Started By
Message

re: BCS works __% of the time? 27%

Posted on 7/16/09 at 9:38 pm to
Posted by BayouBengals03
lsu14always
Member since Nov 2007
99999 posts
Posted on 7/16/09 at 9:38 pm to
quote:

98 - OSU was left out

Nope, they got it right. Florida State had one loss and a much tougher SOS. 1 for 1

quote:

99 - two undefeated (doesn't mean it worked)

Both teams were undefeated in BCS conference with decent SOS. 2 for 2

quote:

2000 - Miami shafted

I'll agree here. Florida State lost to Miami, who lost to Washington. All three teams had one loss with top 10 SOS. 2 for 3

quote:

2001 - Neb should've never been either Oregon or CU

Another fricked up year. Nebraska deserved to be in over Oregon IMO. But the Nebraska-Colorado debate could go on for days. A 40 point loss to win your division of the conference doesn't say much. Tough call. 2 for 4

quote:

2002 - two undefeated(doesn't mean it worked)

Both teams were undefeated with good strength of schedules. Also, no other undefeated teams in the mix. 3 for 5

quote:

2003 - OU should've never been

They lost one game and were hands down the #1 team in then nation the last 6 weeks of the season. The BCS bases it's top 2 teams based off of the entire body of work. OU and LSU were both one loss teams with a much better SOS than USC. This is a tough call, but I think they got it right. 4 for 6

quote:

2004 - Undef. Auburn and Utah left out (gay)

I still think the right two teams got in, reguardless of how bad OU played in the championship. 5 for 7

quote:

2005 - two undefeated(doesn't mean it worked)

It worked here. Hands down the two best teams in the nation. 6 for 8

quote:

2006 - USC and FL one loss, and OSU didn't look like it shouldn't been in it

OSU deserved to be in, and Florida deserved to be in over USC and Michigan. 7 for 9

quote:

2007 - there were at least two other teams with 2 losses (USC & GA)

LSU won the conference that UGA was in and they had the SAME AMOUNT OF LOSSES. LSU had a much better SOS than USC, and they beat Virginia Tech head-to-head. It got it right. 8 for 10

quote:

2008 - TX, USC left out.

Although personally I do think the BCS put the right two teams in the championship game, this one can be debated. But at the end of the day, Oklahoma won the Big 12, and they had a tougher SOS than USC. It's not the BCS's fault that the Big 12 decided to pick the BCS rankings to determine their champion. 9 for 11

So I'd say 9 for 11.
This post was edited on 7/16/09 at 9:41 pm
Posted by Obi-Wan Tiger
Fulshear TX
Member since Jan 2004
6947 posts
Posted on 7/16/09 at 9:50 pm to
I think anytime there is at least a legitimate argument that BOTH teams were deserving, it got it wrong...regardless of whether the best teams ultimately won the thing. The stated purpose of the BCS is to identify the TWO best teams.

I think 4 years had legitimate arguments:

2000
2001
2003
2004
2008

I think when you get down to splitting hairs over two weak OOC schedules to determine who gets in, like 04 when essentially OU's OOC shite was better than AU's OOC shite, it's at least debatable.
This post was edited on 7/16/09 at 9:51 pm
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram