BCS Rankings - November 21

buckeye_in_sc · Post by **buckeye_in_sc** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 10:53 pm

Ken...not sure what part you don't understand but whether or not PSU's game plan was designed that way or not is beyond me...but I surely do not think Paterno was on the sidelines going...hey guys slow down let's just go 3 and out the rest of the game...that being said you bet your ass I'll pull that card because if tOSU had any sort of offense working that night perhaps it is a tie game and goes to OT...as it was they had the ball in reasonable field position and TS got whalloped on a great play by the PSU D...since you only made it in here recently I can guarandamtee you that PSU FAN would say tOSU fans in here gave them the props and sacked up...there is no bitterness in me toward PSU winning the game rather I harken upon the fact that tOSU has scored 30+ points over 5 out of the last 6 games and put 25 on Michigan...where was this on Oct 8th? Again PSU played an awesome game but if tOSU has even 25% of the offense they had over the last 6 games it would have been a different ball game...

moral victory not so much, but to put your D right back on the fucking field with only 6 yards and yes that right there was the backbreaker...PSU got a break with an INT and took advantage but tOSU almost forcing them to 4th and goal is something to come away with in my book...

the tOSU/PSU game was a great game from a defensive standpoint both squads knocked the shit out of each other for 60 minutes...the only difference...tOSU made a horrible mistake in the first half and PSU made it stand up...other than that the score is 10-10 and they still might be playing...

for me as an OSU alum and of course fan I would love to see them play ND in the Fiesta...but I will still take a date with Auburn or Georgia or LSU in the Cap One...no one can argue that tOSU is not playing some pretty damned good football currently...

JayDuck · Post by **JayDuck** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 10:55 pm

Like I said, I think we have a decent shot at the Fiesta Bowl. And whether it's against Penn State or Notre Dame, I don't really care.

I just feel that OSU and Oregon deserve it more than Notre Dame...that's all. And yes, I'm well aware that you don't get bowls based on who deserves it the most.

Obviously, I think Notre Dame is getting to the BCS. It will be either Oregon or tOSU that gets the shaft.

The fact that the Pac-10 has gotten the shaft so often recently, AND the Fiesta Bowl getting 2 at large bids, AND the fact that tOSU has been there 3 times in 4 years bodes well for us, but I wouldn't give us better than a coin-flip odds right now.

buckeye_in_sc · Post by **buckeye_in_sc** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 10:55 pm

so then let's breakdown the ND/tOSU angle...

ND loses to MSU and SC
tOSU loses to Texas and PSU

both teams beat Michigan
both teams are playing pretty good football right now
both teams travel well and have alumni all over this fucking land...

honestly the battle is between tOSU and ND and unfortunately I think tOSU loses out on that one...

Terry in Crapchester · Mon Nov 21, 2005 11:28 pm

Actually, there are three scenarios in which Oregon gets the shaft.

First, if UCLA upsets USC, UCLA probably leapfrogs Oregon in the BCS standings. Since any conference can only get one at-large BCS bid, that probably eliminates Oregon from legitimate BCS contention.

Second, if Colorado wins the Big 12 North and then upsets Texas in the Big 12 championship game, that does two things. First, it puts Texas into the mix for an at-large BCS bid (and since Texas is not likely to drop past #4, they probably will be guaranteed an at-large bid). Also, Colorado would then have an automatic bid to the Fiesta Bowl. That could lessen Oregon's chances of a BCS bid, in that the Fiesta Bowl would already have one western team, and the possibility of inviting either tOSU or ND.

Third, the most likely scenario, is FSU upsetting Va Tech in the ACC championship game and Georgia upsetting LSU in the SEC championship game. That wouldn't appear to mean much to Oregon, until you figure what the final BCS standings might look like assuming everything else holds form:

USC
Texas
Penn State
Ohio State
Oregon
Notre Dame

In that scenario, both tOSU and ND are assured of at-large bids based on their final BCS rankings. Oregon is not.

