Thank you BCS!
 

"not only did the BCS give us a Tostitos Fiesta Bowl that trumped every other January 1 bowl game of the new millennium, it legitimized the championship game that's been dissed by many since its matchup was announced nearly a month ago."

ESPN Page 2

Re: Thank you BCS!
 

How did it legitimize the game? Has the game happened yet?

Re: Thank you BCS!
 

[ QUOTE ]
How did it legitimize the game? Has the game happened yet?

[/ QUOTE ]

Their logic is that Michigan losing proved Florida was the right choice. Kind of like in hoops when a team loses in the NIT it 'proves' they didn't belong in the NCAA tourney.

Re: Thank you BCS!
 

It sure didn't prove that USC would've been the wrong choice though.

Re: Thank you BCS!
 

The BCS has replaced a bunch of meaningful bowl games with one championship game.

Before the BCS, undefeated and one-loss teams still had a shot at a national championship on New Years Day. People had a rooting interest in the other bowls, hoping a loss by a higher ranked team would enable their team to move up in the polls.

The arguement that the BCS removes the discussion about who is number one by matching #1 and #2, has been replaced with the discussion about who is number two heading into the bowls. Almost every season there has been a team with a legitimate gripe about being passed over for the championship game. This year there were two teams: Michigan and Florida. Maybe Boise State (zero losses), Wisconsin, and Louisville (one loss teams).

I'd like to see the bowls bring back the old conference tie-ins and then add a four game playoff at the end of the season.

Edit: Got rid of USC.

Re: Thank you BCS!
 

[ QUOTE ]
The BCS has replaced a bunch of meaningful bowl games with one championship game.

Before the BCS, undefeated and one-loss teams still had a shot at a national championship on New Years Day. People had a rooting interest in the other bowls, hoping a loss by a higher ranked team would enable their team to move up in the polls.

The arguement that the BCS removes the discussion about who is number one by matching #1 and #2, has been replaced with the discussion about who is number two heading into the bowls. Almost every season there has been a team with a legitimate gripe about being passed over for the championship game. This year there were three teams: USC, Mich, and Florida.


[/ QUOTE ]

Just because USC beat Michigan in the Rose Bowl doesn't mean they were a legitimite #2. They had two losses.

Re: Thank you BCS!
 

You're right. I forgot about the UCLA loss.

Louisville, Wisconsin, and Boise State then.

Re: Thank you BCS!
 

[ QUOTE ]
Almost every season there has been a team with a legitimate gripe about being passed over for the championship game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but the BCS has also created matchups of undefeated teams which were impossible before the BCS:

Texas/USC in 2005-06
OSU/Miami in 2002-03
FSU/Virginia Tech in 1999-2000

Re: Thank you BCS!
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Almost every season there has been a team with a legitimate gripe about being passed over for the championship game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but the BCS has also created matchups of undefeated teams which were impossible before the BCS:

Texas/USC in 2005-06
OSU/Miami in 2002-03
FSU/Virginia Tech in 1999-2000

[/ QUOTE ]

True.

My biggest gripe is how the BCS has rendered every other bowl game meaningless in the national championship picture.

If you add a playoff after bowl season, you still get the best teams to play for the championship.

Re: Thank you BCS!
 

[ QUOTE ]

My biggest gripe is how the BCS has rendered every other bowl game meaningless in the national championship picture.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not quite true. Remember after the 2003 season, where there were two different national champs.

Re: Thank you BCS!
 

[ QUOTE ]
The BCS has replaced a bunch of meaningful bowl games with one championship game.

Before the BCS, undefeated and one-loss teams still had a shot at a national championship on New Years Day. People had a rooting interest in the other bowls, hoping a loss by a higher ranked team would enable their team to move up in the polls.

The arguement that the BCS removes the discussion about who is number one by matching #1 and #2, has been replaced with the discussion about who is number two heading into the bowls. Almost every season there has been a team with a legitimate gripe about being passed over for the championship game. This year there were two teams: Michigan and Florida. Maybe Boise State (zero losses), Wisconsin, and Louisville (one loss teams).

I'd like to see the bowls bring back the old conference tie-ins and then add a four game playoff at the end of the season.

Edit: Got rid of USC.

[/ QUOTE ]

4 game playoff? You mean 4 rounds or 4 games? 'Cause I don't see how 4 games can be done as it has to be 3,7, or 15 games and 4 round seems extremely excessive. I wouldn't mind seeing a 3 round playoff with the top 8.

