Yeah, and UCLA gets KILLED by USC, right? That’s why they play the games on the field and not on paper.
Give Florida a shot. When UF narrowly beats OSU and Michigan KILLS USC in the Rose Bowl, then we can argue for Co-National Champs again.
A playoff would be preferable to this mess, but yes an 8 or 16 team one would blow equally
hard. 4 teams and you eliminate a 15th-ranked team from having a chance at an undeserved
upset but give several deserving one-loss teams a shot when otherwise they may be left out
of the hunt. But really I don’t know if this fiasco can be fixed because there’s too much
“tradition-al inertia” which stems from the long storied history of NCAA football (read:
every conference has been put together differently and determines their champions
in vastly different ways. Standardize all that and you indeed lose a lot). Yes you get
a playoff but you lose a lot of the unique flavor of the sport at this level. Should Michigan
get a 2nd chance in a playoff? How about whoever will be the 4th place BCS team
when the results are released this afternoon?
This has to be the biggest lie told about the bowl/playoff argument.
If every game mattered neither Michigan nor Florida would be in the title game–they each lost a game. I’m not suggesting that the other undefeated team deserves to be ranked #2 (even for an Idaho kid), but I would like to see Boise State have a shot to prove things on the field instead of an automatic dismissal out of hand.
If you had a playoff all the games would still matter; who out there wants to be the low seed and get OSU?
About the only argument against the playoff system that I agree with is the fact that it would eliminate the very interesting argument that happens practically every year.
Florida deserves to go more than Michigan, but I definitely hope Michican gets the nod. Would much rather demolish USC in the Rose and demolish ND in the Sugar.
There’s an “11” hidden in the logo. Subliminal, I tells ya.
Wisconsin gets kinda screwed out of this. That’s one team that the “Strength of schedule” argument sticks. They’ve got only one loss (to Michigan) and aren’t in the running for a BCS bowl.
Also, by saying you want to leapfrog Michigan (with Florida), you’re essentially penalizing Michigan for not having a championship game.
If there were a Big Ten championship game, and Florida DID lose yesterday, then I can completely see why people would not want Michigan and Ohio State to play three times. That’s just silly, right there.
Also, if we established some sort of a playoff system or added a couple more games, aren’t we REALLY moving away from what they’re supposed to do, namely “school”? It’s got warts, but the BCS is fine. It’s a whole shit ton better than it WAS as well.
I thought LSU and Michigan were slated for the Rose Bowl.Being from Michigan I remember the crappy turf and home field advantage Ohio State had. I also saw an explosive team that kept a very good defense on its heels all day. OSU is a very good team. I want us to beat Lsu and Ohio St beat Florida then all can worship the big ten.
PS Is the BCS system too flawed to be taken seriously.?What would be better, such as me appointing the bowl games.
It’s selection time:
BCS National Championship Game- It’s the Buckeyes and the Gators, as AN Ohio State University will face the University of Florida.
My pick: Ohio State
Fiesta Bowl- It’s a clash of Boomer Sooner and the Kings of the Smurf Turf as Oklahoma takes on Boise State.
My pick: Oklahoma
Orange Bowl- The Cardinals of Louisville Community Colle… I mean the University of Louisville will take on the Wake Forest Demon Deacons.
My pick: Louisville spit
Sugar Bowl- Sanity prevails, as the Sugar Bowl has the Louisiana State University Tigers of the SEC taking on the Fighting Irish of Notre Dame.
My pick: LSU
Rose Bowl- It’s a classic Big Ten vs. Pac-10 matchup as Michigan and USC lock horns in the Granddaddy of Them All.
My pick: Michigan
One of the talking heads on FOX made a good point…how fair would a rematch be to Ohio State? They already beat Michigan, why should they have to play them again?
Well, that, and the National Title was decided in Atlanta yesterday, as per normal. SEC football rules. 
I hate Florida, but a win would certainly go far in terms of respect for the SEC. I have no doubt that LSU will demolish ND.
Old fashioned Rose Bowl Michigan and USC . I like it. Should be a good game. Notre Dame suffers every year from being over rated. Big ten quit playing 2 weeks ago. It might be a good idea to rethink their scheduling.
