I just saw on the news Oklahoma will play LSU in the Sugar Bowl for the National Championship. Oh, and by the way the NUMBER ONE ranked team in the nation, USC will play UM in the Rose Bowl. If ever there was an event that started the movement to a playoff system I hope this is it. I've not a big SC fan but the system is BROKEN, why not fix it?
College Bowl Championship
- Thread starter coolnsx
- Start date
The system has been broken for years. The big conferences are too greedy to give anything up. THAT is the bottom line.
#1 versus #2
As far as many of us are concerned the Rose Bowl will be the National Championship game between Michigan and USC. They are, IMHO the two best teams in the land at this time anyway. GO BLUE.
As far as many of us are concerned the Rose Bowl will be the National Championship game between Michigan and USC. They are, IMHO the two best teams in the land at this time anyway. GO BLUE.
It's clear to me (and just about everyone) that we need a playoff. I'm tired of debating who is the best team. Let's settle it on the field. I would prefer a 16 team playoff (4 games) but I'd be happy with an 8 team playoff (3 games). Anyone ranked 9 or below really has a hard time arguing they are the best team in the nation. I would propose getting rid of the season opening classics and have the major team eliminate at least of the games we all know they are going to win (most major teams typically play a very small school early in the year). Eliminating the bowl game will then keep the number of games the same. If we eliminate the conference championships, we can then have 16 teams (if the conferences would go for it). The problem is that there is so much money in the bowls that the people responsible for the bowls are fighting to keep them. My hope is that USC wins so we get a split national title (recall the winner of the sugar bowl is by definition the champion in the coaches poll). Maybe this will reinforce to everyone that we NEED a playoff. If division II & III can do it, why not division I?
red_MM_nsx said:
Because Texas is the TRUE number 1.
The BCS is the most objective system there is, without it, people would be saying the ranks are too subjective. Look at the top three teams in the country right now, I have no doubt that Oklahoma is still the best team in the country right now, who's number two is a matter of opinion.
Regardless, I am all for the playoff system, but with only the top four teams in the country. For me it would be most logicial to let them play all the BCS bowl games for them to make the money, and at the very end of the season and after all the bowl games the top four teams in the BCS will engage in a playoff format, #1 against #4, #2 against #3. The winners will play for the national championship the Saturday before the Super Bowl
Regardless, I am all for the playoff system, but with only the top four teams in the country. For me it would be most logicial to let them play all the BCS bowl games for them to make the money, and at the very end of the season and after all the bowl games the top four teams in the BCS will engage in a playoff format, #1 against #4, #2 against #3. The winners will play for the national championship the Saturday before the Super Bowl
fangtl said:
How can they be the best when they couldnt even win there division championship???? 35-7??? Wasnt even close...
Its easy why Okla is still #1...CORRUPTION!
We're talking about one loss teams, Oklahoma lost to the #10 team in the country, LSU lost to Florida, who did USC lose to, Cal...
If all three teams came into the week with no losses and each loses to these three respective teams, the ranks will be as they are. The computer doesn't care when you lose the games.
If all three teams came into the week with no losses and each loses to these three respective teams, the ranks will be as they are. The computer doesn't care when you lose the games.
The reason this happened this year is because the second and third teams were very close in the rankings. This can happen any time the difference between a team included, and one excluded, is small. Four team playoff? Sure - and there will be a year in which the difference between number 4 and number 5 is small, and team number 5 will feel aggrieved.
I'm not opposing a true playoff, I'm just pointing out why this came up.
This has been written about extensively in the press since Oklahoma's defeat over the weekend. Here's what the Times wrote:
Sooners to Play L.S.U., but Numbers Crunch U.S.C.
By JOE DRAPE
Published: December 8, 2003
The Bowl Championship Series announced yesterday that Oklahoma and Louisiana State would play in the national championship game in the Sugar Bowl on Jan. 4. The problem is that Southern California, which like Oklahoma and L.S.U. has only one loss, ended the season ranked No. 1 in the Associated Press news media poll and the USA Today/ESPN coaches poll.
Now the often-criticized system of ranking teams and slotting them into four bowl games worth nearly $90 million has created the possibility of two national college football champions: the winner of the L.S.U.-Oklahoma matchup in the B.C.S. title game, and Southern Cal if it defeats Michigan in the Rose Bowl on Jan. 1.
The coaches poll automatically awards its final No. 1 ranking to the winner of the B.C.S. title game. The news media voters can choose any team as the champion.
"We're the No. 1 team in the country and we'll do everything we can to hold that spot," said Pete Carroll, the Southern Cal coach, whose team finished the regular season on Saturday with a 52-28 victory over Oregon State. "If we win that football game, we feel like we'll be the No. 1 team in the country regardless of what that other bowl is called."