Re: Thank you BCS!
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

My biggest gripe is how the BCS has rendered every other bowl game meaningless in the national championship picture.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not quite true. Remember after the 2003 season, where there were two different national champs.

[/ QUOTE ]

you mean the real national champions and the whiners who tried to claim a national championship?

Re: Thank you BCS!
 

[ QUOTE ]


4 game playoff? You mean 4 rounds or 4 games? 'Cause I don't see how 4 games can be done as it has to be 3,7, or 15 games and 4 round seems extremely excessive. I wouldn't mind seeing a 3 round playoff with the top 8.

[/ QUOTE ]

Four team playoff.

Re: Thank you BCS!
 

Bottom line is we need a playoff.

Re: Thank you BCS!
 

My system would look something like this:

Rose Bowl: Ohio State vs. USC
Orange Bowl: Oklahoma vs. Louisville
Sugar Bowl: Florida vs. Boise State
Fiesta Bowl: Michigan vs. Wake Forest
Cotton Bowl: Wisconsin vs. LSU

Take the four highest ranked teams after these games and seed them for a playoff.

(Cotton used to be the Southwest Conference champion's destination. Just picked them to make room for at-large teams.)

Re: Thank you BCS!
 

What I think is hilarious about this quote is the first part, crediting the BCS for "giving" us the Boise/Oklahoma game. As if games like that only happen because of this magical system.

Re: Thank you BCS!
 

[ QUOTE ]
My system would look something like this:

Rose Bowl: Ohio State vs. USC
Orange Bowl: Oklahoma vs. Louisville
Sugar Bowl: Florida vs. Boise State
Fiesta Bowl: Michigan vs. Wake Forest
Cotton Bowl: Wisconsin vs. LSU

Take the four highest ranked teams after these games and seed them for a playoff.

(Cotton used to be the Southwest Conference champion's destination. Just picked them to make room for at-large teams.)

[/ QUOTE ]

So Ohio State's reward for beating Michigan is they get to avoid playing Wake Forest? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Re: Thank you BCS!
 

The only playoff system I would enjoy is the +1 game. Have 1 play 4 and 2 play 3. Then the winners play each other. That's all NCAAF needs to do and hopefully its all they do when they finally switch it. Seeing a playoff any larger I feel is just doing to much.

Re: Thank you BCS!
 

[ QUOTE ]


So Ohio State's reward for beating Michigan is they get to avoid playing Wake Forest? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm keeping the old conference tie-ins. Since the Rose Bowl is so concerned about tradition, that's what the matchup would be.

Old bowl tie-ins:

Rose: Big 10 and Pac 10
Orange: Big 8 (then Big XII)
Sugar: SEC
Cotton: SWC
Fiesta: Whomever they wanted

Re: Thank you BCS!
 

[ QUOTE ]
What I think is hilarious about this quote is the first part, crediting the BCS for "giving" us the Boise/Oklahoma game. As if games like that only happen because of this magical system.

[/ QUOTE ]

The quote is one of many comparing the BCS with the old system where bowl games were contracted out to be the same conference matchups. These quotes are correct in that matchups such as BSU/OU would never have happened and even most 1 vs 2 matchups wouldn't have happened.

The problem is that they aren't making the correct comparision. Comparing the BCS to a pretty terrible system doesn't mean much. The people that like the BCS should compare it to other good systems that people have proposed - mostly some sort of playoff setup that uses bowl games somehow.

Re: Thank you BCS!
 

first few paragraphs are an exercise in fallacy.

Re: Thank you BCS!
 

[ QUOTE ]

If you add a playoff after bowl season, you still get the best teams to play for the championship.

[/ QUOTE ]
a 4 team playoff just shifts the argument about whos number 2 to whos number 5
nobody will ever be satisfied

Re: Thank you BCS!
 

Plus One seems like it would be very easy to implement at this point. You make two of the BCS bowls National Semifinals (on a rotating basis) and then have the winners play in the Championship the following week. They've already got the Championship a week later now, just need to change the structure.

Re: Thank you BCS!
 

[ QUOTE ]
What I think is hilarious about this quote is the first part, crediting the BCS for "giving" us the Boise/Oklahoma game. As if games like that only happen because of this magical system.

[/ QUOTE ]

No way in hell the Big 12 champ plays the WAC champ under the old system.

Re: Thank you BCS!
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If you add a playoff after bowl season, you still get the best teams to play for the championship.

[/ QUOTE ]
a 4 team playoff just shifts the argument about whos number 2 to whos number 5
nobody will ever be satisfied

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. Boise State would be excluded from the top 4 despite being undefeated. I think 8 is the minimum to avoid real arguments.