Those are probably the only scenarios that keep Oregon out of the BCS at this juncture, but they're out there.

Ken · Post by **Ken** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:33 am

I'm not going to dissect every part of your post... way too fucking tiresome and no one else wants to read that kind of shit. Just a taste:

Ken...not sure what part you don't understand but whether or not PSU's game plan was designed that way or not is beyond me...but I surely do not think Paterno was on the sidelines going...hey guys slow down let's just go 3 and out the rest of the game.

Of course not. But he sure knew enough to majorly pull the reigns in on the offense knowing that coupled with his D playing lights out and OSU's O looking pretty inept, there was no reason to take any chance whatsoever. Many fans in PSUnation were critical of the way Paterno handled PSU's second half regarding the offense. I for one stand wholeheartedly behind it. Make no mistake, PSU's lack of offense in the second half was just as much JoePa's doing than of OSU's D.

that being said you bet your ass I'll pull that card because if tOSU had any sort of offense working that night perhaps it is a tie game and goes to OT...as it was they had the ball in reasonable field position and TS got whalloped on a great play by the PSU D

WTF is all that s'posed to mean? If it is supporting the fact that PSU's D dominated OSU's O, then your spot on. At least that's what it looks like your lobbying for. If you wanna support your end of the argument, at least make a case remotely resembling the opinion that OSU cold have moved the ball at will on PSU.

since you only made it in here recently I can guarandamtee you that PSU FAN would say tOSU fans in here gave them the props and sacked up

Dude... focus.
I never said OSUfan never gave appropriate props. The whole point of this was to counter Dave's thought that the PSU/OSU game was even. I don't buy it. Did they cream OSU? Of course not.
Lastly, not that I'd expect you to know... you don't have IP access, but I've frequented the CF board for the better part of 4 years as a PSU fan.

The Seer · Post by **The Seer** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:34 am

Terry in Crapchester wrote: If UCLA were to pull off the upset

Whatever our passive, generous "defense" does not give, the officials in the Mausoleum will....

Van · Post by **Van** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:58 am

My points concerning Oregon weren't made with the goal of saying with certainty that Oregon deserves to be ranked higher than they are. My point was to answer PSU's original point that he was surprised Oregon was ranked even as high as 7th...

Like I kept saying, "It could be argued..."

Bottom line though, Oregon really has to be ranked higher than Notre Dame. Two losses trumps one loss, period. This is even more compelling when you factor in that one of ND's losses was at home to a team that's not even ranked while Oregon's lone loss was to the #1 team.

As is often the case at this time of year we're probably looking at a scenario whereby the two loss team is actually better than the one loss team but it doesn't matter. Your record has to count and that home loss to a weak Michigan State team has to kill Notre Dame in any debate with a one loss team from a major conference.

USC had to live with this notion three years ago when their two loss team might've very well been the best team in football by season's end yet they were rightfully shut out of having any shot at the title game.

Oregon has only loss, and it was to #1. That trumps anything Notre Dame, LSU or OSU has accomplished this year.

Btw, when I say OSU's loss to PSU was pretty convincing I'm comparing it to PSU's loss to Michigan, which came down to the final play of the game. PSU is literally one play away from knocking on the BCS Title Door and OSU isn't...

In fact, Oregon's win over Fresno State is a better win than any OSU win in a year where beating a four loss Michigan team was the highlight of OSU's season.

quacker backer · Post by **quacker backer** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 1:28 am

We may just have to pull a Mack Brown this year and whine and cry until they give us our bowl bid

f-ing texas longhorns
:wink:

Jimmy Medalions · Post by **Jimmy Medalions** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 2:33 am

Ken · Post by **Ken** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:26 am

Wow, color me surprised.

