The BCS is a SHAM!

[qsilvr2531]

It really pissed me off the week before the champ games looking at the computer numbers one in particular the JS. And this wasn't just MSU that was being slammed it was Va Tech (who I'm not a fan of). This computer dip **** says they should be the 18th ranked team. This was a really good football team with only one loss at the time. But because of who they played or some crap like that they should be no higher then 18th? That right there proves that the BCS is crap. Try using the eye test and see what these teams do and not just say well they didn't play a strong SOS so they must not be very good.

So you didn't watch the ACC championship game then? VTech did a nice job validating the computer rankings in that game.

The computer rankings are a much better indicator of where a team should be ranked than any of the polls (the coaches poll being the worst due to the inherent biases built in) that use the "eye test" especially since most people don't actually get to use their eyes on more than a handful of games each week.

[John_Brian_K]

(This is NOT about UM vs. MSU).

The BCS (Twitter handle @EveryGameCounts) is corrupt (hello Fiesta Bowl), opaque, and conflicted (self-interested coaches in the top 25 should give up their vote).

Apologetics out there claim, "Oh sure, the BCS isn't perfect, but they get the top two teams right most of the time" BAH! The best (only good?) part about the bowl season (and by extension the NC Game), is that, despite the small sample sizes, we FINALLY get to see how the conferences stack up against each other! Bring the best of the SEC and put them up against the best of the B1G or B12 or P12 or whoever, and let's see which conference can boast the best competition! I ask only ONE thing of the BCS (well two, including a B1G-P12 matchup in the Rose Bowl -- even that was screwed up twice in the last few years!) GIVE ME A REAL NATIONAL CHAMPION!!!

And they can't even do that right.

Every game does NOT count. If it did, then Alabama wouldn't get a second try to beat LSU. Give ANYBODY else a shot. Give OSU a shot. Let Boise go at 'em. Loose the Wildcats or the Cougars or the Cardinal (ooh, scary!) on them, and let the best team win! For Pete's sake, Let USC play them if you must! Or even USC!

Heck, I would even (look away Sparty fans) prefer Michigan play for the National Championship against LSU over an Alabama team that lost already. It's THAT bad.

It's getting to the point where I can barely even bring myself to get excited anymore. It's bastardized my favorite time of the year, and I just feel dirty.

I hate this crap...

It is all a prelude to a playoff, but not a full playoff IMO....you will still have bowl games, but you then take the other top 4-8 teams and play a playoff for the national title....IMO it would make the accomplishment all the more special having to win more than a single game to be crowned champ.

They are just trying to figure out a way to not lose any money which is why IMO they will never get rid of the bowl games...the bowls will be a consolation...even the Rose bowl, but to win it all will have added meaning when all is said and done.

It is ALL about money...flat out.

[qsilvr2531]

Alabama should get two chances if it is believed they are the 2nd best team in the nation going into the game.

If it is believed they are the 2nd best team going into the game then they shouldn't get two chances, they should just cancel the game and award the title to LSU (which is what I think the AP will do anyway if LSU loses).

[Casimir]

The computer rankings are a much better indicator of where a team should be ranked than any of the polls (the coaches poll being the worst due to the inherent biases built in) that use the "eye test" especially since most people don't actually get to use their eyes on more than a handful of games each week.

I would wholeheartedly appreciate a playoff system whereby the teams are ranked via a legitimate computer scoring system that rewards wins, wins against quality opponents, offers little reward and high risk for scheduling/beating/losing to FCS schools, and is a very visable computation that schools are aware of, or should be aware of. "Eye tests", like you said, are a sham because of the biases involved, plus nobody really watches all 120 teams each week, nobody probably watches half of that amount per week. I would put much more value on a well thought out and unbiased computer program than I would in human polls.

[qsilvr2531]

It is all a prelude to a playoff, but not a full playoff IMO....you will still have bowl games, but you then take the other top 4-8 teams and play a playoff for the national title....IMO it would make the accomplishment all the more special having to win more than a single game to be crowned champ.

They are just trying to figure out a way to not lose any money which is why IMO they will never get rid of the bowl games...the bowls will be a consolation...even the Rose bowl, but to win it all will have added meaning when all is said and done.

It is ALL about money...flat out.

I don't believe a system exists that will allow for both a playoff and the continuation of the bowl games.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

If it is believed they are the 2nd best team going into the game then they shouldn't get two chances, they should just cancel the game and award the title to LSU (which is what I think the AP will do anyway if LSU loses).

It depends how close #2 is to #1.

[Mark The Shark]

I don't believe a system exists that will allow for both a playoff and the continuation of the bowl games.

Why would the second-division teams outside of the top 8 or 16 not still go to the Pinstripe Bowl or whatnot? These games still make money because college football fans like vacations regardless of the quality of said bowl. Heck, I imagine half the State of Iowa will go to Tempe to see Oklahoma beat us like we stole something. Because Iowa in December is awfully cold.

[qsilvr2531]

Why would the second-division teams outside of the top 8 or 16 not still go to the Pinstripe Bowl or whatnot? These games still make money because college football fans like vacations regardless of the quality of said bowl. Heck, I imagine half the State of Iowa will go to Tempe to see Oklahoma beat us like we stole something. Because Iowa in December is awfully cold.

Because those bowls will be competing directly with the playoff games rather than occurring prior to the BCS games. Right now the lesser bowls are the only college football on television and they still largely hang by a thread based on TV revenue and required ticket purchases by the university. Decreasing interest will absolutely kill the majority of the lesser bowls and the major bowls that aren't part of the playoffs will become comparable to the NIT in basketball.

[monkeynuts]

I don't believe a system exists that will allow for both a playoff and the continuation of the bowl games.

I haven't really thought this out at all...

...but you could have an eight team playoff where the higher ranked teams have home games. You play those games during the week at their home stadium. That would guarantee tickets would be sold and there would be good attendance - I for sure would buy tickets to see MSU host a playoff football game in December...yes, "student-athletes" would miss more school...but seriously who cares...

Then on the weekends and over the holidays you have the other bowl games that fans are used to attending.

This would, however, completely kill the whole concept of a Rose Bowl...you would never have the top Big Ten/Pac 12 teams in there...

[qsilvr2531]

It depends how close #2 is to #1.

It should also matter how close #3 is to #2.

Close doesn't really matter, if they are #2 they are #2. We don't know what would happen in an OSU-LSU matchup. We already know what happened in an Alabama-LSU. If the result of the next game changes at best we now have two #1's.

[lesgoblu02]

Is the NC a "post season" game or just the final "regular season" game?

If you consider it the post season, then the winner on Jan 9th is the National Champion. If there is a rematch in the Super Bowl, the team that won the regular season matchup doesn't get to share the trophy should they lose in the championship.

Conversely, if you view it as the final regular season game, whats the ****ing point?

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

It should also matter how close #3 is to #2.

Well, sure, but your commentary read as though there was no reason for a #2 to even be allowed to play the game. Surely if #2 is sufficiently close to #1 despite having lost to them once, there is merit in playing the championship game. That was my point.

Close doesn't really matter, if they are #2 they are #2. We don't know what would happen in an OSU-LSU matchup. We already know what happened in an Alabama-LSU. If the result of the next game changes at best we now have two #1's.

We don't know what would happen in an Alabama - LSU match-up anymore than an OSU - LSU game. There is nothing that says the first result was, in fact, reflective of the skills of the teams involved. It only says on that particular day LSU was better.

If the #3 team wins the championship game, are you advocating crowning them, or will they share the title with LSU?

[qsilvr2531]

I haven't really thought this out at all...

...but you could have an eight team playoff where the higher ranked teams have home games. You play those games during the week at their home stadium. That would guarantee tickets would be sold and there would be good attendance - I for sure would buy tickets to see MSU host a playoff football game in December...yes, "student-athletes" would miss more school...but seriously who cares...

