PDA

View Full Version : BCS is BS.


Rand al'Fain
12-01-2011, 05:40 PM
Season is almost over, and barring an upset in the SEC championship game, we'll get a repeat of the Bama/LSU game for the "national title," despite Bama losing at home to LSU and not even playing in the conference title game. Give the chance to a team that hasn't already blown it against LSU that has at least won a share of their conference title and played against and beaten more than 2 decent teams.

Do I think it should be BSU? Fuck no. My own Wyoming Cowboys, who have kind of a crappy defense held them to 14 total points in the first half, and 6 of those were by complete accident from a freak play.:confused:

Davian93
12-01-2011, 05:42 PM
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/89188-bcs-declares-germany-winner-of-world-war-ii

I know, right?

Sinistrum
12-01-2011, 08:43 PM
How's this for a BCS beat down?

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=dw-wetzel_football_hostage_illegitimate_bcs_112911

Kimon
12-01-2011, 08:50 PM
Season is almost over, and barring an upset in the SEC championship game, we'll get a repeat of the Bama/LSU game for the "national title," despite Bama losing at home to LSU and not even playing in the conference title game. Give the chance to a team that hasn't already blown it against LSU that has at least won a share of their conference title and played against and beaten more than 2 decent teams.

Do I think it should be BSU? Fuck no. My own Wyoming Cowboys, who have kind of a crappy defense held them to 14 total points in the first half, and 6 of those were by complete accident from a freak play.:confused:


The problem with this year is that no one else besides LSU and Bama really has looked impressive or worthy. Okie State got killed by a mediocre Iowa State - it was on the road, and the day after that awful tragedy involving the plane crash with their Women's BB coach dying, but still a bad loss. Stanford got killed at home against Oregon, so isn't even in the Pac12 championship game. Oregon (who won the Pac12 North) has two losses, albeit to good teams - LSU and USC. Nonetheless, with two losses they're out of consideration. The three decent Big10 teams (Michigan, Wiscy, and MSU) all have two losses, so they're all out of consideration. Virginia Tech only has one loss, but didn't play anyone besides Clemson, and they lost that game in a rout. They will have a chance at a rematch against Clemson, but that earlier loss excludes them from consideration. And Houston may be 12-0, with a chance at 13-0, but they didn't play ANYONE. They played three teams with a winning record, and their best win was against a crappy 6-6 UCLA team. That said, should Michigan climb from 16 to 14, Houston will finally have a chance to face a respectable team in the Sugar Bowl.

LSU vs. Bama round 1 was a boring game, and not really sure that I want to see round 2, but honestly, who else deserves a shot at LSU? Will be somewhat amusing if Georgia beats LSU in the SEC Championship. We'd almost certainly still get that LSU vs Bama game for the championship, yet neither would have been a conference champion. Now that would be a big clap in the face to the integrity of the BCS. Though honestly, I'm rooting for LSU to kill Georgia, since Michigan needs some help (mainly a Georgia loss) to climb to 14 and get that Sugar Bowl bid.

Sinistrum
12-01-2011, 09:01 PM
And you know what the entire problem with your analysis is Kimon? Its all entirely dependent upon your subjective opinion of what "playing someone" actually means and who is a team that is actually "someone." Thus revealing the BCS for what it really is. A popularity contest. The only fair and legitimate way to settle who should play for a national title is to settle it on the field. Take it away Jim Mora!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3-eavMSBnk

Kimon
12-01-2011, 09:17 PM
And you know what the entire problem with your analysis is Kimon? Its all entirely dependent upon your subjective opinion of what "playing someone" actually means and who is a team that is actually "someone." Thus revealing the BCS for what it really is. A popularity contest. The only fair and legitimate way to settle who should play for a national title is to settle it on the field. Take it away Jim Mora!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3-eavMSBnk

Considering the limited sample size upon which to assess performance it's impossible to avoid subjectivity. No one likes the BCS, nonetheless, it is indicative to note, for instance, that Bama has played three currently ranked teams - #21 PSU, #8 Arkansas, and #1 LSU. It lost in ot to LSU. Virginia Tech meanwhile played one ranked team - #20 Clemson. And VT lost that game at home 23-3. Houston has played no ranked teams so far, but will play #24 Southern Miss, which will likely drop from the polls if Houston wins. Okie State has beaten a ton of ranked teams (for some reason the computers love the Big12) - #11 Kansas St, #17 Baylor, #22 Texas, and #25 Missouri. They play #10 Oklahoma this week. Certainly if a case should be made for anyone, it is Okie State.

AbbeyRoad
12-02-2011, 02:28 AM
Who cares? The BCS is a pathetic sham, and I think I would actually like college football if not for such an obviously inefficient and intentionally convoluted "system."

Davian93
12-02-2011, 08:31 AM
Who cares? The BCS is a pathetic sham, and I think I would actually like college football if not for such an obviously inefficient and intentionally convoluted "system."

They are too busy swimming in their vaults full of gold coins to hear your criticism.

Ivhon
12-02-2011, 08:49 AM
In other news...

Researchers find water to actually be wet.

AbbeyRoad
12-02-2011, 11:04 AM
They are too busy swimming in their vaults full of gold coins to hear your criticism.
Good for them. I'll be doing the only thing I can do to get them to change to a playoff system; not watch the games. If they don't get their system sanctioned by TV ratings and bowl attendance, they won't be able to operate without changing their system. And, of course, if everyone watches it, they have no reason to change.