The B.C.S., which was created in 1998 to try to match the top two teams in the country in a championship game, was supposed to prevent a split title, which last occurred in 1997 when the coaches awarded their No. 1 ranking to an undefeated Michigan and the news media their title to undefeated Nebraska.
Until yesterday, the system had generated most of its off-the-field negative headlines from hearings in Congress, where members of the Presidential Coalition for Athletics Reform told lawmakers that the B.C.S. could be in violation of antitrust laws and created a system of haves and have-nots, favoring members of the six most powerful football conferences and Notre Dame, an independent in football. University presidents among the five non-B.C.S. Division I-A conferences insist that their programs are unfairly left out of the national championship picture and branded as second rate, while the six major conferences and Notre Dame control about 95 percent of the $90 million B.C.S. television contract.
But after previously undefeated Oklahoma, then the consensus No. 1 team in the nation, lost by 35-7 to Kansas State on Saturday in the Big 12 Conference championship, the spotlight shone on the B.C.S.'s complicated ranking system. It is a formula that factors the polls, seven computer rankings — including the one administered by The New York Times — strength of schedule, losses and a bonus-point system for so-called "quality wins."
While the Sooners (12-1) dropped from the top spot to No. 3 in the polls, they had the best average among the computer rankings and were judged to have the 11th-toughest schedule in the nation. They retained the No. 1 spot in the B.C.S. ranking, leaving Southern Cal (11-1) and L.S.U. (12-1), a 34-13 victor over Georgia on Saturday in the Southeastern Conference championship game, fighting for No. 2. Even though it had been ranked right behind Oklahoma in both the news media and coaches' polls, Southern Cal was fighting history because no Pac-10 team has ever played in a B.C.S. title game.
"At the end of the year, we're No. 1 in the system," Oklahoma Coach Bob Stoops said. "There's nothing to apologize for."
L.S.U. was helped by the strength-of-schedule component, which is calculated by determining the cumulative record of a team's opponents, as well as the record of its opponents' opponents. The Tigers played the 29th-strongest schedule, according to the B.C.S. ranking, better than the Trojans' 37th-ranked schedule.
"You hear coaches say it's a game of inches," said Paul Hoolahan, the executive director of the Sugar Bowl. "Unfortunately with the B.C.S., now it's a game of fractions."
The B.C.S. selection process has been criticized before. In 2000, a Florida State team with one loss was selected to play undefeated Oklahoma in the national title game even though the Seminoles had lost to another one-loss team, Miami.
In 2001, a Nebraska team with one loss earned a berth in the championship game against undefeated Miami even though the Cornhuskers lost their regular-season finale, 62-36, to Colorado and failed to even make the Big 12 championship game.
But never in the B.C.S.'s history has the top-ranked team in both polls been left out. In fact, in the five previous years, an undefeated, undisputed champion has emerged from the B.C.S. title game. Yesterday, Carroll and L.S.U. Coach Nick Saban bemoaned the lack of a playoff format in Division I-A college football.
"Unfortunately, there seems to be three teams that people would like to see, and the system can't satisfy three teams," Saban said. "Unfortunately, we can't have all three teams because we don't have a playoff."
Big East Commissioner Mike Tranghese, who coordinates the B.C.S., acknowledged that the selection system was flawed, especially when for the second time in three years a team that failed to win its conference championship found its way into the national title game.
"With the events this year, we'd be foolish if we didn't look at it again in the spring," Tranghese said.
The pairings for the remaining three B.C.S. bowls will feature Big East champion Miami (10-2) against Atlantic Coast Conference champion Florida State (10-2) in the Orange Bowl on Jan. 1, and Big 12 champion Kansas State (11-3) against Big Ten runner-up Ohio State (10-2) in the Fiesta Bowl on Jan. 2.
The B.C.S. will not exist in its current form when its contract expires after the 2005 season, according to university presidents from within and outside the system who are holding discussions to make it more inclusive.
It is unclear, however, what form it will take in determining college football's No. 1 and No. 2 teams. Presidents representing the six B.C.S. conferences and Notre Dame and the five non-B.C.S. conferences agreed there would not be a 16-team, single-elimination playoff.
Still, they have not ruled out a four-team playoff, perhaps incorporating existing bowl games. Such a system may have worked well this season.
"I don't think anyone will know who the legitimate national champion is unless all three teams in consideration get the opportunity to play one another," Saban said.
But they will not play one another this year, and the debate over the B.C.S. and determining a national championship may evolve from the haves and have-nots into one about having too many title-holders.
Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
I'm not opposing a true playoff, I'm just pointing out why this came up.
This has been written about extensively in the press since Oklahoma's defeat over the weekend. Here's what the Times wrote:
Sooners to Play L.S.U., but Numbers Crunch U.S.C.
By JOE DRAPE
Published: December 8, 2003
The Bowl Championship Series announced yesterday that Oklahoma and Louisiana State would play in the national championship game in the Sugar Bowl on Jan. 4. The problem is that Southern California, which like Oklahoma and L.S.U. has only one loss, ended the season ranked No. 1 in the Associated Press news media poll and the USA Today/ESPN coaches poll.
Now the often-criticized system of ranking teams and slotting them into four bowl games worth nearly $90 million has created the possibility of two national college football champions: the winner of the L.S.U.-Oklahoma matchup in the B.C.S. title game, and Southern Cal if it defeats Michigan in the Rose Bowl on Jan. 1.
The coaches poll automatically awards its final No. 1 ranking to the winner of the B.C.S. title game. The news media voters can choose any team as the champion.
"We're the No. 1 team in the country and we'll do everything we can to hold that spot," said Pete Carroll, the Southern Cal coach, whose team finished the regular season on Saturday with a 52-28 victory over Oregon State. "If we win that football game, we feel like we'll be the No. 1 team in the country regardless of what that other bowl is called."
The B.C.S., which was created in 1998 to try to match the top two teams in the country in a championship game, was supposed to prevent a split title, which last occurred in 1997 when the coaches awarded their No. 1 ranking to an undefeated Michigan and the news media their title to undefeated Nebraska.
Until yesterday, the system had generated most of its off-the-field negative headlines from hearings in Congress, where members of the Presidential Coalition for Athletics Reform told lawmakers that the B.C.S. could be in violation of antitrust laws and created a system of haves and have-nots, favoring members of the six most powerful football conferences and Notre Dame, an independent in football. University presidents among the five non-B.C.S. Division I-A conferences insist that their programs are unfairly left out of the national championship picture and branded as second rate, while the six major conferences and Notre Dame control about 95 percent of the $90 million B.C.S. television contract.
But after previously undefeated Oklahoma, then the consensus No. 1 team in the nation, lost by 35-7 to Kansas State on Saturday in the Big 12 Conference championship, the spotlight shone on the B.C.S.'s complicated ranking system. It is a formula that factors the polls, seven computer rankings — including the one administered by The New York Times — strength of schedule, losses and a bonus-point system for so-called "quality wins."
While the Sooners (12-1) dropped from the top spot to No. 3 in the polls, they had the best average among the computer rankings and were judged to have the 11th-toughest schedule in the nation. They retained the No. 1 spot in the B.C.S. ranking, leaving Southern Cal (11-1) and L.S.U. (12-1), a 34-13 victor over Georgia on Saturday in the Southeastern Conference championship game, fighting for No. 2. Even though it had been ranked right behind Oklahoma in both the news media and coaches' polls, Southern Cal was fighting history because no Pac-10 team has ever played in a B.C.S. title game.
"At the end of the year, we're No. 1 in the system," Oklahoma Coach Bob Stoops said. "There's nothing to apologize for."
L.S.U. was helped by the strength-of-schedule component, which is calculated by determining the cumulative record of a team's opponents, as well as the record of its opponents' opponents. The Tigers played the 29th-strongest schedule, according to the B.C.S. ranking, better than the Trojans' 37th-ranked schedule.
"You hear coaches say it's a game of inches," said Paul Hoolahan, the executive director of the Sugar Bowl. "Unfortunately with the B.C.S., now it's a game of fractions."
The B.C.S. selection process has been criticized before. In 2000, a Florida State team with one loss was selected to play undefeated Oklahoma in the national title game even though the Seminoles had lost to another one-loss team, Miami.
In 2001, a Nebraska team with one loss earned a berth in the championship game against undefeated Miami even though the Cornhuskers lost their regular-season finale, 62-36, to Colorado and failed to even make the Big 12 championship game.
But never in the B.C.S.'s history has the top-ranked team in both polls been left out. In fact, in the five previous years, an undefeated, undisputed champion has emerged from the B.C.S. title game. Yesterday, Carroll and L.S.U. Coach Nick Saban bemoaned the lack of a playoff format in Division I-A college football.
"Unfortunately, there seems to be three teams that people would like to see, and the system can't satisfy three teams," Saban said. "Unfortunately, we can't have all three teams because we don't have a playoff."
Big East Commissioner Mike Tranghese, who coordinates the B.C.S., acknowledged that the selection system was flawed, especially when for the second time in three years a team that failed to win its conference championship found its way into the national title game.
