- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The BCS
Posted on 7/8/09 at 10:16 pm to Hammond Tiger Fan
Posted on 7/8/09 at 10:16 pm to Hammond Tiger Fan
quote:
Everything he's stating is true. It does places other Div 1 schools at a disadvantage b/c smaller schools have absolutely no shot at a championship in Div 1 football. However, the gov't should stay out of it though.
The reason why the gov't is sticking their hands in it is b/c of money. The smaller schools are complaining b/c they are not given the same opportunity to win championships and to earn the big money as larger schools are given
Then where were they before the BCS was created? You know, back when they had ZERO chance to even play in the Fiesta, Rose, Orange, or Sugar Bowls much less play for a national championship? This system is much better for them than the old days, and if they want to complain about it enough the BCS leagues should just say f*ck it and let it go back to the old way of conference tie ins and the Bowls deciding their own matchup. The BCS schools would survive, teams like Utah and Boise wouldn't because nobody gives a shite about them.
2
Posted on 7/8/09 at 10:26 pm to MOT
quote:
LSUTANGERINE
We got the crystal ball. Yall got roses. Thats all that matters.
Posted on 7/8/09 at 10:31 pm to Pedro
quote:
We got the crystal ball. Yall got roses. Thats all that matters
So, who won the national title in 1991 and 1997?
There is nothing wrong with USC claiming a national championship in 2003. The real problem was the agenda being pushed by the media. How many times did you hear USC referred to as "National Champions" and LSU as "BCS Champions"?
Posted on 7/9/09 at 7:47 am to MOT
quote:
The reason why the gov't is sticking their hands in it is b/c of money.
This is what it all boils down to. fricking money. It has nothing to do with the kids getting a chance to compete for something bigger than oneself. It has nothing to do with molding young men into adults. It has nothing to do with getting the chance of a lifetime to represent your school. Money. Gosh Damn money
This post was edited on 7/9/09 at 7:48 am
Posted on 7/9/09 at 7:58 am to Run DMC
I really find it hard to believe that Div 1 can't implement a playoff system. Every other collegiate sport has some type of playoff system. Look at Div 1 basketball....you cannot argue that March Madness isn't legit. There's no argument about who's #1 at the end of that. Same with College baseball with the CWS. Damn, even Div 2 football can effectively hold a playoff system that works and generate a true champion. Look at high school football, there's no agruements about it's validity either.
The reason why the big wigs don't want to change the system so that it will be more fair and balance for all of Div 1 is b/c of money. Yes, some schools will still get slighted but at the end there will not be much debate of who is the true champion.
Money and greed is the reason why the system is and probably will never change. Thus, we will continue to have the ridiculous debate year in and year out.
The reason why the big wigs don't want to change the system so that it will be more fair and balance for all of Div 1 is b/c of money. Yes, some schools will still get slighted but at the end there will not be much debate of who is the true champion.
Money and greed is the reason why the system is and probably will never change. Thus, we will continue to have the ridiculous debate year in and year out.
Posted on 7/9/09 at 8:52 am to Run DMC
Easy solution, decrease the season to 10 or 11 games. Take the Champion of each conference in Div-1 and have a playoff system. This includes all the small schools and will force Notre Dame to get in a conference.
Posted on 7/9/09 at 8:58 am to fanrun
quote:
The name of the game, is who makes the most noise and has influence. Tulane didn't,
Just a historical correction. Boise and Utah probably never make it to a BCS bowl if it weren't for the actions of Tulane's President Scott Cowen.
Posted on 7/9/09 at 8:59 am to BayouBndt
quote:
Easy solution, decrease the season to 10 or 11 games. Take the Champion of each conference in Div-1 and have a playoff system. This includes all the small schools and will force Notre Dame to get in a conference
This is a good solution b/c it would also force all conferences to adopt a legit conference championship game, but the arguement over money and the beloved bowl traditions will take precedence as always.
