Quote:
Originally Posted by moon
The current system is about as bad as it gets as not only does it not give us a definitive champion it already has diminished the bowls. The bowls used to have a lot of tradition behind them. i.e. Big Ten vs. Pac 10 in Rose Bowl. Now they are randomly assigned based on who is in the BCS, who is the Championship game etc.
|
It's not random. The rose bowl is still pac 10 vs Big Ten, unless it hosts the NC or if either team is in the NC. Fiesta used to get the Big XII champion pre BCS, and still does, Sugar used to get the SEC champ, and still does, and the Orange used to get the ACC, and still does. The remaining spots have a methodology behind it, mid majors ranking in the top 12 or above a bcs conf. champion is in, and ND is in if they are a top 8. From there the bcs bowls choose at large teams. So the random comment is factually incorrect.
Second it is the first time in history that they ensure 1 vs 2 plays ... before it was very rare. Every year except 1 has there been any credible claim that a team didn't get into the championship. It's bizarre to think that they don't have a definitive NC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by moon
The problem with saying run the table is that it doesn't work. Boise St. has shown that, Hawaii will show it this year and more importantly Auburn has shown it. Also when nobody runs the table you end up with arbitrary rankings and questionable computer polls to determine who is best. Even when common sense says a team should make it that is thrown out the door. (i.e. USC clearly being the best team in the country and being left out for Oklahoma and LSU).
|
Run the table AND be in a BCS conference. It's nice for Hawaii and BSU to talk to the media about how they have been slighted by the big mean BCS system, but the fact of the matter is that at least a dozen if not more teams could plow through the cupcake WAC. I give you Auburn, who is the one exception in 9 years, but that's it, one credible exception. How can anyone give BSU any credibility as a NC if tons of teams could run right through the WAC. It's true that it's not BSU's fault that their schedule sucks, I bet they have a tough time scheduling out of conference, but that isn't really relevant. Anyone who knows NCAA ball knows that almost accross the board every athlete 2 deep on the depth chart is better in the SEC vs the WAC. Not many athletes narrow down the recruiting visit list to Texas, Clemson, Tennessee and ... Idaho. If you bought the AD of BSU a beer and started chatting I'm sure they'd tell you that they are sitting pretty exactly where they are, they can win tons of games, people can have sympathy for them because they remind people of society where the small man gets screwed, but frankly they'd have no interest in playing in a major conference such as the Pac 10 because then they'd have to compete, and they'd get lost in the woodwork.
Also under this current system teams like West Virginia are rewarded for playing is a super easy Big East while LSU and USC who are both better teams get punished for playing against legitimate foes. Under this system there is no rationality or incentive for playing a decent schedule and in my view this really is what makes regular season games irrelevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by moon
Also I in most years once a team loses all their games become irrelevant. This year everyone of Michigans games was basically irrelevant after the App. St. loss. For USC after losing to Stanford there basically went their chances.
|
It still determines what bowl they get to, but notwithstanding, in terms of a NC quest, yea they are knocked out. So what? In a playoff, dozens of huge college games every year would have a tiny fraction of the meaning and therefore interest. Playoff people just don't understand that they'd be screwing with the very thing that makes college football great. Important games in September, October and November. You might sit here in Canada and say who cares, but go down to Gainsville in late September and ask everyone at the UF vs UT game what they think.
Quote:
Originally Posted by moon
If you don't want care about the NC then I say go back to the traditional bowl ties. That system was as effective at producing clear national champions as this one is except at least back then we didn't have one team holding some stupid glass trophy that is supposed to signify that they are the true champs and not the team that is at least equally deserving if not more.
|
I generally don't care about the NC, except when I have tickets to it. I like the old system as well, but if you are a longtime fan you got to admit the BCS in general has spiked interest in the sport, and I've seen TV rating patterns that would prove that. College football is the most popular sport on the continent ... it can't be that bad.
Lastly, what is any more legitimate than say a 9-3 team sneaking into a playoff and winning 3 games to be a NC, how is that any more legit that say UF winning last year? or UT in it's first year of the BCS? In that scenario people would feel better about a 3 loss team becoming a NC? That's ridiculous.
At the end of the day the people running the sport (school's and conferences) are smarter that the avg fan, and they know what's best for the sport. And a playoff sounds nice, and it turns the media into good cops by whining about it ... (which became trendy by CBS when the system started ... the very system that their main competitor bought into) but it is not good for the sport as a whole.