I'm starting to think that maybe I was thinking of different PSU game? WTF?

buckeye, please accept this apology from a fan of the school that won the Big Ten Championship this year :wink:

Shoalzie · Post by **Shoalzie** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:48 am

Ken wrote:
Shoalzie wrote:Beyond 1 and 2, who cares about who's 3, 4, or 8? What is the benefit of going to BCS game that isn't the title game? You get to go to a fancy bowl game and receive a fat paycheck no matter if you win or lose. You don't get to play for the big enchilada so it seems pretty hollow to me. I never got off on the idea of Michigan going to "a BCS bowl". They lost to Texas last year in the Rose Bowl but Texas didn't win anything for that I would've want for my team. These bowl games aside from the title game are so anti-climactic. Why does anyone sweat over if Ohio State or Oregon will get an at-large? They'll play in the C or D game of the BCS, which means absolutely nothing. I know I'm a broken record about this but the entire whole bowl system is senseless. They play one meaningful game and 26 or so pointless games. The champion isn't always a sure thing but atleast a 4 or 5 loss team can play the week before Christmas to have a half-empty stadium and minimal audience on ESPN2 because it's tradition.
Check your pulse. You sure you have anything resembling passion for CFB?

Are you kidding me? My blood boils thinking about how stupid this system is. Don't question my passion about college football. It's a beautiful game that is horribly flawed.

Shoalzie · Post by **Shoalzie** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:54 am

buckeye_in_sc wrote:I am starting to see Shoalzie's point of view...if Oregon goes good for them...actually if tOSU goes Cap ONE I can go see them (8 hour drive for me)...

Look at it any way you want. I'm tired of the BCS debates and the whole bowl eligibility thing. I know nothing I say means a thing but I really don't care about who goes to what game when none of the games mean a damn thing. You go to a BCS game, you collect a check, play a talented opponent and go home. It boggles the mind that this passes for a postseason system. I'm not going to badmouth anyone who wants to debate over who should be in or out or who should go to what bowl...we can't do anything about how things turn out. After the conference championship games, the only game I'll watch is the Rose Bowl. I hope we see the two best teams play in the game but that's yet to be determined. My little form of protest won't do anything but I just can't support this system.

Terry in Crapchester · Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:57 am

Shoalzie wrote:After the conference championship games, the only game I'll watch is the Rose Bowl.

You won't watch Michigan? Heresy, I tell ya.

:wink:

P.S. I get your point, but I'll watch my Domers no matter what.

Shoalzie · Post by **Shoalzie** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:59 am

Terry in Crapchester wrote:
Shoalzie wrote:After the conference championship games, the only game I'll watch is the Rose Bowl.
You won't watch Michigan? Heresy, I tell ya.

:wink:

P.S. I get your point, but I'll watch my Domers no matter what.

I might break down and watch Michigan depending on the opponent but it doesn't matter how the game turns out. As far as I'm concerned, the season ended on Saturday. I don't put the same passion into bowl games like I put into the regular season. When Mangum's kick went through the uprights last year, I just shrugged my shoulders and went to bed. It didn't mean anything.

Terry in Crapchester · Tue Nov 22, 2005 4:06 am

ND's bowl game does mean something, but that's only because we haven't won a bowl game since we beat aTm in the '93 Cotton Bowl. Otherwise, where we go (i.e., BCS) would be more important than what we do.

I believe next year's team has a legitimate shot at a national championship. Winning a bowl game is the last monkey we need to get off our backs.

Shawn Marion · Post by **Shawn Marion** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 4:16 am

I am against a playoff.

I like everything as it is.

Shoalzie · Post by **Shoalzie** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 4:28 am

Shawn Marion wrote:I am against a playoff.

I like everything as it is.

I like the regular season how it thins the herd but my biggest gripes are the waste of playing the extra bowl games and that only 6 conferences are in play for the most part. What does a MAC or Sun Belt team have to play for? I want to see a system where every team can be involved. Use the regular season and conference championship games to thin the herd to 8 or 16 teams and then go at it. That's why the Big Dance is a beautiful thing because every conference is represented and the Cinderella stories always steal the show. Rarely does the #1 team win either.

