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.
Thats what I was gonna say! 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!
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.
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.
“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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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]
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.
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.
And I don’t know if it was the last time USC and Oklahomo played or not, but I recall 