"With the events this year, we'd be foolish if we didn't look at it again in the spring," Tranghese said.
The pairings for the remaining three B.C.S. bowls will feature Big East champion Miami (10-2) against Atlantic Coast Conference champion Florida State (10-2) in the Orange Bowl on Jan. 1, and Big 12 champion Kansas State (11-3) against Big Ten runner-up Ohio State (10-2) in the Fiesta Bowl on Jan. 2.
The B.C.S. will not exist in its current form when its contract expires after the 2005 season, according to university presidents from within and outside the system who are holding discussions to make it more inclusive.
It is unclear, however, what form it will take in determining college football's No. 1 and No. 2 teams. Presidents representing the six B.C.S. conferences and Notre Dame and the five non-B.C.S. conferences agreed there would not be a 16-team, single-elimination playoff.
Still, they have not ruled out a four-team playoff, perhaps incorporating existing bowl games. Such a system may have worked well this season.
"I don't think anyone will know who the legitimate national champion is unless all three teams in consideration get the opportunity to play one another," Saban said.
But they will not play one another this year, and the debate over the B.C.S. and determining a national championship may evolve from the haves and have-nots into one about having too many title-holders.
Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
I don't want to see another Big XII team that didn't win it's own conference in the BCS Championship game anymore.
My solution for getting the two participants in the game:
Continue with a similar BCS ranking system. At the end of the regular season games and conference championship games, take ALL Division I conference champions. The two highest BCS ranked teams get to play in the championship game.
SIMPLE!!!!!
My solution for getting the two participants in the game:
Continue with a similar BCS ranking system. At the end of the regular season games and conference championship games, take ALL Division I conference champions. The two highest BCS ranked teams get to play in the championship game.
SIMPLE!!!!!
Oklahoma and LSU had to play one more game than USC because they have their respective conference championships, but who's to say USC can beat Washington State if they were to play a make-belief Pac 10 championship game? Is it really fair that teams from the SEC and the Big 12 have to play these meaningless games when half of division one don't employ the format?
College football is screwed up in that they can't uniform anything, they should either do away with conference championships or enforce it so that every conference plays a conference bowl game. Personally, I hope they'll just do away with the conference championships because it's just another ploy for the those conference to make more money.
College football is screwed up in that they can't uniform anything, they should either do away with conference championships or enforce it so that every conference plays a conference bowl game. Personally, I hope they'll just do away with the conference championships because it's just another ploy for the those conference to make more money.
Having to play an "extra" conference game in the form of a championship game is still simply that......a game. Just win it, and you win the conference. Be ranked high enough (#1 or #2) and you go to the BCS Championship.
Once again....Simple.
) I'm sure ABC/CBS/ESPN would all love to have games like that. And when a team wins, it only solidifies their position.
Once again....Simple.
I have no problem with that. Conferences should take their #1 and #2 teams and schedule in a conference championship. Like it was stated earlier. Get rid of those pointless matchups at the beginning of the season like Nebraska vs. Troy State or Maryland vs. Northern Illinois. (Ooops, might want to forget that second one.fangtl said:
) I'm sure ABC/CBS/ESPN would all love to have games like that. And when a team wins, it only solidifies their position.
Maybe, maybe not. If win percentage is factored into any of the computer polls, it's not widely stated. And potentially beating specifically Wazzu doesn't help USC much. Wazzu's strength of schedule ranking isn't good (44) and USC wouldn't earn a "Quality Win" component.coolnsx said:
How about eight teams, fight over how but the top eight. New Years day 4 bowl games (rotate the ranked teams to make all bowls equal), and four winners. Following weekend 2 "National Playoff Bowls" (brought to you by Fruit of the Loom ), and two finalists. Play the final the Saturday of Super Bowl Sunday. Fans 
TV Existing BS system
), and two finalists. Play the final the Saturday of Super Bowl Sunday. Fans TV Existing BS system
This system is simply a Big Crock of Shit...but there will be some redemption if 'SC wins a share of the National Championship by clobbering Michigan in the Rose Bowl. Keeps a tradition alive while *hopefully* making a strong enough case to end this fugly system.
It's ironic that last year the BCS completely screwed the Rose Bowl, but this year is giving it game of the year!
Fight on, 'SC!
It's ironic that last year the BCS completely screwed the Rose Bowl, but this year is giving it game of the year!
Fight on, 'SC!
The same argument against OU playing for the title can be used against K State getting a BCS bid at all....the way the automatic bids are rigged is ridiculous. K State got hammered by 3 teams, including Texas, but just happens to play in the much weaker North division, so they get to the Big 12 championship game because everyone else in their half sucks (including Nebraska this year).