Then on the weekends and over the holidays you have the other bowl games that fans are used to attending.

This would, however, completely kill the whole concept of a Rose Bowl...you would never have the top Big Ten/Pac 12 teams in there...

The playoff games will be scheduled in such a way as to maximize TV ratings for the playoff games and avoid competing with one another. They aren't going to schedule them so they avoid conflicting with the Pinstripe bowl. Attendance is almost always secondary to TV ratings for these kind of things.

You could have a four team playoff that doesn't kill the bowl system. It wouldn't be much of a playoff but it could work. You could also extend the season farther into January and get it done as well. But anything that covers 3 weeks or more (6+ teams) is going to conflict with and draw attention away from the bowl games.

I think any playoff system kills the Rose Bowl. Really, the BCS put the Rose Bowl on life support already (not necessarily a bad thing IMO).

[monkeynuts]

Problem with playoff as well is, if the national championship game is at neutral site, fans only have a week or two (probably two - have to imagine they have two week window to built anticipation between semi final and championshiop) to buy up their school's allotment. They'd all be bought in the end, but it'd just be a little hectic. That's probably a small issue though - the Super Bowl is always full.

[qsilvr2531]

Well, sure, but your commentary read as though there was no reason for a #2 to even be allowed to play the game. Surely if #2 is sufficiently close to #1 despite having lost to them once, there is merit in playing the championship game. That was my point.

We don't know what would happen in an Alabama - LSU match-up anymore than an OSU - LSU game. There is nothing that says the first result was, in fact, reflective of the skills of the teams involved. It only says on that particular day LSU was better.

If the #3 team wins the championship game, are you advocating crowning them, or will they share the title with LSU?

If OSU were to beat LSU then I think it is reasonable to give them the title over both LSU and Alabama. If Alabama were to beat LSU I do not think it is reasonable to give Alabama the title over LSU.

We don't know what will happen in Alabama-LSU. We do know what already happened. A re-match puts priority on the order of the victories (the first win counts for less than the second) which is silly. We have dramtically less information about the LSU-OSU matchup (no head to head, zero common opponents)

We also have more evidence that LSU is better than Alabama than we do that Alabama is better than OSU. That means that not only is the LSU-Alabama "championship" game silly from the start, but it also means we've passed up an option that is at least as reasonable in order to get the silly game.

[qsilvr2531]

Problem with playoff as well is, if the national championship game is at neutral site, fans only have a week or two (probably two - have to imagine they have two week window to built anticipation between semi final and championshiop) to buy up their school's allotment. They'd all be bought in the end, but it'd just be a little hectic. That's probably a small issue though - the Super Bowl is always full.

The majority of the tickets would be sold well in advance of the game. You might say it is a problem that it will be difficult for fans of the teams involved to get tickets, but as you said no one really makes this complaint for the super bowl or the basketball tournament.

[monkeynuts]

The majority of the tickets would be sold well in advance of the game. You might say it is a problem that it will be difficult for fans of the teams involved to get tickets, but as you said no one really makes this complaint for the super bowl or the basketball tournament.

Yep - would make the stadium atmosphere without a doubt weaker, but in the end that doesn't matter.

[John_Brian_K]

Because those bowls will be competing directly with the playoff games rather than occurring prior to the BCS games. Right now the lesser bowls are the only college football on television and they still largely hang by a thread based on TV revenue and required ticket purchases by the university. Decreasing interest will absolutely kill the majority of the lesser bowls and the major bowls that aren't part of the playoffs will become comparable to the NIT in basketball.

That would be the same as saying that the championship game killed the interest in the rose bowl...it hasent

You keep all the other major bowls, but the significance of the bigger ones will lose a little cache..when 4 or 8 of the best teams will be playing in the playoff....so a team like Michigan that continually went to the Rose Bowl would on some years end up making the top 8 and playing for the national title, but if they lose then they get nothing, but if they are say the 9-15 or so and end up playing in the rose bowl and win then you still have the rose bowl, but it will just not mean as much as it does now....it will still mean something...just not as much.

