$#!@ the BCS

The BBQ Pit
81

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.

82

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”.

83

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.

84

I can’t disagree with any of that.

85

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.

86

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.

87

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.

88

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.

89

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

[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.

90

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.

91

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!

92

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 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.

93

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?

94

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.

95

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.

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.

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.

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]

96

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.

97

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.

98

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.

99

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.

100

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.