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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[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.
Also, even though it’s from an admittedly biased site, these tables 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