It adds more excitement for the national title because if you lose you get nothing, but if you win...man it would mean soo much more IMO.

[qsilvr2531]

That would be the same as saying that the championship game killed the interest in the rose bowl...it hasent

You keep all the other major bowls, but the significance of the bigger ones will lose a little cache..when 4 or 8 of the best teams will be playing in the playoff....so a team like Michigan that continually went to the Rose Bowl would on some years end up making the top 8 and playing for the national title, but if they lose then they get nothing, but if they are say the 9-15 or so and end up playing in the rose bowl and win then you still have the rose bowl, but it will just not mean as much as it does now....it will still mean something...just not as much.

It adds more excitement for the national title because if you lose you get nothing, but if you win...man it would mean soo much more IMO.

The championship game did hurt the Rose bowl even though they rarely compete for teams and never occur even close to the same time.

Other than that you essentially are saying exactly what I said. The minor bowls go away, the major bowls become the NIT (though you just say they don't mean as much). How has the NIT held up since the NCAA tournament started out.

I'm not saying this as a good or bad thing. I'm pretty ambivalent about the bowls overall. But I don't think both can coexist in any way beyond the way the NIT and NCAA tourney do now.

[John_Brian_K]

The championship game did hurt the Rose bowl even though they rarely compete for teams and never occur even close to the same time.

Other than that you essentially are saying exactly what I said. The minor bowls go away, the major bowls become the NIT (though you just say they don't mean as much). How has the NIT held up since the NCAA tournament started out.

I'm not saying this as a good or bad thing. I'm pretty ambivalent about the bowls overall. But I don't think both can coexist in any way beyond the way the NIT and NCAA tourney do now.

I do not think the minor bowls go away nor do I think the major bowls become the NIT. You have 4-8 teams going for the national championship...so the other 50+ teams just say 'oh well that rose bowl win is the same as the NIT trophy.'? I HIGHLY doubt that.

It adds teams to the mix of the other lower end bowl games and makes the actual champion more exciting. I do not think those things will lead to the BCS becoming the NIT...simply because of the number of teams that will still be involved in the BCS...you are only taking out 4-8 teams.

[DTroppens]

It seems weird that a team that not only couldn't win its conference, but also it's own division is in the national championship game. I understand why they are there, but it just seems strange.

I am of the group that says Alabama had its chance and failed. Someone else should get a shot. That said, I understand that this is the system being used now and that's why it happened.

If I was a voter and had to make a selection, even if I thought Alabama was No. 2, I would've been extremely tempted to alter my ballot to encourage another team having a shot.

Until there's some playoff system that gives at least all teams in a conference a shot to be in the tourney when the season begins (that means bids to the conference champions), I'll probably think there really won't be a true national champion. Even this year, if LSU wins, you can argue they weren't even given the right representative to play (of course that isn't their fault).

11 auto bids, five at large bids (probably all going to BCS conference teams) - the easiest way to create a system that allows every team in a conference to have a shot at a national championship. You don't win your conference, from the SEC to the Sun Belt, don't complain. You had your chance. And that system even allows for openings for the schools that want to stay independent like Notre Dame. They just reduce their chances of making it by staying an independent, their own doing.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

If OSU were to beat LSU then I think it is reasonable to give them the title over both LSU and Alabama. If Alabama were to beat LSU I do not think it is reasonable to give Alabama the title over LSU.

In other words, it is reasonable to give #3 the title outright if they beat the #1 team in the championship game, but it is not reasonable to give the #2 the title outright if they beat the #1 team in the championship game, by virtue of the fact #1 beat #2 at some point in time in the season.

We don't know what will happen in Alabama-LSU. We do know what already happened. A re-match puts priority on the order of the victories (the first win counts for less than the second) which is silly.

Then the championship game, or any play-off game for that matter, are inherently silly, because they put more emphasis on the final game / play-off games than regular season games.