Shawn Marion · Post by **Shawn Marion** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 4:38 am

MAC, CUSA, Big East teams don't really matter. Football and basketball are entirely different sports. If you take a Lebron James or a Carmelo Anthony or a Dwayne Wade and put one of them on any random team and that team becomes a contender.

If you put Reggie Bush on Louisiana-Monroe, that team is still garbage.

The worst thing about NCAA basketball is everything leading up to the tournament. If #1 plays #2 in mid-November nobody cares because that game ultimately doesn't matter.

MuchoBulls · Post by **MuchoBulls** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 4:38 am

Shoalzie wrote:My blood boils thinking about how stupid this system is.

The BCS was created to pit the #1 and #2 teams in the national title game. While it does have flaws, it's also is achieving it's goal.

If the BCS was not in place, then USC and Texas (provided they win out) would not be playing one another in a bowl game. Without the BCS, USC would be playing Penn State in the Rose Bowl and Texas would more than likely play VT in the Orange Bowl.

Imagine the the chaos last year if the BCS wasn't in place. USC, Oklahoma, and Auburn would have all played in seperate bowl games.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 4:55 am

Ken,

I agree that Joe probably wanted to play it safe, but there are some other things that I think really kept the game close. Smith got off a few long passes, that had he been more accurate with, would have really changed the game quite a bit. Phillips kept getting burned by the OSU WRs, but Smith just couldn't hit anyone deep. As I've contended on other occasions, he's great with outs and shorter middle passing...but long balls don't seem to go well for Smith.

I think PSU wanted to keep it on the ground in the 4th quarter, but at any time that game could have been tied up. They certainly were trying to score points.

Vito Corleone · Post by **Vito Corleone** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 7:22 am

Has the Sugar bowl decided where it will play the game? I have not heard a word on the status of the superdome?

buckeye_in_sc · Post by **buckeye_in_sc** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 11:16 am

Ken...not trying to take anything away from PSU...but your point of CONVINCING is what sticks out...17-10 is not convincing in anyway in my book...

what I saw were two teams slug it out and the one team that made fewer mistakes won the game plain and simple...excuse tOSU fan for taking some positives out of the game outside of the final score...

Shoalzie · Post by **Shoalzie** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:06 pm

Shawn Marion wrote:MAC, CUSA, Big East teams don't really matter. Football and basketball are entirely different sports. If you take a Lebron James or a Carmelo Anthony or a Dwayne Wade and put one of them on any random team and that team becomes a contender.

If you put Reggie Bush on Louisiana-Monroe, that team is still garbage.

That's all the reason you want to give kids a reason to go to those schools. If you knew that if your team won your conference...the MAC, Mountain West, Sun Belt, etc...you got a bid to play for the national title. Long shot or not...you get your chance. For as much as they say bowl games give programs exposure, take those champs from the lesser conferences and put them in a championship tournament instead of these obscure bowl games and see what kind of recruiting tool that can be. Do you think a MAC player would rather play for the national title or play at the Motor City Bowl?

Hypothetical situation...

If I was highly rated player in the state of Kentucky and the two main schools recruiting me were UK...won only 5 games the previous season...and Bowling Green...who had just won the MAC title and played in the national championship tournament...what school should they choose? Would you go to the also-ran from the big conference or would you rather go to the smaller school but get a chance to play in the "Big Dance"?

That situation is comparable in college basketball. How has Gonzaga built up their program? Through their several seasons of postseason exposure on national TV. Even if the team never wins a national title, it's just that opportunity to perform on the larger stage has to appeal to some kids. I'm all about having every program in Division I-A being treated as equals. Some programs are better and have more tradition than others but why even include these teams in D-IA if you aren't going to include them in the national title picture?