Re: Thank you BCS!
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What I think is hilarious about this quote is the first part, crediting the BCS for "giving" us the Boise/Oklahoma game. As if games like that only happen because of this magical system.

[/ QUOTE ]

No way in hell the Big 12 champ plays the WAC champ under the old system.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not the point. You're trading one backwards-ass system for another. Boise and OU, not the BCS, gave us a great game. Boise and OU could still play if there was a playoff.

Re: Thank you BCS!
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If you add a playoff after bowl season, you still get the best teams to play for the championship.

[/ QUOTE ]
a 4 team playoff just shifts the argument about whos number 2 to whos number 5
nobody will ever be satisfied

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but #5 doesn't have as legit a gripe about being totally left out as #3.

This is why I don't feel too bad for bubble teams that miss the NCAA tournament. It's hard to complain that you got snubbed when there are 34 at-large teams. If you can't make a cut of thirty-freaking-four, then it's kinda tough to claim you're a really legit contender.

(This logic sort of applies to my views on affirmative action as well. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] )

Re: Thank you BCS!
 

[ QUOTE ]
first few paragraphs are an exercise in fallacy.

[/ QUOTE ]

agreed

Re: Thank you BCS!
 

I'd like to thank the BCS for the Sugar Bowl. I'd much rather watch Notre Dame get their asses kicked again than see two premiere teams play each other.

Sadly I don't actually know if I'm serious or not.

Re: Thank you BCS!
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What I think is hilarious about this quote is the first part, crediting the BCS for "giving" us the Boise/Oklahoma game. As if games like that only happen because of this magical system.

[/ QUOTE ]

No way in hell the Big 12 champ plays the WAC champ under the old system.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not the point. You're trading one backwards-ass system for another. Boise and OU, not the BCS, gave us a great game. Boise and OU could still play if there was a playoff.

[/ QUOTE ]

The choice isn't between the BCS and a playoff. The choice is between one "backward-ass system" for another. The fact that a playoff is better than the BCS doesn't change the fact that the BCS is better than the old system. Nor does it change the fact that the powers that be simply do not want a playoff. Every year at this time, people on the internet, on sports radio, and on TV argue for a playoff. The fact that the NCAA has, thus far, ignored all those pleas should be a pretty big sign that a playoff isn't in the forecast for the near future.

Re: Thank you BCS!
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'd like to thank the BCS for the Sugar Bowl. I'd much rather watch Notre Dame get their asses kicked again than see two premiere teams play each other.

Sadly I don't actually know if I'm serious or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now the mystique of ND is whether they'll ever win a bowl game again.

Or at least come within 10 points by the final score.

I say go for losing 10 in a row. It's a nice round number.

b

Re: Thank you BCS!
 

[ QUOTE ]
My system would look something like this:

Rose Bowl: Ohio State vs. USC
Orange Bowl: Oklahoma vs. Louisville
Sugar Bowl: Florida vs. Boise State
Fiesta Bowl: Michigan vs. Wake Forest
Cotton Bowl: Wisconsin vs. LSU


[/ QUOTE ]

Are you serious? A lot of backlash against a playoff system is that it would render late season games like this year's tOSU v. Michigan useless. Your system makes it advantageous for one of those teams to LOSE.

Also, you funnel these 5 matchups into 4 teams, meaning that at least one team will win and still not get into the playoff; don't you think they'll have more of a complaint than 1-loss teams not from Florida this year?

Re: Thank you BCS!
 

[ QUOTE ]

Just because USC beat Michigan in the Rose Bowl doesn't mean they were a legitimite #2. They had two losses.

[/ QUOTE ]

If they hadn't lost to UCLA they would have been #2, and Michigan fans would have still complained.

Re: Thank you BCS!
 

The only way the championship game is legitimized is if Florida plays it close.

Florida only got in by default - everyone but Michigan had a loss, and no one wanted to see a rematch. When Florida loses, who'll be considered the #2 team?

Undefeated: Boise
One loss: Louisville
Two loss: USC, LSU, Florida

Re: Thank you BCS!
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Just because USC beat Michigan in the Rose Bowl doesn't mean they were a legitimite #2. They had two losses.

[/ QUOTE ]

If they hadn't lost to UCLA they would have been #2, and Michigan fans would have still complained.

[/ QUOTE ]

Had USC beat UCLA I think Michigan, then USC, then Florida would be most deserving. It's not as though we can go back and use info we have now. Michigan had a better "resume" than both of the other teams IMO. USC was close.