I have no real beef with the view, but it seems to me you don't need this match-up to make that distinction or argument.

We have dramtically less information about the LSU-OSU matchup (no head to head, zero common opponents) .

So what? The purpose of the game is to pit the two best teams in the country against each other, not pit the two best teams whom we happen to have the least amount of information about.

Also, just because LSU beat Alabama once does not necessarily mean Alabama is a worse team than LSU.

We also have more evidence that LSU is better than Alabama than we do that Alabama is better than OSU.

Again, so what? If you think Alabama is the 2nd best team, then you think that and put them in the game. You don't create a worse match-up because #3 is closer to #2 than #2 is to #1. You either trust your rankings or you don't.

Besides, why is it even surprising #3 is closer to #2 than #2 is to #1? The former two each have a loss and the latter has none. I'd almost always expect that in such a case #2 is closer to #3 independent of whether the #2 team lost to #1 or not.

I also have a hard time with the logic that says LSU >> Ala > OSU, therefore if Alabama beats LSU, LSU and Alabama should share the title, but if OSU played LSU and won, OSU should win the title outright.

If you think Alabama should share the title with LSU if they won by virtue of LSU being so much better in the regular season, then I'd say you should also think OSU should share the title if they won.

That means that not only is the LSU-Alabama "championship" game silly from the start, but it also means we've passed up an option that is at least as reasonable in order to get the silly game.

I guess I don't understand how playing the #3 team is somehow less silly than playing the #2 team.

I also don't see how it is silly to think it is possible the best two teams in the country are in the same conference.

[lesgoblu02]

The Patriots will be happy to know that they are now 1/2 Super Bowl champs from when they "lost" to the Giants.

[JayVee]

The biggest difference is that the NIT has been pushed towards oblivion because of NCAA Tourney expansion. This wouldn't happen with the Bowls.

The biggest playoff they'll ever get would be 8 teams. Use the Rose Bowl, Sugar Bowl, Fiesta Bowl, and Orange Bowl to play those 8 teams. The other bowls would be great pre-playoff entertainment! They wouldn't actually compete. Just make sure they're all completed by 5:00 EST on New Year's Day. They are now, mostly, anyways.

Imagine this:

Alabama - Clemson in the Orange -- January 1st
Oregon - Wisconsin in the Rose -- January 1st (or 2nd this year)
LSU - WVU in the Sugar -- January 2nd
OSU - Stanford in the Fiesta -- January 2nd

Then on the 7th or 8th play two semifinals, seeding the winners of the four bowls, culminating in a real NCG on the 15th of January. Are you telling me this wouldn't be awesome?

[DTroppens]

I think all you have to do is look at college basketball and you'll see bowl games will never go away, especially if you make the final rounds of the playoffs the actual major bowl games.

"Everyone" knows the NCAA tourney is everything for basketball and the others don't matter, yet I think there are three other tourneys besides the NCAA tourney now. If you invite teams, teams will come.

There will always be teams that want to finish the season in a bowl game if they don't make an eight- or 16-team tourney. Even at 16 teams, there could be teams that can be argued are among the top 10 in the nation that wouldn't make the tourney. You play those games on days opposite of the tourney. I figure all tourney games will be Saturdays. Play them Thurday, Friday night. People will watch it because it's college football. No one is going to deny that opportunity. I don't care if they are an SEC team, a Big 10 team, a MAC or a Sun Belt team, they'll take the opportunity, even if the games don't have the payout they do now. Heck, even now you sometimes see schools argue they take a loss going to bowl games. That wouldn't change.

And, whatever bowls are not tied to the tourney probably will get better matchups for their bowls because of the tourney. If you have seven bowls tied to eight teams, or 15 bowls tied to 16 teams (depending on the tourney size), suddenly the pool of teams remaining for the other bowls are pretty darn good. Usually it takes 14 teams to fill seven bowls, not eight. Even bowls like the Little Ceasars Bowl should get better teams.