SoCalTrjn · Post by **SoCalTrjn** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:07 pm

You can not have a playoff without completely changing D1 football, or at least taking the OOC scheduling out of the hands of schools AD's. If youre going to have an 8 team playoff based on polls you will see all the large schools go to 8 home games a year and the 4 OOC games will be vs the likes of Fla International, Louisiana Monroe, the Citadel and Kent State.
Likewise a 5th BCS bowl that would pit the top 2 teams after the regular 4 BCS bowls makes 0 sense either, youre going to give teams 4-5 weeks off to prepare for a BCS bowl that is essentially the semifinals and then in 1 week they have to turn around and prepare for the title game? They would need to hold the 5th BCS bowl at the end of January and that would put the schools involved behind the 8 ball when it comes to recruiting since their staffsare busy gameplanning for the big game, youd have to move the signing deadline back to March 4th
Im all for a playoff system, but it will need a lot of revamping of D1 to work and the NCAA is affraid of change

Shoalzie · Post by **Shoalzie** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:09 pm

MuchoBulls wrote:
Shoalzie wrote:My blood boils thinking about how stupid this system is.
The BCS was created to pit the #1 and #2 teams in the national title game. While it does have flaws, it's also is achieving it's goal.

If it worked every time, I probably wouldn't be complaining as much but it shouldn't have went down like it did last year with 4 unbeatens playing in three different games. Just two years ago, there were split national champions, USC and LSU...the system hasn't worked and in some cases, it's failed miserably.

MuchoBulls · Post by **MuchoBulls** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 1:34 pm

Shoalzie wrote:If it worked every time, I probably wouldn't be complaining as much but it shouldn't have went down like it did last year with 4 unbeatens playing in three different games. Just two years ago, there were split national champions, USC and LSU...the system hasn't worked and in some cases, it's failed miserably.

I totally agree with you. I did say that there are flaws with it, but it is serving its intended purpose more often than not.

You bring up the perfect example of where it didn't work with the 2003 Oklahoma team. I will also bring up the 2001 Nebraska team that played Miami in the Rose Bowl. In both of those situations you had a team playing for the National Championship who did not win their conference, with one not even playing in the conference Championship. That is a huge flaw that I think should be corrected. To be considered for the National Championship game you must win your conference.

If that were in place, then LSU would have played USC in the Sugar Bowl and Miami would have played a more deserving opponent in the Rose Bowl (I'm not sure who else was in contention that year).

The BCS has worked more often than not, but it could stand to be tweaked a bit more. No one is going to argue about USC potentially playing Texas if they both win out. That is the game everyone wants to see and the BCS will provide that.

Ken · Post by **Ken** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 1:48 pm

buckeye_in_sc wrote:Ken...not trying to take anything away from PSU...but your point of CONVINCING is what sticks out...17-10 is not convincing in anyway in my book...

what I saw were two teams slug it out and the one team that made fewer mistakes won the game plain and simple...excuse tOSU fan for taking some positives out of the game outside of the final score...

Geezus... don't you read? I thought i made it crystal celar several times that I didn't necessarily agree w/van that PSU won convincingly. If you didn't read it right the first time, I'll throw my quote up here again...

"I'm not ready to say that PSU won convincingly."

If you're taking issue with the thought that PSU did NOT win convincingly, you need to take it up w/van rather than me.

Ken · Post by **Ken** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 1:53 pm

Shoalzie wrote:
Ken wrote:
Shoalzie wrote:Beyond 1 and 2, who cares about who's 3, 4, or 8? What is the benefit of going to BCS game that isn't the title game? You get to go to a fancy bowl game and receive a fat paycheck no matter if you win or lose. You don't get to play for the big enchilada so it seems pretty hollow to me. I never got off on the idea of Michigan going to "a BCS bowl". They lost to Texas last year in the Rose Bowl but Texas didn't win anything for that I would've want for my team. These bowl games aside from the title game are so anti-climactic. Why does anyone sweat over if Ohio State or Oregon will get an at-large? They'll play in the C or D game of the BCS, which means absolutely nothing. I know I'm a broken record about this but the entire whole bowl system is senseless. They play one meaningful game and 26 or so pointless games. The champion isn't always a sure thing but atleast a 4 or 5 loss team can play the week before Christmas to have a half-empty stadium and minimal audience on ESPN2 because it's tradition.
Check your pulse. You sure you have anything resembling passion for CFB?