This post was edited on 7/9/09 at 9:00 am
Posted on 7/9/09 at 9:36 am to Run DMC
A restatement of points already made with a suggestion:
o The BCS is a cartel designed to maximize profits for themselves. The actions of Scott Cowen mentioned above placed a crack in the system to open opportunities for nonBCS teams.
o The problem for the nonBCS teams is that the majority don't believe that they are playing a challenging enough schedule to get the benefit of the doubt. This could be addressed by either improving their conference affiliations (e.g. The best teams from the Mountain West and WAC get together and form a new conf) or they significantly upgrade their OOC schedules.
o I think the focus should be on upgrading the OOC schedules. Teams that really want to prove themselves should schedule at least 3 BCS teams with 2 being extremely likely to be top 25 type teams. This would probably be pretty difficult to accomplish without some external help.
o A recent trend in scheduling has been the late scheduling of compelling games, neutral site and otherwise for TV purposes. In any given year, there are only a handful of these top flight nonBCS schools. I think the focus should be on getting the BCS conferences making their top teams available for this kind of scheduling. An independent committee could be set up to identify the top nonBCS and BCS teams for the following year and schedule the matchups. Lots of details to work out, but if there was a will it could be worked out. Certainly a win for nonBCS teams and all fans. BCS teams wouldn't necessarily see it as a win because they have more to lose with a loss though.
o The BCS is a cartel designed to maximize profits for themselves. The actions of Scott Cowen mentioned above placed a crack in the system to open opportunities for nonBCS teams.
o The problem for the nonBCS teams is that the majority don't believe that they are playing a challenging enough schedule to get the benefit of the doubt. This could be addressed by either improving their conference affiliations (e.g. The best teams from the Mountain West and WAC get together and form a new conf) or they significantly upgrade their OOC schedules.
o I think the focus should be on upgrading the OOC schedules. Teams that really want to prove themselves should schedule at least 3 BCS teams with 2 being extremely likely to be top 25 type teams. This would probably be pretty difficult to accomplish without some external help.
o A recent trend in scheduling has been the late scheduling of compelling games, neutral site and otherwise for TV purposes. In any given year, there are only a handful of these top flight nonBCS schools. I think the focus should be on getting the BCS conferences making their top teams available for this kind of scheduling. An independent committee could be set up to identify the top nonBCS and BCS teams for the following year and schedule the matchups. Lots of details to work out, but if there was a will it could be worked out. Certainly a win for nonBCS teams and all fans. BCS teams wouldn't necessarily see it as a win because they have more to lose with a loss though.
Posted on 7/9/09 at 9:41 am to Run DMC
This is NOT the NFL. In the NFL violent hits are flagged and a playoff ensues.
College football violent hits are NOT flagged and the whole season is a playoff
College football violent hits are NOT flagged and the whole season is a playoff
Posted on 7/9/09 at 10:16 am to MOT
quote:You are correct. And it has exactly as much relevance to football as the 2008 "Billy Joe's National Championship" that Southern Miss was awarded by Billy Joe McGee of Hattiesburg, MS.
There is nothing wrong with USC claiming a national championship in 2003.
Nothing that has ever happened on a football field has ever counted for a single point in an AP poll. Any championship award of any sort that has any basis in games actually played automatically trumps that in terms of relevance. If a championship can even theoretically be won by a team that does not win a single game, it is truly a joke of a championship. The biggest shame of college football is that it took so long to get a viable alternative to the joke that is polls.
Posted on 7/9/09 at 10:20 am to Hammond Tiger Fan
quote:Are you joking?
you cannot argue that March Madness isn't legit.
quote:Do you seriously believe that Villanova was the best college basketball team in the country the year they won it all? Do you seriously believe that the New York Giants were the best team in the NFL in 2007?
There's no argument about who's #1 at the end of that.
Playoffs are fun and all, but let's not kid ourselves and pretend they are some magic wand that will automatically always produce the perfect legit champion. Anytime a team can go 0-25, then win the National Championship with a 10 game winning streak, you are dealing with a far from perfect system.
