Bcs - wtf 2011

[OLS]

The Alabama contingent is not happy with me gleefully tugging on their legs everyday in the SEC thread.
Now that there IS no SEC action, let us turn our focus to the annual cluster-fork that has become
the BCS and exactly WTF they think they are doing over there. Here all can argue as vehemently as they
choose and no one will get their feelings hurt. Because I say so. Let it fly. We are all brothers and sisters
here, and if anyone is offended by good-natured ribbing and commentary, let them go and find something
else to read. Your whining will not be acted upon here. Because it TRULY IS us against the BCS in my thread.

[OLS]

NO BIG BOWL FOR BOISE!!!!!!!!!! You have got to be kidding me. VA TECH barely played anybody and they
get to go to N.O.?? They travel extremely well, it's true, and they are playing another great-travelling team
in MICHIGAN, and of course by travelling, I mean they bring a lot of fans down. And Michiganders are good
people. Who knows who would come down from Boise. But is that the POINT? I guess it is for the BCS barons.

And if it's all about the money (it is), then how in the world do you take your two show ponies and pit them against
each other?? It's a MUCH better use of resources and a much better yardstick of who can hang with who if you let
each "Top team" play a 3-5 level team. Oh the madness. But in the end, it looks like the BCS will be used to handle
un-finished SEC business....well, in a way. Not fair to try and characterize it that way completely.
But doesn't anybody even want to KNOW what OK state has in the gun?....Stanford???

[elderboy02]

The BCS sucks.

I guess we should get ready to watch another snooze fest.

[OLS]

Good, and sad article here. Easy read. Not so easy to digest.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/footbal...jection_120311

"Now his league has grown so dominant that in any given season, the SEC is all but assured of one spot in
the title game. The other 100-some odd schools compete for the other. And now they have to compete
with the second-best SEC team for it"...

Ouch....

[elderboy02]

I want LSU to win. I don't like Saban.

[chippewastud79]

Unfortunately the BS is motivated by money, as is all of college sports. There is a reason that the 'not-for-profit' NCAA is a billion Billion BILLION dollar business. And it isn't for rational thought, its by creating whatever game(s) will generate the most revenue.

Things the BS got wrong in my opinion:

Michigan, although its good for the college football landscape when they are relevant, shouldn't be in the Sugar Bowl. Money definitely motivated that, Michigan may travel better than any other college football team.

Boise St. getting jobbed, again. What do they have to do to not be considered a mid-major every season? Any school from an AQ who played their non-conference schedule (see: Big East) and finished with one loss would make the BCS.

National Championship Game is a rematch of 'The Game of the Century' aka 'Snoozefest Part I' aka 'Alabama's Quest for a Kicker' aka 'Three and Out'. LSU defeated Alabama in Tuscaloosa, then had to essentially go undefeated the remainder of the season including playing in the SEC Championship game, while Alabama benefited from losing the game.

Oklahoma State defeated five top 25 opponents, Alabama defeated 2. But the SEC is the 'most dominant' conference in the country. The media gets to hype a matchup that less than half the country wants to see, I think we all saw............ Oh, sorry, I fell asleep thinking about that first game.

That doesn't include West Virginia and Clemson getting bids more based on previous bowl tie-ins than current BCS structure.

At this point, they might as well return to the previous structure given that higher ranked teams in the BS are only allowed to play if they:
A. Travel well
B. Create ideal matchups
C. Bring revenue
D. Media can hype

The whole system is a joke, every year there is contoversy. I don't know what the perfect structure is, but the current one isn't correct.

[E.J.]

Brad,

Though I think the cream of the SEC is playing OUTSTANDING FOOTBALL right now, as a conference, I just don't buy into the fact that the SEC is as a whole, is heads and tails better than the rest(BIG12 specifically this year). They're damn good, just not dominant as we are led to believe. I think the numbers back that up...

Unfortunately, it seems that perception is what drives this....not numbers...


As far as the BCS, as is the norm....they failed again. I am on the Baylor bandwagon, mostly because of Robert Griffen III...his play brings a smile to my face.

[jledou]

Playoffs .... every other level of college football has them ... and they seem to do just fine.

All I can say is "meh".

I'm just glad Boise isn't in any of the big games. Until they move to a conference where it's a fight EVERY week, they need to be undefeated to get in, and I'm OK with that. Of course, I lived in Boise for a couple years, and didn't like the attitude of the people and fans there, so I'm a bit biased.

Until they actually institute a playoff system, there will always be plenty of teams saying they got the shaft in terms of bowl games. Team X travels better than Team Y, even though Team Y is a better team, the bowl selects Team X. It's all about the Benjamins, baby! A playoff with neutral site games might fill the stadiums that they wouldn't fill otherwise. Maybe keep the "bowl games" for teams that don't make it into the tourney. The NIT still draws fans when the "Road to the Final Four" is going on.

[E.J.]

Originally Posted by Wanger

I'm just glad Boise isn't in any of the big games. Until they move to a conference where it's a fight EVERY week, they need to be undefeated to get in, and I'm OK with that. Of course, I lived in Boise for a couple years, and didn't like the attitude of the people and fans there, so I'm a bit biased.