Also, I should preemptively point out that similarly Florida keeping it close or even winning would not indicate that they were the best candidate given information we had at the time.

Re: Thank you BCS!
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The BCS has replaced a bunch of meaningful bowl games with one championship game.

Before the BCS, undefeated and one-loss teams still had a shot at a national championship on New Years Day. People had a rooting interest in the other bowls, hoping a loss by a higher ranked team would enable their team to move up in the polls.

The arguement that the BCS removes the discussion about who is number one by matching #1 and #2, has been replaced with the discussion about who is number two heading into the bowls. Almost every season there has been a team with a legitimate gripe about being passed over for the championship game. This year there were three teams: USC, Mich, and Florida.


[/ QUOTE ]

Just because USC beat Michigan in the Rose Bowl doesn't mean they were a legitimite #2. They had two losses.

[/ QUOTE ]

How about the fact they beat Michigan rather easily?

b

Re: Thank you BCS!
 

[ QUOTE ]
Michigan had a better "resume" than both of the other teams IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if USC beat UCLA? I don't agree.

I wasn't impressed with how Michigan played Ohio St regardless of the score. But that's a thread that's been done too many times already.

b

Re: Thank you BCS!
 

They beat Michigan easily after a 6 week break, while they had around a month break, on their "home field". USC played great, probally their best game all year. I'm not going to give any more excuses, Michigan was terrible on NYD, USC played awesome on both sides of the ball the 2nd half.

Put that game the week after tOSU at home and I think it's a much closer game. These excessively long breaks haven't helped the Big 10 at all in recent years at the top. Pete and Co, had a well plannned game plan that they excuted flawlessly in the 2nd half.

Re: Thank you BCS!
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The BCS has replaced a bunch of meaningful bowl games with one championship game.

Before the BCS, undefeated and one-loss teams still had a shot at a national championship on New Years Day. People had a rooting interest in the other bowls, hoping a loss by a higher ranked team would enable their team to move up in the polls.

The arguement that the BCS removes the discussion about who is number one by matching #1 and #2, has been replaced with the discussion about who is number two heading into the bowls. Almost every season there has been a team with a legitimate gripe about being passed over for the championship game. This year there were three teams: USC, Mich, and Florida.


[/ QUOTE ]

Just because USC beat Michigan in the Rose Bowl doesn't mean they were a legitimite #2. They had two losses.

[/ QUOTE ]

How about the fact they beat Michigan rather easily?

b

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct. My point is that the results of bowl games now does not change the evidence we had to go on at the time. It's easy to say Michigan doesn't deserve it because they lost a bowl game. In reality they should be judged based on info available then.

Also, not that anybody is arguing against this here, the teams that go to the BCS title game should be the two best teams. If, as has been the case most often, there is one obvious choice and second place is murky, how each team matches up with the top team shouldn't be relevant.

Re: Thank you BCS!
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The BCS has replaced a bunch of meaningful bowl games with one championship game.

Before the BCS, undefeated and one-loss teams still had a shot at a national championship on New Years Day. People had a rooting interest in the other bowls, hoping a loss by a higher ranked team would enable their team to move up in the polls.

The arguement that the BCS removes the discussion about who is number one by matching #1 and #2, has been replaced with the discussion about who is number two heading into the bowls. Almost every season there has been a team with a legitimate gripe about being passed over for the championship game. This year there were three teams: USC, Mich, and Florida.


[/ QUOTE ]

Just because USC beat Michigan in the Rose Bowl doesn't mean they were a legitimite #2. They had two losses.

[/ QUOTE ]

How about the fact they beat Michigan rather easily?

b

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct. My point is that the results of bowl games now does not change the evidence we had to go on at the time. It's easy to say Michigan doesn't deserve it because they lost a bowl game. In reality they should be judged based on info available then.

Also, not that anybody is arguing against this here, the teams that go to the BCS title game should be the two best teams. If, as has been the case most often, there is one obvious choice and second place is murky, how each team matches up with the top team shouldn't be relevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cool. Then I'll stay with my original assessment, pre-bowl, that Michigan didn't look good enough even though they only lost by 3. That AFTER they played a decent game, but still couldn't capitalize on mistakes. It wasn't near as close a game as the score suggested.

Of USC, Florida and Mich, I think USC is the better team. It's just they lost their 2nd game so Florida is the obvious choice. Except to the Mich fanboys who are in denial that their game with OSU was actually a close one. Which it was, if you ignore how the game played out. But maybe Michigan fans don't own TVs.

But that said, I did expect the Rose Bowl to be a bit closer of a game.

b