Posted on 7/9/09 at 10:33 am to King Joey
USC did not play in the national championship game. They beat a shitty Michigan team. That does not constitute being called a champion IMO
This post was edited on 7/9/09 at 10:45 am
Posted on 7/9/09 at 10:41 am to King Joey
quote:
Do you seriously believe that Villanova was the best college basketball team in the country the year they won it all?
Thank you.
In playoffs it is not necessarily the BEST team but the HOTTEST team that makes it through. In a playoff, an undefeated #1 or 2 loses to a low ranked team that gets a lucky bounce or call and that makes them BETTER? Would you accept that?
Posted on 7/9/09 at 10:45 am to King Joey
quote:
Do you seriously believe that Villanova was the best college basketball team in the country the year they won it all? Do you seriously believe that the New York Giants were the best team in the NFL in 2007?
Playoffs are fun and all, but let's not kid ourselves and pretend they are some magic wand that will automatically always produce the perfect legit champion. Anytime a team can go 0-25, then win the National Championship with a 10 game winning streak, you are dealing with a far from perfect system.
My point was any team who can make it through a playoff system among their peers and win a championship deserves that right to be label the best at their craft.
Posted on 7/9/09 at 11:00 am to Hammond Tiger Fan
quote:
My point was any team who can make it through a playoff system among their peers and win a championship deserves that right to be label the best at their craft.
In 1-AA last season, #1 ranked James Madison (10-1) stumbles in the 2nd round and is bumped out. Meanwhile, 9-3 Richmond gets hot and is crowned national champ. So what good did winning 10 games do JM? Richmond only won 9 and lost to JM in the regular season. Three teams made it in the playoffs with 8-3 records. Was Richmond the best or just the hot team?
Posted on 7/9/09 at 11:20 am to King Joey
quote:
Nothing that has ever happened on a football field has ever counted for a single point in an AP poll.
Then how come teams with the best record end up in the poll and those with lousy records don't?
Posted on 7/9/09 at 11:26 am to King Joey
quote:
Playoffs are fun and all, but let's not kid ourselves and pretend they are some magic wand that will automatically always produce the perfect legit champion. Anytime a team can go 0-25, then win the National Championship with a 10 game winning streak, you are dealing with a far from perfect system.
This is kind of silly. The "champion" is whatever team satisfies the agreed-upon criteria for being awarded that title. Whether it's the BCS system, the college world series, the NCAA basketball playoffs, or whatever. If you're going to challenge a system because it doesn't necessarily award the tile to the "best" team, then you can never devise a perfect system, by definition, because the concept of "best" team is always going to be highly subjective. If the rules at the beginning of the season lay out what it takes to be the "champion", and one team satisfies everything those rules require, then it deserves to be called "champion" and everything else is just whining.
Posted on 7/9/09 at 12:18 pm to mikedatyger
quote:
In playoffs it is not necessarily the BEST team but the HOTTEST team that makes it through. In a playoff, an undefeated #1 or 2 loses to a low ranked team that gets a lucky bounce or call and that makes them BETTER? Would you accept that
Yes I could cause it is settled on the field and every team has a chance to win the championship. It is not settled by some computer or some poll by an armchair quarterback. If they play the game and lose they have no bitching cause they lost.
Posted on 7/9/09 at 12:26 pm to Indiana Tiger
quote:
Just a historical correction. Boise and Utah probably never make it to a BCS bowl if it weren't for the actions of Tulane's President Scott Cowen.
Nor would Hawaii have made it to the Sugar Bowl, and that certainly was a compelling game to watch.
The bottom line is that a real play off system (not a 4 team system) will change college football in ways that most advocates of playoffs don't anticipate, and probably not for the better. In any event the big conference teams will continue to provide the national champions and the small conferences will still be on the outside looking in.
Div. 1A is the best sport in America. And it got that way without a playoff system. A playoff system will undermine much of what makes it so great - especially the importance of regular season games. It will make fan travel unaffordable to all but the most wealthy. It is expensive enough now, too expensive. But it will become more like pro ball, for the elite and wealthy and boring. That is virtually undeniable.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News