down on their luck squads (e.g. Bama), but I think it would add interesting depth to those otherwise shallow statistics [reffered to by you many posts ago]." My hunch is that the answer to this might seriously undercut your weak non-conference performance argument. In other words, if in any given year the SEC has 4 good sqauds, 4 shitty squads, with the rest in the middle, and in that year they go 4-4 in BCS non-conference games, and 3 of those losses were by Ole Miss, UK, and Vandy. In the same year, the PAC-10 has 3 good squads, and they go 5-3 in BCS non-conference games, but the 3 good squads account for all the BCS non-conference losses, and the 9 BCS non-conference wins were to shitty programs, then just looking at the overall BCS non-conference record doesn't give you a very good picture of the best of each conference. Right? By your logic, UF, UT, UGA should load up on Syracuse, BC, WVa, Duke, Wake Forrest games

By the OP and a few other posters here. PTI was just discussing how the SEC was easily the toughest conference and how Auburn should probably be taking the place of one of the two teams. And they've discussed it on College Gameday on ESPN.

PTI? help a brother out.

[Linus Van Pelt]

PTI? help a brother out.
It's a show on ESPN.

Pardon the Interruption (http://espn.go.com/eoe/pti.html)

[whole bean]

maybe that's my problem . . I don't watch ESPN except for an hour on Saturday from 11:00 to 12:00.

Look all I'm saying is the SEC is a tough as nails conference. I used UF as an example to say even when they suck, you can't underestimate them. You can't judge the toughness of a conference exclusively by looking at the entire conference's non-conference play. Is it a factor, yes, but I think it is more nuanced than the statistics Neuritk cited suggest. Maybe it's not. Maybe it's that straightforward.

[beergeek279]

It does look like the ACC was one of the toughest, though - they played the second most non-conference BCS schools, had the second best record and had the second toughest schedule.

I'm tired of people lauding the fucking thieves in the ACC as "such a wonderful conference" and the Big East as "borderline" when it's the ACC's fucking fault we sit there. What are the stats for the REAL teams in the ACC, with such powerhouse programs as Duke, Wake Forest and North Carolina?

I just think it doesn't say a lot about a conference when the 2 best teams were in another one just a year earlier.

[John Carter of Mars]

Take Tennessee, for instance. The last three seasons, the only major conference teams they've played is Notre Dame (lost both times), Miami (lost) and Rutgers (which they won).

(Bolding mine)

Broooonnnk! Tennessee 10, Miami 6. November 11th, 2003.

Someone has already mentioned in this thread that the SEC was 5-2 in bowl games last year. Bowl games should match the better teams from the conferences against each other. Are you failing to take bowl games into account? Or is it that since the bowl game results don't support your case, you choose to ignore them?

[John Carter of Mars]

Oops! Make that November 8th.

[Neurotik]

Broooonnnk! Tennessee 10, Miami 6. November 11th, 2003.
Missed that one. OK, so tack on another win to Tennessee. I still wouldn't be bragging about their non-conference record the past three years to support the SEC's toughness.
Someone has already mentioned in this thread that the SEC was 5-2 in bowl games last year. Bowl games should match the better teams from the conferences against each other. Are you failing to take bowl games into account? Or is it that since the bowl game results don't support your case, you choose to ignore them?
I already took Bowl games into account in one of my past posts. But fine, let's take Bowl games into account. So far this year, the SEC is 4-4 against other majors. Last year, including bowl games, the SEC was 12-11. In 2002, it was 9-14. For a combined record of 25-29.

The only SEC team to distinguish itself in that period looks to be Georgia, who went 7-0 against the other majors. And, um, Kentucky, who has gone 3-0 but all three came against Indiana.

What it points to is exactly what everyone here said. The SEC is the best conference some years, not the best conference other years.

Is the SEC the best conference this year? Possibly, we'll have to wait and see how the Bowl games turn out.

[Linus Van Pelt]

Well, looks like an update is in order, considering the events of the last few days.

Ah, how sweet. It's worked out almost as well as it could have for those who believe that the current system is a joke. No matter who wins tomorrow night's game, there will be not one, not two, but three undefeated teams (Pity Boise State couldn't have won). That, along with the AP pulling out, leaves the BCS in a sorry state. What are they going to say now, that the system needs more "tweaking"?

The playoff isn't here yet, but I hope this means we're one step closer.

[John Carter of Mars]

Auburn is13-0. State champs, Conference champs, Sugar Bowl champs. God (f she exists) is smiling. I am too. :D

Congrats to Utah and tonight's winner as well. 13-0 is hard to get.

[Ike Witt]

What are they going to say now, that the system needs more "tweaking"?

The last that I heard was they were going to appoint a 'blue ribbon' panel to pick teams in the place of the AP poll. The only problem is that the panel would be made up of representatives from the BCS conferences. No confilict of interest there, I am sure.

[Neurotik]

OK, this has been bugging me for a while now. How did Utah get stuck playing Pitt?

I thought the system worked like this - the #1 and #2 play in the featured bowl. Bowls with contracts to have a particular conference champion get that team. Teams losing their contracted team to the featured bowl then get to pick a qualified team to fill that slot. Then whatever leftover slots get filled by the bowls in some prearranged order.

So, in other words, in 2004 it went something like this.

Orange - automatically gets USC and Oklahoma.
Rose - automatically gets Michigan, empty slot.
Fiesta - two empty slots.
Sugar - automatically gets Auburn, empty slot.

Since the Rose and Fiesta lost their contracted champions, they get the next two picks. Fiesta picks Utah, because they're the only other undefeated team. Rose is left with the options of VA Tech, Texas and Pitt. It picks Texas. Sugar is left with the option of VA Tech or Pitt. Obviously, it takes Tech. So Fiesta is left with Pitt.