I agree.... Hell, I'll go further and say that they have to go undefeated AND other teams have to all have 1 loss...maybe more. One huge win does not a season make. Going to the PAC12 this year, it was apparent how difficult it is, week in and week out, playing teams with talent and depth....regardless if they are actually good. Even against terrible teams, if you don't bring your A game....a loss is possible... READ : LOSING TO COLORADO....

[E.J.]

Boise going to Las Vegas makes sense to me... It is easy travel for their fan base....

I have no love for Boise....

[ninjavanish]

Originally Posted by chippewastud79

Unfortunately the BS is motivated by money, as is all of college sports. There is a reason that the 'not-for-profit' NCAA is a billion Billion BILLION dollar business. And it isn't for rational thought, its by creating whatever game(s) will generate the most revenue.

Things the BS got wrong in my opinion:

Michigan, although its good for the college football landscape when they are relevant, shouldn't be in the Sugar Bowl. Money definitely motivated that, Michigan may travel better than any other college football team.

Boise St. getting jobbed, again. What do they have to do to not be considered a mid-major every season? Any school from an AQ who played their non-conference schedule (see: Big East) and finished with one loss would make the BCS.

National Championship Game is a rematch of 'The Game of the Century' aka 'Snoozefest Part I' aka 'Alabama's Quest for a Kicker' aka 'Three and Out'. LSU defeated Alabama in Tuscaloosa, then had to essentially go undefeated the remainder of the season including playing in the SEC Championship game, while Alabama benefited from losing the game.

Oklahoma State defeated five top 25 opponents, Alabama defeated 2. But the SEC is the 'most dominant' conference in the country. The media gets to hype a matchup that less than half the country wants to see, I think we all saw............ Oh, sorry, I fell asleep thinking about that first game.

That doesn't include West Virginia and Clemson getting bids more based on previous bowl tie-ins than current BCS structure.

At this point, they might as well return to the previous structure given that higher ranked teams in the BS are only allowed to play if they:
A. Travel well
B. Create ideal matchups
C. Bring revenue
D. Media can hype

The whole system is a joke, every year there is contoversy. I don't know what the perfect structure is, but the current one isn't correct.

See above in red. Just some thoughts.

[rizzle]

Just a couple of points, if it matters, which it doesn't.

The NCAA has nothing to do with the BCS at all. As to the money part of it, that's absolutely why. School presidents are smart enough to know that to turn the "championship" over to the NCAA in tournament style, like with basketball, would mean giving up their negotiating rights, and in turn their power, and in turn the money. Who wants the NCAA meddling in their business any more than they already do?
If they can ever figure out a way to do a playoff and keep the NCAA out of it, you'll see it happen. Until then, we have what we have. It isn't perfect, never has been and never will be. But it is designed to match the two best teams in a game to crown the national champion. They appear to have gotten that right this year. The other BCS bowls are just fluff, and have done nothing more than to dilute the value of the other bowls.

It's just a pure fluke that the two best teams this year, hands down, happen to reside in the same division of the same conference. Everybody had their "chance". The door was wide open and nobody wanted to come in.

[357]

BCS is a joke. Think about 2006. Michigan and Ohio State were #1 and #2. Michigan lost a heck of a game 42-39 in Columbus. Some of the locals here wanted a rematch. It WASN'T granted and I think they made the right decision. I would argue that Michigan losing by 3 on the road must have been closer overall to Ohio State that year than Alabama is to LSU this year given Alabama lost by 3 at home. Yet, for the title game, the SEC is what it's all about. For all the rest, it's purely about money. Whoever brings in the most money (aka travels the best) will get the best bowl invitations.

[357]

The part that's frustrating is the conferences won't change because they like the money generated by the BCS. In fact the 6 major conferences rigged it so they could get the lions' share of the revenue and make it nearly impossible for any other conference team to get into a title game. If they would do their homework they might understand that a playoff could generate a lot more revenue. The article below shows how a playoff could actually generate 3-4 times as much money and would crown a winner worthy of calling themselves the national champions. http://ology.com/sports/16-team-coll...-proposed-ncaa

A 16-team college football playoff has been officially proposed to the NCAA, with claims that it would generate $700 billion annually -- more than three times the $182 billion the BCS generated last year.

As the greatest victim of the BCS' tyranny, the Mountain West Conference has been a steadfast challenger to the BCS, and it is the MWC that has sent this latest playoff proposal.

"What we are trying to do is offer an alternative with the current system," MWC commissioner Craig Thompson​ told the Arizona Republic. Thompson based the the $700 billion estimate off of current TV contracts.

The BCS was set up 13 years ago by the six major conferences (SEC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac 12, Big East, ACC) and, no surprise, the six major conferences rigged the system in their own favor. Those six conferences have raked in about 80 percent of BCS payouts, and no team from any other conference has ever played for a national championship.

Thompson's plan would make it possible for champions of all 11 division 1 college football conferences to play in the playoff, as long that the teams are ranked in the top 30 in the country. The remaining playoff spots, and the tournament seeding, would be determined by a selection committee. Playoff games would be hosted at campus sites, and in existing BCS bowl venues.