The current BCS system is flawed, but it’s significantly better than what we had before. It could be vastly improved by adding one game (essentially making a 4-team playoff, and eliminating all controversy).
I’m a big fan of controversy-that-forces-a-change, but this year simply doesn’t provide it. If we were operating under the pre-BCS system, the end result would be the same. The only difference is that the bowl matchups wouldn’t be as good. If '03 and '04 didn’t force a change*, then this year certainly won’t.
Michigan is probably the 2nd best team in the nation, but I do not want to see the National Championship game be a replay of a previous game. I think that most of the people that get to vote on the rankings feel the same way that I do, and have been looking for a reason to keep Michigan ranked #3. Fortunately for all (non Michigan) football fans, they found a way. (Let’s not make this into a debate about whether Michigan or Florida is more deserving. I, as well as pretty much anyone else here, could make the case for either side.)
Let’s look at the silver lining: 48 hours ago the big question was whether Southern Cal was better (i.e. more deserving of …) than Michigan. Now we get to see. 48 hours ago I was fantisizing about a “+1” system, where (at the time) Fla would play OSU, and Michigan would play Southern Cal, and the winners would play each other. Now I get to see 2 of those games. I also can’t wait to see LSU destroy ND. We also have the surprise ACC champion (Wake Forest) vs. the UL. (Little fish-that-could in a big pond vs. big fish in a little pond.)
I have 2 questions for those that follow football more than I do:
1.) Why do W. Michigan, Cincinnati, Ohio, and Southern Miss get to play in post-New-Years games?
2.) How many of Florida’s injured players are going to be healthy in 5 weeks?
3.) Hi, Opal!
- OK, '03 did force a change, but not a change for the better.
Is the BCS Championship game not a bowl game? Where is it played and when?
I’m a gator so I’m really excited. It looks like some pretty good matchups in the bowls.
My Picks: Fla, USC, Wake Forest, Boise State, LSU.
The BCS Championship Game is being played at the site of the Fiesta Bowl, but is not the Fiesta Bowl.
Michigan already had their shot. It’s the closest we can get to a playoff until the [del]AARP[/del] NCAA pulls their heads out of each other’s asses.
This is the kind of mental exercise we sports fans love to get into. I do think in the recesses of our mind that we know it is an impossible task to rate the teams. If it were possible we would all be rich by sports betting.
If we had a 4 team playoff ,we would have a fight over who is no4 or 5. It is not possible to do it and satisfy everybody.
Before the BCS ,Michigan was proud of having a difficult schedule. But the BCS is simplistic and playing the top 5 teams in the country will generally end up in a loss or 2. Teams are scheduling weaker opponents to fluff up their records like NCAA basketball encourages schools to do. Michigan should not play Ball State. They know it and walk through the game with 2nd and 3rd stringers getting a lot of playing time. Some schools run up huge scores embarrassing everybody. It is an imperfect system .
Ok, so Florida’s in. Fine. Now who wants a playoff?!
Let me footballwank for a second, and break down a 16 team playoff (like they run in Division I-AA). Let’s ignore all the old memes about “class time” and “every game counting” and just break it down.
Here’s this year in a 16 team playoff format:
FIRST ROUND:
1 Ohio State
16 Rutgers
8 Boise State
9 Auburn
5 USC
12 Arkansas
4 LSU
13 West Virginia
6 Louisville
11 Notre Dame
3 Michigan
14 Wake Forest
7 Wisconsin
10 Oklahoma
2 Florida
15 VA Tech
?! They can’t make more money with this schedule? There’s not a game on there except for USC v. Arkansas that I wouldn’t pay to see. Now… Let’s do a second round (please don’t read into these picks - I’ve deliberately made them fit to come down to the current BCS top 4 - certainly not guaranteed).
SECOND ROUND:
1 Ohio State
8 Boise State
5 USC
4 LSU
6 Louisville
3 Michigan
10 Oklahoma
2 Florida
Ok - some more good games - got the battle of the unbeatens. Lots of interesting matchups. On to…
SEMIFINALS:
1 Ohio State
4 LSU
3 Michigan
2 Florida
FINALS:
1 Ohio State
2 Florida
Now… FOR THE KICKER… there are currently 32 bowl games. This is only 15 games. These games could easily be incorporated into the bowl games. (Rotating the final championship between the 4 big money bowls).