[John_Brian_K]

The biggest difference is that the NIT has been pushed towards oblivion because of NCAA Tourney expansion. This wouldn't happen with the Bowls.

The biggest playoff they'll ever get would be 8 teams. Use the Rose Bowl, Sugar Bowl, Fiesta Bowl, and Orange Bowl to play those 8 teams. The other bowls would be great pre-playoff entertainment! They wouldn't actually compete. Just make sure they're all completed by 5:00 EST on New Year's Day. They are now, mostly, anyways.

Imagine this:

Alabama - Clemson in the Orange -- January 1st
Oregon - Wisconsin in the Rose -- January 1st (or 2nd this year)
LSU - WVU in the Sugar -- January 2nd
OSU - Stanford in the Fiesta -- January 2nd

Then on the 7th or 8th play two semifinals, seeding the winners of the four bowls, culminating in a real NCG on the 15th of January. Are you telling me this wouldn't be awesome?

I like the idea, but (and I am not a huge college sports fan to begin with, but do watch) IMO keep the bowls seperate from the playoff, but keep the playoff small. The other teams outside of the top 10 or top 8...whatever...play in the bowls and the the top teams fight it out for the champion..you dont win the championship? You don't win anything....it adds to the frenzied need to win the championship and it would add conspiracy theory debates on teams that went into the last game on the fringe....if they win they make it to the tourney, but they doubt they can win it so they lose that last game to have a better shot at the Rose Bowl or the Orange bowl etc.

[JayVee]

In other words, it is reasonable to give #3 the title outright if they beat the #1 team in the championship game, but it is not reasonable to give the #2 the title outright if they beat the #1 team in the championship game, by virtue of the fact #1 beat #2 at some point in time in the season.

That's ridiculous. You're arbitrarily assigning numbers to teams as though that's their intrinsic value. Changing your wording a bit to reflect my view

It is reasonable to give (one of the top five teams in the country) the title outright if they beat the (team most fans believe to be the best team) in the championship game (because it will be the result of an on-the-field 60-minute contest).

To continue, if each of the three teams finish the season with exactly one loss, then I don't see any objective means of anointing a "clear-cut #1 best team in the country" which is what the BCS was supposed to do all along! That's why the BCS is a SHAM!

[JayVee]

Because Alabama is the 2nd best team in the country.

No it isn't.

[New_Age_X]

So you didn't watch the ACC championship game then? VTech did a nice job validating the computer rankings in that game.

The computer rankings are a much better indicator of where a team should be ranked than any of the polls (the coaches poll being the worst due to the inherent biases built in) that use the "eye test" especially since most people don't actually get to use their eyes on more than a handful of games each week.

Yes they got blown out but come on man we could go down the list of teams who are good teams that have gotten beat this year. Not like Clemson was Iowa St or something like that. They were a top 5 team for some of the year before falling. Also in that same week they had Oklahoma should be the 5th team in the country. Now did you see that Oklahoma vs Oklahoma St game? See it can go both ways of saying one team should be higher and then they get beat in a blow out it just happens.

And I do agree with you in the coaches poll. Coaches have a lot more on there mind then sitting down for a few hours and looking over game tape of other teams and setting up a rankings sheet.

[JayVee]

Alabama should get two chances if it is believed they are the 2nd best team in the nation going into the game.

No they shouldn't.

[lesgoblu02]

No it isn't.

That's like...your opinion, man.

And you are in the minority.

[New_Age_X]

The minor bowls would still mean as much as they mean now IMO. Just cause a team made the rose bowl this year instead of the NC game doesn't mean those teams shouldn't be happy about the rose bowl.

[New_Age_X]

OK lets use this as an example. Lets say Bama has there one loss to LSU this year. The next closest team in the BCS rankings has 3 losses. Does that mean because Bama already got to play LSU once and there only loss is against them that the three loss team should be in the NC game over Bama? I know that's not the case this year but what if it was would you still feel the same way.

[JayVee]

That's like...your opinion, man.

And you are in the minority.

Sure, I get that. I'm actually completely agnostic on Alabama. How can anyone know for sure?