Are you kidding me? My blood boils thinking about how stupid this system is. Don't question my passion about college football. It's a beautiful game that is horribly flawed.

Eeeeeeeasy there, Trigger.
Hey, I simply find it difficult to believe that there are passionate CF fans out there who after their team was eliminated from title game contention, didn't care one way or another whether their team was invited to a premier BCS bowl or a second tier one.

From my perspecitve, it pretty much woulda sucked had PSU lost to MSU and gone to the Citrus Bowl rather than a BCS bowl. Call me weird, I guess.

Killian · Post by **Killian** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:01 pm

Vito, I think they are going to Atlanta.

MuchoBulls · Post by **MuchoBulls** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:11 pm

Killian wrote:Vito, I think they are going to Atlanta.

That is correct. The Sugar Bowl will be played in the Georgia Dome this season.

FLW Buckeye · Post by **FLW Buckeye** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:45 pm

Ken wrote:Wow, color me surprised.

I'm starting to think that maybe I was thinking of different PSU game? WTF?

buckeye, please accept this apology from a fan of the school that shared the Big Ten Championship this year :wink:

FTFY

buckeye_in_sc · Post by **buckeye_in_sc** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 4:02 pm

holy shit Ken...sorry...my bad I got the quotes mixed up...i re-read and now I have it straight...sorry for the mix up...just reading one post and typing out another and got them crossed...

ok all is good...my bad

Terry in Crapchester · Tue Nov 22, 2005 7:31 pm

SoCalTrjn wrote:You can not have a playoff without completely changing D1 football, or at least taking the OOC scheduling out of the hands of schools AD's. If youre going to have an 8 team playoff based on polls you will see all the large schools go to 8 home games a year and the 4 OOC games will be vs the likes of Fla International, Louisiana Monroe, the Citadel and Kent State.

If that's your concern, why not keep the computers as a component? Supposedly the computers factor in strength of schedule. If that's still a concern, go back to the old BCS format that factored strength of schedule as an additional component.

Likewise a 5th BCS bowl that would pit the top 2 teams after the regular 4 BCS bowls makes 0 sense either, youre going to give teams 4-5 weeks off to prepare for a BCS bowl that is essentially the semifinals and then in 1 week they have to turn around and prepare for the title game? They would need to hold the 5th BCS bowl at the end of January and that would put the schools involved behind the 8 ball when it comes to recruiting since their staffsare busy gameplanning for the big game, youd have to move the signing deadline back to March 4th

Agree that a "plus one" system makes no sense based on current structure, but not for the reason you mentioned.

There's one reason and one reason only for the 4-5 week delay you reference: academics. Most schools are in finals during that period, and there is precious little football prep going on as a result. Like it or not, academics is the reason the university presidents have hit on to oppose a playoff, and therefore, any playoff proposal which gives short shrift to academics is DIW before it ever hits the NCAA.

There are two possible ways around the academic issue: end the regular season earlier, or keep the 4-5 week delay we currently have. If you choose the former option, you have to deal with one of two draconian options: eliminate games from the regular season (which will cost teams revenue) or begin the regular season earlier (which will cause games to begin before school starts, students therefore have the unpleasant choice between returning to campus early or skipping early-season games). There's no perfect solution, but for my money the current delay is less objectionable. And if recruiting season needs to be made short and sweet to accommodate a playoff, I don't have a problem with that.