Moreover, if you were so inclined, you could do a 16 team “NIT” style tournament of the also-rans (from 17-32) and still only be missing two bowl games.
Any thoughts?
Better that than a debate over who’s really #1. It amazes me that even with all the tweaking there is always a controversy over who gets to play for the national championship. In 2003-4, there was a split poll, with LSU crowned the “official” champion yet USC ranked #1 in the AP poll; this EXACT SCENARIO was the reason the BCS was added in the first place, to ensure the top tems actually play each other rather than relying on judgement as #1 and #2 played in separate bowl games.
NCAA basketball fans may grouse when their favorite team doesn’t make the tournament, but no one seriously thinks any teams that wasn’t included in the group of 65–fairly or unfairly–would have made even the final four, much less be crowned champion.
It is an antequated system driven by the moneyed interests in the game rather than the athletic needs of competition. The controversy at the top has gotten a lot of press, but the fact that neither Wisconsin nor Auburn were included in any BCS bowl–despite each having a higher BCS rating than Notre Dame–proves it is all about how well teams “travel”.
Boise State is being used as a fig leaf by the BCS cadre to prove how “fair” the system is, but really one has to wonder–since they are unbeaten on the year, rank 2nd in the nation in scoring, and have won games by an average margin of 23 points–why aren’t they allowed to have a shot at the title? “Ah, they didn’t play anybody,” you say (conveniently forgetting the tarring they put on Oregon State); I agree, so let them play OSU for the national championship. Otherwise, don’t pretend that any team can win it all.
The BCS is the equivalent of stuffing 10 lbs. of dirt in a 5 lb. sack; it’s just never going to work, as every single year there are one or two teams you would believe could be national champions completely shut out of the process because of such ridiculous things as (1) when they schedule their games, (2) the weakness of other teams in their conference, and (3) how much their alumni are willing to shell out to go to a bowl game. They’ve already given up oin the “preserving the tradition” argument, and scheduling a non-bowl national championship game one week after new years day tells me that we are a short step away from (at least) a four-team playoff. Get there quick is all I have to say; if we’re going to crown someone a sports champion, it should be determined by the players, not the boosters.
Better that than a debate over who’s really #1. It amazes me that even with all the tweaking there is always a controversy over who gets to play for the national championship. In 2003-4, there was a split poll, with LSU crowned the “official” champion yet USC ranked #1 in the AP poll; this EXACT SCENARIO was the reason the BCS was added in the first place, to ensure the top tems actually play each other rather than relying on judgement as #1 and #2 played in separate bowl games.
NCAA basketball fans may grouse when their favorite team doesn’t make the tournament, but no one seriously thinks any teams that wasn’t included in the group of 65–fairly or unfairly–would have made even the final four, much less be crowned champion.
It is an antequated system driven by the moneyed interests in the game rather than the athletic needs of competition. The controversy at the top has gotten a lot of press, but the fact that neither Wisconsin nor Auburn were included in any BCS bowl–despite each having a higher BCS rating than Notre Dame–proves it is all about how well teams “travel”.
Boise State is being used as a fig leaf by the BCS cadre to prove how “fair” the system is, but really one has to wonder–since they are unbeaten on the year, rank 2nd in the nation in scoring, and have won games by an average margin of 23 points–why aren’t they allowed to have a shot at the title? “Ah, they didn’t play anybody,” you say (conveniently forgetting the tarring they put on Oregon State); I agree, so let them play OSU for the national championship. Otherwise, don’t pretend that any team can win it all.
The BCS is the equivalent of stuffing 10 lbs. of dirt in a 5 lb. sack; it’s just never going to work, as every single year there are one or two teams you would believe could be national champions completely shut out of the process because of such ridiculous things as (1) when they schedule their games, (2) the weakness of other teams in their conference, (3) whether or not your coach gets enough TV time or is photogenic enough to argue his case, and (4) how much their alumni are willing to shell out to go to a bowl game. They’ve already given up oin the “preserving the tradition” argument, and scheduling a non-bowl national championship game one week after new years day tells me that we are a short step away from (at least) a four-team playoff. Get there quick is all I have to say; if we’re going to crown someone a sports champion, it should be determined by the players, not the boosters.