Something like this must happen for two reasons: not only is a college football playoff the most fair and just way to determine a champion, it is by far the most exciting. And that second reason cannot be over emphasized.

A college football playoff would be awesome. It must happen.

The current BCS contract runs out in early 2014, and I hope to god it is replaced with a playoff.

What we have now (BCS) is commonly referred to as "The Mythical National Title" by local sports radio.

[E.J.]

Originally Posted by rizzle

It's just a pure fluke that the two best teams this year, hands down, happen to reside in the same division of the same conference. Everybody had their "chance". The door was wide open and nobody wanted to come in.

In your opinion the two best teams.... I don't agree with that....and it certainly isn't "hands down." Is Alabama a great team, yes...but they are not the only great team out there.

We have discussed the OSU/Alabama wins vs the BCS top 25 and top ten, bla...bla..bla... Let's go deeper into the opponents, teams that actually win games.

Alabama beat a grand total of 4 teams with a record better than .500. So they have 11 wins, but of those 11 opponents, 4 have won more than half their games. So 36% of the teams they beat, finished the season with a winning record.

Oklahoma State beat 7 teams with a record better than .500. So 64% of their wins are against teams that are winning more than half their games.


Let's be clear.... Alabama had their chance and didn't take advantage of that at their own house. Time to open that door, that has been shut by the voters, for a deserving team to get a shot at that MONSTER of a team, LSU.

[OLS]

Originally Posted by E.J.

Brad,

Though I think the cream of the SEC is playing OUTSTANDING FOOTBALL right now, as a conference, I just don't buy into the fact that the SEC is as a whole, is heads and tails better than the rest(BIG12 specifically this year). They're damn good, just not dominant as we are led to believe. I think the numbers back that up....

Oh God I hope I never give anyone the impression that I think the SEC is top to bottom better than
the rest, goodness, far from it. Out of the 12 member schools, I would think that over half of them
failed to perform anywhere near "standards" and way below all of their fan's expectations. Oddly enough,
Vanderbilt fans got a chance to see their team play extremely well for most of the year, but still had
to live with a dismal record. This year was an embarassment for a LOT of SEC schools. Back when
I used to argue with the Florida fans here, they used to tell me, "We just reload, babay..."
Not this year, apparently, lol. When I talk about these teams, bama and LSU, I am talking about those
teams and no one else. The rest are quite beatable....the top 2, I am not sure they can be beaten.

[rizzle]

Originally Posted by E.J.

In your opinion the two best teams.... I don't agree with that....and it certainly isn't "hands down." Is Alabama a great team, yes...but they are not the only great team out there.

We have discussed the OSU/Alabama wins vs the BCS top 25 and top ten, bla...bla..bla... Let's go deeper into the opponents, teams that actually win games.

Alabama beat a grand total of 4 teams with a record better than .500. So they have 11 wins, but of those 11 opponents, 4 have won more than half their games. So 36% of the teams they beat, finished the season with a winning record.

Oklahoma State beat 7 teams with a record better than .500. So 64% of their wins are against teams that are winning more than half their games.


Let's be clear.... Alabama had their chance and didn't take advantage of that at their own house. Time to open that door, that has been shut by the voters, for a deserving team to get a shot at that MONSTER of a team, LSU.

Who do you think is better than Alabama or LSU?

We opened the door by losing. Evidently nobody wanted to come in. Just win, right?

[OLS]

On another topic brought up, I don't think we can discount a playoff as being just MORE MONEY thrown at the problem.
In my opinion, YES it is significantly more money on the pile, but the RESULT of the money is better in the end,
or viewed by more people as fair.

And E.J., I really hate that there can't be the bama-Stanford and LSU-OK State games on tap to show you how
incorrect I think you are on this 1&2 deal. I AM BIASED, but I think LSU and bama could take any and all comers
and walk away double digit winners. I guess we just lost our best chance to see if I am right, but YES, there are
a lot of great teams out there, I just don't think people fully comprehend the juggernaut that these two teams
really represent in full contact glory. There are great teams in football, but somehow they come down to the
bowl games and their awesome attacks just don't hold up for 60 minutes. I don't want this being a SEC against
the world thread, I started it specifically to get away from the chirping about that stuff, but there DOES exist
an element of that in my argument, I guess. I have watched all the "good games" over the past decade, and
I see the fans go nuts when Ohio State rips off a 80 yard touchdown pass, but in the 4th quarter it's always
glum looks and disbelief. NOT A SEC discussion, except that the teams I argue about in 2011 are in the SEC west.

[E.J.]

Originally Posted by rizzle

Who do you think is better than Alabama or LSU?

We opened the door by losing. Evidently nobody wanted to come in. Just win, right?

I know that on November 5th 2011, LSU went into Alabama's house and came out with a victory. Do you think the better team didn't win that game? The scoreboard was wrong?

Yes, apparently be a great team, in a great conference and "just win" against a bunch of .500/sub .500 teams....