NationStates Jolt Archive

So, I have never been a big college football fan, and the reason was mainly because of the BCS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowl_Championship_Series) selection system. Well, the BCS has once again let me down, and probably let down many college football fans. Here are the Bowl match ups for this year:

BCS Championship Game: Oklahoma vs. Florida

Rose Bowl: Penn State vs. USC

Orange Bowl: Virginia Tech vs. Cincinnati

Sugar Bowl: Utah vs. Alabama

Fiesta Bowl: Texas vs. Ohio State

I personally really only cared about the Championship game, but was rooting for Texas vs Oklahoma.


Anyways, what are you reactions to this years bowl games? Anyone else disappointed with the match ups?

Paterno could get the Lions to the Rose Bowl as a corpse!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


wait i think he already has...

I am willing to bitch to anyone who will hear me about Texas being left out of the championship. Making us play a weak link like Ohio State is just insult to injury.

So, I have never been a big college football fan, and the reason was mainly because of the BCS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowl_Championship_Series) selection system. Well, the BCS has once again let me down, and probably let down many college football fans. Here are the Bowl match ups for this year:

BCS Championship Game: Oklahoma vs. Florida

Rose Bowl: Penn State vs. USC

Orange Bowl: Virginia Tech vs. Cincinnati

Sugar Bowl: Utah vs. Alabama

Fiesta Bowl: Texas vs. Ohio State

I personally really only cared about the Championship game, but was rooting for Texas vs Oklahoma.


Anyways, what are you reactions to this years bowl games? Anyone else disappointed with the match ups?

College football was better before the BCS bullshit. It's the worst thing ever to happen to college football.

Personally I think the Pac-10 and Big-10 should leave the BCS system and take the Rose Bowl with them. And then the whole thing would come crashing down and things could be better, like they were before.

I can wish, can't I?

I can get extremely opinionated and hostile over the entire issue of college football. Mainly hostile to USC, Texas, just about any team from the SEC and Ohio State.

Also, the Pac-10 has consistently gotten screwed by the system.

I am willing to bitch to anyone who will hear me about Texas being left out of the championship. Making us play a weak link like Ohio State is just insult to injury.

the polling system is bullshit, and i am willing to hear anyone bitch about it.

I'm never going to understand all of that.

I am willing to bitch to anyone who will hear me about Texas being left out of the championship. Making us play a weak link like Ohio State is just insult to injury.

Tuck Fexas.

It isn't like you don't know the rules of your own conference. Or is it?

Doesn't matter who's in against the Gators, they're gonna get their helmets handed to them. I hate Florida, and yet I know this is going to happen.

all i gotta say is.....go lions


http://www.hn.psu.edu/Images/HN/Lion1_520x300_rdax_90.jpg

Tuck Fexas.

It isn't like you don't know the rules of your own conference. Or is it?

Doesn't matter who's in against the Gators, they're gonna get their helmets handed to them. I hate Florida, and yet I know this is going to happen.

I can't stand any team from Florida. The Gators are my least favorite.

I can't stand any team from Florida. The Gators are my least favorite.

Yeah, I'm with you, but they're better by a damn sight than anything the Dirty Dozen ("Big" 12) can offer.

Playoffs please.

Playoffs please.

Um... no thanks.

Traditional bowl games. No BCS or pseudo-playoff crap of the type.

*Starts yelling ''american football sucks!''*

Why don't college football use the same system the NFL uses?

Tuck Fexas.

It isn't like you don't know the rules of your own conference. Or is it?

Doesn't matter who's in against the Gators, they're gonna get their helmets handed to them. I hate Florida, and yet I know this is going to happen.

We know the rules. They're designed to give the best team in our conference the best chance to go to the National Championship. That team is not Oklahoma.

The tiebreaker doesn't bother me that much, it's a little screwy, but I can live with that. It's arbitrary, but all tiebreakers are arbitrary. The tiebreaker is not the problem. The problem is that the voters and computers that the tiebreaker depends on are doing it wrong.

Why don't college football use the same system the NFL uses?

Because college football is much older than the NFL. Also much better in my opinion.

College football leagues developed separately. The bowl system is much older than the NFL's playoff system. The Rose Bowl Game, for example, is more than one hundred years old.

The highly confusing BCS system is an attempt to form a pseudo-playoff and have the number 1 and number 2 teams play each other in a game. In practice, it's extremely cumbersome and doesn't work all that well. Additionally, many regard it as a system imposed upon a previous arrangement that was just fine.