[qsilvr2531]

In other words, it is reasonable to give #3 the title outright if they beat the #1 team in the championship game, but it is not reasonable to give the #2 the title outright if they beat the #1 team in the championship game, by virtue of the fact #1 beat #2 at some point in time in the season.

Are you talking about some random #1 and #2 or the specific #1 and #2 in question right now? I'm talking about specific teams (OSU, LSU and Alabama) in a specific season. If you are talking about any #1 that has beaten any #2 then it depends on all the other stuff that has happened in the season and no definitive answer can be given.

Then the championship game, or any play-off game for that matter, are inherently silly, because they put more emphasis on the final game / play-off games than regular season games.

I have no real beef with the view, but it seems to me you don't need this match-up to make that distinction or argument.

In college football it is rare that the two teams in the championship have ever played each other prior to the championship (in fact, re-matches in general are exceptionally rare), the connectivity between teams in weak, the number of teams is large and the number of games played is small. My statement applies to this college football season and should not be implied to extend to any other situation beyond this one. College football is unique and this season has been relatively unique even for college football.

However, yes the idea of a single game championship that includes one team (team 2 if we want to make this more general) that already lost to the other (team 1) while playing and less difficult schedule than team 1, but excludes a team that is virtually indistinguishable from team 2 (call them team 3) is silly. This years championship game is silly. That is not meant to imply that any championship game would be silly or that a matchup of team 1 and team 3 would be silly.

So what? The purpose of the game is to pit the two best teams in the country against each other, not pit the two best teams whom we happen to have the least amount of information about.

Also, just because LSU beat Alabama once does not necessarily mean Alabama is a worse team than LSU.

The evidence that LSU is better than Alabama is not limited to one win by LSU over Alabama. I have not claimed Alabama can't beat LSU, I've simply said that even if they do they haven't demonstrated (by virtue of the entirety of their season) anything that separates them they from LSU. If Alabama wins, assuming we can't have another rematch (preferably at LSU), then we've got two teams that are essentially indistinguishable from one another, neither of whom can claim to have played a better season. To crown, by vote (rather than through a tournament structure, which is not what the NCAA has given us), one team the sole champion based on the result of the 2nd game is stilly.

Again, so what? If you think Alabama is the 2nd best team, then you think that and put them in the game. You don't create a worse match-up because #3 is closer to #2 than #2 is to #1. You either trust your rankings or you don't.

Besides, why is it even surprising #3 is closer to #2 than #2 is to #1? The former two each have a loss and the latter has none. I'd almost always expect that in such a case #2 is closer to #3 independent of whether the #2 team lost to #1 or not.

I also have a hard time with the logic that says LSU >> Ala > OSU, therefore if Alabama beats LSU, LSU and Alabama should share the title, but if OSU played LSU and won, OSU should win the title outright.

If you think Alabama should share the title with LSU if they won by virtue of LSU being so much better in the regular season, then I'd say you should also think OSU should share the title if they won.

I think the formula should look more like this at worst:

LSU >> Ala >= OSU

I have a hard time with any logic that ignores the rest of the season in favor of a single game. If OSU beats LSU they finish with the same record (not exactly due to the SEC championship, but Alabama also missed that game) and a head to head win. It is perfectly reasonable to conclude that head to head wins are more valuable than other wins when comparing two teams directly. What I'm saying is that if OSU beats LSU I'm comfortable saying OSU's season long resume is better than LSU's, even with the loss to ISU and specifically because of the head to head win. Alabama, on the other hand, is 1-1 against LSU, with the same record minus the championship game again but I'm willing to overlook it and call them even. You could argue that even with a loss LSU still has the better resume, probably in both cases.

I guess I don't understand how playing the #3 team is somehow less silly than playing the #2 team.

I also don't see how it is silly to think it is possible the best two teams in the country are in the same conference.

It isn't silly to think the two best teams are in the same conference. It's silly to then say that, well one team has clearly been the best team in the conference, but let's have them play another game to decide who the best team in the country is, winner take all.