The real problem with plus one is that it moves the #3 finish from the ultimate hosejob, which it currently is, to the ultimate catbird seat. For example, last year, USC and Oklahoma would have played an elimination game, while #3 Auburn got a relatively easy matchup during the bowls in Virginia Tech. In 2002, Miami and Ohio State would have been in an elimination matchup, while #3 Georgia gets a relative cakewalk against a four-loss Florida State team (in fact, that matchup actually could have hurt Georgia, who would've been in danger of being leapfrogged by #4 USC, who had a tougher matchup against Iowa). Plus one would have worked in 2003, when Oklahoma and LSU were matched up, and USC and Michigan were matched up, but as Van says, that would have been one of the two times in the day when the broken clock known as Plus One would have been right.

The alternative is, of course, going back to the old system. But in that case, Plus One merely replaces the current BCS championship game, so we still have the same problems we have in this system.

Im all for a playoff system, but it will need a lot of revamping of D1 to work and the NCAA is affraid of change

It wouldn't take nearly as much change as you say it would. But you're right, the NCAA is afraid of change. Also, current coaches are defenders of the status quo, because it rewards mediocrity. Go 6-5 in a major conference every year for a decade, and you can say that you've been to 10 consecutive bowl games.

Van · Post by **Van** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 8:07 pm

I really see no problem with Plus One. I've always felt that if you weren't even in the argument for Top 3 then you weren't national champion material anyway.

Sure, there will still be a possible clusterfuck to determine that 4th seed but a line has to be drawn somewhere and even if you went to an 8 or 16 team playoff the fringe team/final entrant argument is still there, just lower down the totem pole.

Every year so far, without exception, the winner of the BCS title game (pitting #'s 1 and 4) would've been the no questions asked national champion if they then followed up that win one week later with a win over the winner of the game pitting #'s 2 and 3.

The first game pairings don't even matter, actually. To earn your national championship you have to win your game and then you have to beat the winner of the other game.

Simple. No debates necessary afterwards.

"Yeah, but we had to play #1 and you only had to play #3!"

Tough. A true national champion is going to beat either team and they don't care which one they have to play on the way to that final matchup.

Earn one of those top four seeds and then win two more games and it's yours. Again, if you weren't even in the Top 4 then you wouldn't have had a shot at the title in any other year either.

The academic argument is all smoke and mirrors. Every other college sport manages a longer playoff system than this and most other college sports manage a much longer season and many more games and much more time away from school than D1-A football.

The problem here is simple: The solution is too simple. There's finality here and who wants finality?

Instead of finality we can have controversy (which sparks endless debate and interest, right?) and never forget that no matter what we must maintain the facade about giving a crap about the well being of the "student athlete"...

Terry in Crapchester · Tue Nov 22, 2005 9:38 pm

Van, if you had 1 vs. 4 and 2 vs. 3, a Plus One system might work (although I'd still prefer a playoff involving more teams). But that's not what you have right now. Right now it's 1 vs. 2 and 3 vs. whoever, based on conference tie-ins to the remaining BCS bowls and open bids filled in a pre-selected order.

Last year, USC and Oklahoma matched up in what would have been a Plus One elimination matchup, while Auburn gets a relatively easy matchup against Virginia Tech. In 2002, Miami and Ohio State would have had an elimination game, while Georgia got a very easy (by BCS standards) matchup against an 8-4 team, and USC and Iowa might have even been in the mix that year, creating a true free-for-all.

Plus One would have worked in 2003 (USC-LSU) and 2001 (Miami-Oregon), but as you mentioned before, even a broken clock is right twice a day. Those years would have been one of those times.

Agree that academics is a smokescreen, but it is the reason the university presidents are proffering in opposition to a playoff. For that reason, ignoring academics by, for example, proposing a playoff during the month of December, is a guaranteed loser. Unfortunately, one of the problems for football, as opposed to college basketball, the next highest-profile college sport, is timing. College football's regular season ends shortly before finals begin.