I wanted to do a similar movement with the NBA in response to the lockout. If the season was cancelled, I wanted to start a movement for next year called "the fan lockout." The message being: "you don't lock us out; we lock you out" where a huge portion of the fan base refuses to go to any games or watch any televised broadcasts for one season, to send a message to the players along the lines of: "we pay you millions to entertain us, and you aren't satisfied? Squabble with your owners for more money if you want; that's your business and we could care less what happens off the court. But if you mess with us, you'll be the tallest Walmart tellers I've ever seen. Because we write your paychecks, and don't you forget it."

It's so unprofessional it's astounding. I bill the insurance companies, but if I refused to treat a patient who hasn't yet paid me, or was seen by patients squabbling loudly with an insurance executive or CoM about how much money I plan to make, it's bad for business. That's for me to settle on my own time; at work if I want to keep my patient base, I do my damn job. If I don't, my patients go somewhere else. Without people who trust me and need to be treated, I'd have a quarter million in debt, a fancy piece of paper on my wall, and a mind full of completely useless knowledge about anatomy, pharmacology, physiology, biology, etc. Without a fan base, the NBA is the best rec league I've ever seen. But athletes need to stop confusing themselves with someone important, and it's up to us, the fans, to teach them that.

Gilshalos Sedai
12-02-2011, 12:33 PM
And you know what the entire problem with your analysis is Kimon? Its all entirely dependent upon your subjective opinion of what "playing someone" actually means and who is a team that is actually "someone." Thus revealing the BCS for what it really is. A popularity contest. The only fair and legitimate way to settle who should play for a national title is to settle it on the field. Take it away Jim Mora!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3-eavMSBnk

This is why, at completely undefeated this year, the University of Houston is STILL ignored.

http://tigerelly.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/uhlogo.gif

Kimon
12-03-2011, 02:12 PM
This is why, at completely undefeated this year, the University of Houston is STILL ignored.

http://tigerelly.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/uhlogo.gif

It looks like they were being ignored for good reason. There's still time left, but getting killed (42-21 Southern Miss) through 3 quarters to a team that has lost to Marshall and UAB doesn't exactly inspire much confidence or respect. Looks like Southern Miss is about to cost the ConfUSA $17 million in Sugar Bowl payout money.

Kimon
12-03-2011, 05:02 PM
Meanwhile LSU fails to get a single first down, and had only 12 total yards of offense in the 1st Half against Georgia, yet are only trailing 10-7. Perhaps watching this game will remind everyone of how dreadfully dull that LSU-Bama game was...

AbbeyRoad
12-03-2011, 09:00 PM
Meanwhile LSU fails to get a single first down, and had only 12 total yards of offense in the 1st Half against Georgia, yet are only trailing 10-7. Perhaps watching this game will remind everyone of how dreadfully dull that LSU-Bama game was...
Until they went into beastmode in the second half and finished with 42 points...

Davian93
12-03-2011, 09:07 PM
Until they went into beastmode in the second half and finished with 42 points...

I watched the first half at a pub and once I saw Georgia blow several opportunities, I knew LSU was gonna come back and destroy them. You cant drop balls like that early on when you have a chance to bury a good team like that. Always come back to haunt you.

Kimon
12-03-2011, 10:17 PM
Until they went into beastmode in the second half and finished with 42 points...

Far from a surprise, and while I was unwillingly hoping for a LSU victory (purely as it will benefit Michigan), I must admit I was amused by how awful LSU looked in the first half on offense. But then I, like most Michigan alumni, hate Les Miles and cringed with disgust every time the past few years when he was rumored to be taking our coaching job. The philandering schmuck got Gary Moeller fired, thank god that Lloyd Carr properly sabotaged the attempts to bring Les back to Michigan.

On a more pertinent note, Okie State is making a nice case for why they should get the NCG nod in place of Bama...

Fin
12-04-2011, 04:37 PM
Precisely why they need a play off system.

Weird Harold
12-04-2011, 05:20 PM
Precisely why they need a play off system.
Such as every collegiate sport except division 1 (FBS) football has.

Fin
12-04-2011, 09:07 PM
exactly middle school high school and nfl has playoff system they need a new way to figure it out. i know these are college kids and more games=more chances to get hurt but u think they would have come up with a better idea by now.

Kimon
12-04-2011, 09:42 PM
exactly middle school high school and nfl has playoff system they need a new way to figure it out. i know these are college kids and more games=more chances to get hurt but u think they would have come up with a better idea by now.

Curtail the regular season to 10 games, eliminate the conference championship games, and have a 16 team playoff. The winner (and runner up) would have to play 14 games - the same as is presently the case for teams who play 12 regular season games, one conference championship game, and one bowl game.

That would eliminate the problem of too many extra games, but would probably financially ruin a bunch of teams from smaller conferences who rely upon those payouts from submitting themselves to non-conference cupcaking (e.g. the MAC schools who for need of money serve as non-conference sacrificial lambs for Big10 teams), since this would certainly require switching from 4 non-conference games to just 2. On the bright side, it would also destroy Notre Dame, or at least their ability to remain independent.

You'd need to have at least a 16 team playoff though to come near to matching the amount of money the big money conferences get from sending 7-10 (the Big10 for instance is sending 10 of their 12 schools to bowl games) of their teams to bowl games. And, of course, even with 16 teams in a playoff, you'd have a lot of teams that never sniff inclusion that at present regularly get a bowl game. The Northwesterns, Iowas, Purdues, and Illini of the college football landscape would have little to gain from a playoff system. The presidents at such schools would be especially hard to convince, moreover, would a limited playoff mean that schools that are unlikely to make the playoffs but once in a blue moon become incapable of attracting big time recruits, and hence quickly become cemented into mediocrity?