USC gets shafted, UT gets shafted, plenty of 1 loss teams get dismissed because they aren't in a BCS conference - this causes a lot to be settled OFF the field, not on. Why do you think NCAA hoops are so much fun to watch? Because, come tourney time, anything can happen. Right now, in college football, you know you can't lose more than 1 game, or you're out of the picture for the title.
Playoffs will come eventually, but only when the NCAA figures out how to squeeze the same amount of money out of all of us suckers. Until then, as Gordon Gekko would say, "greed is good".
Just my humble opinion.
Todd
USC gets shafted, UT gets shafted, plenty of 1 loss teams get dismissed because they aren't in a BCS conference - this causes a lot to be settled OFF the field, not on. Why do you think NCAA hoops are so much fun to watch? Because, come tourney time, anything can happen. Right now, in college football, you know you can't lose more than 1 game, or you're out of the picture for the title.
Playoffs will come eventually, but only when the NCAA figures out how to squeeze the same amount of money out of all of us suckers. Until then, as Gordon Gekko would say, "greed is good".
Just my humble opinion.
Todd
LeftLane said:The same argument against OU playing for the title can be used against K State getting a BCS bid at all....the way the automatic bids are rigged is ridiculous. K State got hammered by 3 teams, including Texas, but just happens to play in the much weaker North division, so they get to the Big 12 championship game because everyone else in their half sucks (including Nebraska this year).
USC gets shafted, UT gets shafted, plenty of 1 loss teams get dismissed because they aren't in a BCS conference - this causes a lot to be settled OFF the field, not on. Why do you think NCAA hoops are so much fun to watch? Because, come tourney time, anything can happen. Right now, in college football, you know you can't lose more than 1 game, or you're out of the picture for the title.
Playoffs will come eventually, but only when the NCAA figures out how to squeeze the same amount of money out of all of us suckers. Until then, as Gordon Gekko would say, "greed is good".
Just my humble opinion.
Todd
Yeah... I'm just p!ssed that K States got to play in the big 12 conference game and got lucky and screwed Texas over...
Don't worry Eric. It works out best for your Trojans in this scenario. Oklahoma gets a wake up call with the loss, and really turns it up against their next opponent....LSU. And USC gets an easier shot at a "title" by facing Michigan.
(Ooooh, I know I'm gonna piss off a lot of people now. )
-Randy
(Ooooh, I know I'm gonna piss off a lot of people now.
)-Randy
Meechegan is no slouch
After yesterday's game, USC deserves more than a share of the national championship! How does everyone else feel now that the Trojans slowed Michigan's offense and passed over their vaunted defense?
All season I loved reading how USC overcame their competitors' nationally-ranked strengths and overshadowed their previously posted statistics...and the Rose Bowl was no different. USC recorded 9 sacks against a team that previously allowed only 15, 4 touchdown passes (including one from a wide receiver on a brilliant trick play) against a defense that gave up only 5 during the regular season.
I'm still in disbelief how well Leinart, a sophomore who had never thrown a pass in a college game, took over from Palmer...he's got to be high on Heisman voting lists for next season.
Fight on...and Happy New Year! 2004 is going to rock!
All season I loved reading how USC overcame their competitors' nationally-ranked strengths and overshadowed their previously posted statistics...and the Rose Bowl was no different. USC recorded 9 sacks against a team that previously allowed only 15, 4 touchdown passes (including one from a wide receiver on a brilliant trick play) against a defense that gave up only 5 during the regular season.
I'm still in disbelief how well Leinart, a sophomore who had never thrown a pass in a college game, took over from Palmer...he's got to be high on Heisman voting lists for next season.
Fight on...and Happy New Year! 2004 is going to rock!
I think there will be a split national title. The writers (AP) will undoubtedly keep USC #1 and the coaches poll MUST select the winner of the BCS championship game as #1. The real issue to me is its not clear who is really #1. Despite OU's loss, they may be the best team BUT I'm not confident enough that they are really better the USC (or even LSU for that matter) to be willing to wager money. While any playoff leaves some teams feeling left out, I think it would be better than what we have. If basketball, there are always deserving teams that don't make the field of 64 but they really don't have a claim to the national title. We would have the same issue in football regardless of 4, 8, or 16 team playoff. Assuming we went to a 4 team playoff, the #4 team is certainly debatable but under the current system they wouldn't have had any chance anyway. I hope the split title serves as fuel to revamp the system.
Woo hoo! LSU and USC share the National Championship! Now if only they could play each other...
Similar threads
- Sticky