Van · Post by **Van** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 11:44 pm

Terry, so what if Auburn would've received an easier ride than USC into the title game?

It happens every year in the NCAA Final Four. Big deal. Easy ride into the final or not you still have to beat USC in that final and if you do then nobody better have anything left to say.

If USC beats OU and then Auburn, same deal.

Bottom line, winning the semi isn't enough. You have to win both and the cream will rise to the top before it's over so you're eventually going to have to beat the best to win it all.

Van · Post by **Van** » Thu Nov 24, 2005 7:38 pm

Jsc810 wrote:
Shoalzie wrote:Just two years ago, there were split national champions, USC and LSU
No split national champion, LSU won it.

Last year, Auburn went undefeated, but USC won the championship. It may have sucked for USC in 2003 and for Auburn in 2004, but that is the way it is. Don't like it? Then get rid of the fucking BCS and get a playoff.

Sorry, JSC, but the NCAA recognizes USC's national championship in 2003.

More importantly, so will history. Long after the BCS breathes its last undeserving breath USC's national title in 2003 will continue to be recognized by any and all chroniclers of CF while LSU's share will always carry the asterisk of only having been awarded by coaches were were compelled to vote against their conscience due to an asinine contractual obligation; a situation that arose only because the short sighted creaters of the BCS system didn't have enough common sense to include a fail safe that would've ensured the consensus #1 entry into their hokey title game...

The AP Title has always been recognized in the modern era, and it's still recognized today. It'll still be recognized twenty years from now. LSU's share of the title in 2003 came about as a result of an inherently flawed and soon to be defunct system and it'll never carry the lasting legitimacy of the AP title, which was awarded free of contractual obligations or any other vote altering constraints...

Both USC and LSC got screwed that year but in the end it's LSU's share of the title that will always carry the asterisk among the minds of the truly circumspect. Nobody disputed USC's #1 ranking that year, including those same coaches who later were forced to reverse their votes in order to hand LSU their share.

That's all that matters.

As far as last year yeah, the BCS screwed Auburn. Make no mistake though, last year and 2003 aren't the same scenario. Last year the consensus #1 played in the "title game" and they won it. Auburn was never ranked above USC and they weren't ranked above OU either. USC simply received in 2004 what they'd already earned but were denied in 2003.

Van · Post by **Van** » Thu Nov 24, 2005 10:36 pm

At least one of 'em does anyway, the lesser "contractually mandated" one...

LSU wasn't ranked #1 and they didn't play #1 in their bowl game. #1 won their bowl game and no #1 who won their bowl game ever failed to win the national championship, including the #1 ranked team in 2003.

The NCAA recognized national championship trophy for 2003 that sits in Heritage Hall looks just like all the other ones; past, present and future. Same thing for 2004, only for that year their case also includes one that looks like the one in LSU's trophy case. You know, the one that will soon look time dated.

LSU's trophy case is missing those two traditional looking ones that reside in USC's case, covering the years 2003 and 2004.

:P

Vito Corleone · Post by **Vito Corleone** » Fri Nov 25, 2005 5:54 am

In 2003 everyone started the season and ended the season under the same set of rules. But because the AP didn't like how things turned out they broke their contract. I'm glad to see them break away from the BCS they should have been taken out of the BCS in 2003 after undermining the system.

I'm no fan of the system but you don't start under one set of rules and end under another when you don't like the results.

Terry in Crapchester · Fri Nov 25, 2005 6:27 am

Vito Corleone wrote:In 2003 everyone started the season and ended the season under the same set of rules. But because the AP didn't like how things turned out they broke their contract.

:?

What contract? The AP was never contractually obligated to vote for the winner of whatever game the BCS determined was for the national championship.

After OU lost to KSU in the Big 12 championship game, USC moved to #1 in the AP poll. USC then beat Michigan in the Rose Bowl, and stayed at #1 in the final AP poll. That's the way things usually work with that poll.