[moon]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

It's not random.

It isn't random but based on who is playing in the Championship game the match-ups are altered.

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

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.

The problem I have is that who is 1 and 2 is not clear. This year is a good example, I would say that Missouri and West Virginia are clearly not the best teams. This system does not determine who is the best but who is the best at fitting into the system that the BCS has set up. There has been more than 1 year that a team has a credible claim. When USC was first in both polls and would have easily beat the two teams in the Championship game they had a legitimate claim. When Nebraska was put in the game despite not winning their conference there was a legitimate claim they didn't belong. Also, in many years the BCS was bailed out because of upsets not because it was a good system.

Also, many of the years it has had number 1 killing number 2 and not really changing anything that would have occurred under the old system.

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

Run the table AND be in a BCS conference.

I agree with you here, but if you give teams playing in garbage conferences like the Big East and some years the ACC the same playing field as the SEC and Pac 10 I think an undefeated team like Hawaii or Boise St. should be considered on par with a WV team with one loss.

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

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.

I disagree. In a play-off rivalries still will remain. In a play-off there still would be games to see who would be 8th or 16th, finishing 1st would still be huge as it makes it much easier to make it to the final. I don't see how the games would be any less important. The only difference is that 1 loss wouldn't be as big a killer but that second loss could finish you. There could be more games that would be important as more teams would still be in it.

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

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.

I think soccer would have it beat in terms of popularity in the planet. Perhaps interest has spiked but I can't see why. The system doesn't to anything to improve the old system and is much worse at providing us with a real champion then a play-off would, but if that is what the numbers say I will believe you.

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

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 least that team would have to beat legitimate contenders and not UCONN, Rutgers and Missouri to waltz into the title.

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

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.

I am not sure that everyone that runs the sport are smarter than anyone. There are plenty of awful decisions by both conferences and schools.

The main thing for me is that this new system doesn't provide us with a more legitimate champion than the old system and certainly provides a much less legitimate champion than a play-off system would. So I don't understand why we would keep this system over the old traditional system or the play-off system.