Is that right? That's got to be the way it worked.

[Linus Van Pelt]

Very close. The order they selected varies slightly.

From this column by Stewart Mandel at SI.com (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/football/ncaa/specials/bowls/2004/12/29/bowl.scenarios/index.html)

The BCS awards spots to the six major-conference champions and, after placing the top two teams in the title game (Orange), places the other four based on conference affiliations. SEC champion Auburn automatically goes to the Sugar, Big Ten champion Michigan to the Rose. The two at-large spots this year were automatically awarded to Utah, by winning its conference and finishing in the top six, and Texas, which didn't win its conference but finished in the top four (edging out 10-1 Cal). The Rose, by losing the No. 1 team, Pac-10 champ USC, got first choice of replacement teams and chose Texas. The Fiesta, by losing the No. 2 team, Big 12 champ Oklahoma, got second choice and took Utah. The Sugar got next pick and took Virginia Tech, leaving the Fiesta with Pittsburgh.

adam yax, I've heard about the selection committee but it's not the selections that are the problem, it's the system. No matter how they're selected, there still are three undefeated teams at the end of this year, casting yet more light on the travesty that is the BCS.

Not that it'll make a difference. Unless the public pressure becomes so great that sponsorship, TV ratings, and the money that goes along with those things go away, there's not going to be a playoff anytime soon.

[ElvisL1ves]

I still don't understand why they've consistently turned down even the slightest hint of a multigame playoff system, something that exists in all other major NCAA sports at all levels. If it's TV ratings, that equals fan interest, and I've never heard a single fan suggest that the championship wouldn't be best settled on the field. If it's the bowls' own income that matters, how is that lessened by making them matter? Only one really does, now - the rest get only serious fans and bettors to watch. If it's the schools' income that matters, the more games they can sell to the networks, the better. If it's the time away from class for the players that matters, why is that not a concern in the lower divisions?

I'd be happy with the Plus One proposal that was seriously considered last year. Just seed and play the bowl games, eliminating some contenders, then a committee picks 2 of the winners to play for the title 2 weeks later in another game that would be in one of the major bowl facilities. Every major bowl matters then, and the nets have another product to sell their advertisers, and the fans are happy. Who here wouldn't want to see Auburn play the USC/OU winner on Monday Night Football this coming Jan. 17?

[Linus Van Pelt]

It's not just about the money, it's about who controls the money. Right now the 6 "major" conferences have their grasping, scheming hands in a death grip around the bowl payouts and they're going to do their best to see that it remains that way. They're probably already ticked off that Utah got a chunk of it this year.

[ElvisL1ves]

No question it's about money - I'm wondering about the mechanics of it. I'm simply mystified how the money argument against even a minimal playoff system works.

The majors would still be in charge with the Plus One system - most of the top teams are in the top conferences, duh.

[The Big Cheese]

i think the dragging the games out sucks royaly too. I know they probably make more money this way, but as a viewer I'm not watching. I'm sick of college football now.

They give you a little taste on the 30th, a little more on the 31st, then on the 1st they hit you between the eyes wtih football from 10am-10pm. What a day! Then they make you wait 2 days and give you one more game, then wait again and see another. I'd rather have it like the old days, all the big games on the 1st.

If it means skipping the Boise bowl or the Poulan Weedeater bowl to move them back to the first, well, that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make.

[Linus Van Pelt]

No question it's about money - I'm wondering about the mechanics of it. I'm simply mystified how the money argument against even a minimal playoff system works.

The majors would still be in charge with the Plus One system - most of the top teams are in the top conferences, duh.

The closest I can figure is that the university presidents oppose it because it's too much like a playoff. I don't know if they are concerned about slippery slopes or if it's simply the idea of something that is playoff-like.

[tnetennba]

I don't know what the proposal is, but wouldn't a playoff system take too long? Anyway, I don't care if there are playoffs. I just want the Rose Bowl back the way it should be -- Pac-10 and Big-10 leaders. This juggling the bowl games around is nonsense.

[amarinth]

I take back what I said about a playoff. Let's go old school. PAC 10 and Big 10 in the Rose Bowl. Anything else just ain't right.Amen.

[High Cheese]

I don't know what the proposal is, but wouldn't a playoff system take too long? Anyway, I don't care if there are playoffs. I just want the Rose Bowl back the way it should be -- Pac-10 and Big-10 leaders. This juggling the bowl games around is nonsense.

If you have a sweet-16 playoffs, it would take 4 weeks. And, at that, only 2 teams would play all 4 weeks; only 4 teams would play 3 weeks; 8 teams would play 2 weeks; and 16 teams would play an extra week. You could double the teams to 32 and add only one more week. But 5 weeks might be excessive. Oklahoma hasn't played a regular season game since before Thanksgiving; and both USC and Oklahoma haven't played since December 4th (about 4 weeks). So the question is not about time but about the number of games they play. Most teams now play 12 regular season games, which would stretch to 16 for 2 teams, 15 for 4 teams, 14 for 8 teams and 13 for 16 teams under a playoff system. But if the NCAA cut back to 11 game schedules as it used to be (did Auburn really need to play the Citadel this year?) then the number of games would be manageable. Remember that only 2 teams would play 15 games. 1AA is the only division in the NCAA that does not have a playoff system. The two participants in the division II championship this year (Valdosta St. and Pittsburgh St.) played 14 and 15 games respectively. There are 11 1AA conferences. The 11 division winners plus 5 wild cards would participate in the playoffs. Of course, the SEC, Big-12 and MAC conferences have 2 divisions each, so they would need to play a conference championship to determine the winner (as they do anyway). The only difficulty, then, becomes choosing the 5 at-large participants. But this would be much less controversial than the crappy BCS system.