[qsilvr2531]

The Patriots will be happy to know that they are now 1/2 Super Bowl champs from when they "lost" to the Giants.

How many votes did the Giants get in the AP poll that year? Or does the NFL use some other mechanism to crown champions?

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

That's ridiculous. You're arbitrarily assigning numbers to teams as though that's their intrinsic value. Changing your wording a bit to reflect my view

a. I am using the rankings put out by the system. You can bag on how those numbers are arrived at, but I did not make them up or choose them to make my argument.

b. I believe the individual with whom I was arguing thinks the evidence points to Alabama being the 2nd best team in the country. The debate was whether or not the fact they lost to #1 earlier in the season should preclude them from participating in the national championship game, not whether or not they are #2.

It is reasonable to give (one of the top five teams in the country) the title outright if they beat the (team most fans believe to be the best team) in the championship game (because it will be the result of an on-the-field 60-minute contest).

So it is reasonable to give Alabama the national championship if they win the championship game. We are in agreement.

To continue, if each of the three teams finish the season with exactly one loss, then I don't see any objective means of anointing a "clear-cut #1 best team in the country" which is what the BCS was supposed to do all along! That's why the BCS is a SHAM!

At no point in time was the BCS intended to address the situation of 3 1-loss teams or 3 undefeated teams or whatever. That is just something you made up in an attempt to discredit the BCS.

There are a number of solid things to critique the BCS for - I don't think this is one of them.

[qsilvr2531]

Yes they got blown out but come on man we could go down the list of teams who are good teams that have gotten beat this year. Not like Clemson was Iowa St or something like that. They were a top 5 team for some of the year before falling. Also in that same week they had Oklahoma should be the 5th team in the country. Now did you see that Oklahoma vs Oklahoma St game? See it can go both ways of saying one team should be higher and then they get beat in a blow out it just happens.

And I do agree with you in the coaches poll. Coaches have a lot more on there mind then sitting down for a few hours and looking over game tape of other teams and setting up a rankings sheet.

You aren't a top 5 team for part of the year. You either are a top 5 team or you aren't. That people (and computers as well) thought Clemson was a top 5 team at some point is irrelevant.

Oklahoma lost (on the road) to the #3 team according to the computers. I'm not sure how the #3 team defeating the #5 team shows a problem with the computer rankings.

The computers saw VTech as overrated compared to the polls. And then they lost to the team the computers (and one poll) viewed as the #20 team. A #20 beating a #5 is rare. A #20 beating a #10 is not.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

No it isn't.

Yes it is.

No they shouldn't.

Yes they should.

Debating is fun.

[qsilvr2531]

a. I am using the rankings put out by the system. You can bag on how those numbers are arrived at, but I did not make them up or choose them to make my argument.

b. I believe the individual with whom I was arguing thinks the evidence points to Alabama being the 2nd best team in the country. The debate was whether or not the fact they lost to #1 earlier in the season should preclude them from participating in the national championship game, not whether or not they are #2.

#1, #2 and "the individual with whom I was arguing" You can use the names of the teams and people involved. Why abstract it?

Either way, my position is not that Alabama is clearly the #2 team, it is that they are indistinguishable from OSU as the #2 team and even if you think they are the #2 team (a reasonable though, but not a given) there isn't any reason to put them in the championship game. The individual you were arguing with (me) has significantly more faith in the computer polls than the human ones and the computer polls have OSU at #2, but the numbers are so close that I don't care to argue the difference between the two teams.

So it is reasonable to give Alabama the national championship if they win the championship game. We are in agreement.



At no point in time was the BCS intended to address the situation of 3 1-loss teams or 3 undefeated teams or whatever. That is just something you made up in an attempt to discredit the BCS.

There are a number of solid things to critique the BCS for - I don't think this is one of them.

If Alabama wins they'll be BCS champions. I think, if Alabama wins, the AP should put LSU at #1 and the national championship should be split.