A true playoff would be quite unfeasible, extending the season into February or even March due to the enormous number of college teams. Plus, various leagues have their own bowls that they would be loathe to relinquish (an opinion I share). For example, the Rose Bowl began as the Pacific Coast Conference (which later became the Pac-8 and then the Pac-10) basically inviting another team to play the champion of their league. Over time it evolved into a sort of duel between the champion of the Pac-10 and the champion of the Big-10 (not to be confused with the Big-12) conferences. Many in the Pac-10 besides USC, who everyone hates, regard the Rose Bowl as more important than the new, artificial feeling national championship game, and it seems likely that most in both the participating leagues would not give up the game. The situation is probably similar with other college leagues such as the WAC, the SEC, the Big 12 and such, though I'm no expert as I really don't care about those conferences.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08328/929917-233.stm



College football was better before the BCS bullshit. It's the worst thing ever to happen to college football.

Personally I think the Pac-10 and Big-10 should leave the BCS system and take the Rose Bowl with them. And then the whole thing would come crashing down and things could be better, like they were before.

I can wish, can't I?

I can get extremely opinionated and hostile over the entire issue of college football. Mainly hostile to USC, Texas, just about any team from the SEC and Ohio State.

Also, the Pac-10 has consistently gotten screwed by the system.
They all get screwed by this system, every year. Well, all but two teams.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08328/929917-233.stm




They all get screwed by this system, every year. Well, all but two teams.

While the current system sucks, I am wholly against a playoff system. Why? Because I just don't give a shit about college football that doesn't involve mainly the Pac-10 or Big 10 conferences, except sometimes when it involves the WAC.

The Rose Bowl is the oldest bowl game. And it's a Pacific coast (and later Big 10) institution. If the rest of the country wants a playoff, let them have their own damn playoff.

Texas BEAT Oklahoma on a "neutral field," of all things, by 10 points, and somehow they get beaten out by them.

It doesn't get any fucking worse than that.

Texas BEAT Oklahoma on a "neutral field," of all things, by 10 points, and somehow they get beaten out by them.

It doesn't get any fucking worse than that.

Who has a better record overall? I really couldn't care less, as I hate both teams.

Who has a better record overall? I really couldn't care less, as I hate both teams.
Yeah.. but is it not the main argument for fans of the Bowls, that a playoff system would mean choosing teams based on who has the most wins and not on who (they think) is actually better. And that this would "diminish the importance of the regular season." (real quote, there's no way I could make this shit up... no joke)

Which really is a poor argument when you think about it. Because you could still choose the criteria for selection.

Either way, we need a true national championship of some type.

Who has a better record overall? I really couldn't care less, as I hate both teams.

Oklahoma, Texas, and Texas Tech all had the same record in the BCS and the conference - only one loss. Texas lost to Texas Tech, while Oklahoma lost to Texas, and Texas Tech to... something.

Anyway, the whole deal was that, whoever had the highest ranking in the BCS, instead of whatever system in other conferences are, would get the bid for the Big 12 Championship. Although Texas had beaten Oklahoma out-and-out, Oklahoma marched over Oklahoma State. The voters, in their almighty wisdom (the very same that didn't even realize that Penn State had a loss at one point in the season), decided to go with a team on a roll rather than THE TEAM THAT HAD BEATEN THEM.

If you're going to have the best two teams in a conference play, having a team beaten outright by another in the same division in the conference play with the same record isn't right. By all means, if Texas had played instead of Oklahoma, it could have been an Oklahoma-Texas or Florida-Texas Bowl Championship Game, instead of what we have now.

Yeah.. but is it not the main argument for fans of the Bowls, that a playoff system would mean choosing teams based on who has the most wins and not on who (they think) is actually better. And that this would "diminish the importance of the regular season." (real quote, there's no way I could make this shit up... no joke)

Which really is a poor argument when you think about it. Because you could still choose the criteria for selection.

Either way, we need a true national championship of some type.

If everyone is scared of losing sponsorship/bowl money, take another page out of the NCAA Men's Basketball book and install two tourneys and additional bowl games.

You take the top 8 teams, they play for the Nat'l Championship. You take the next 8 teams, they play in another tournament. The rest of the bowl-eligible teams get divvied up and put into bowls. Done and done.

May even generate more revenue...

Oklahoma, Texas, and Texas Tech all had the same record in the BCS and the conference - only one loss. Texas lost to Texas Tech, while Oklahoma lost to Texas, and Texas Tech to... something.
That makes no sense then. USC is only ranked higher in the Pac-10 than Oregon State (who the Trojans lost to... I was happy about that) because they have one less loss.

Anyway, the whole deal was that, whoever had the highest ranking in the BCS, instead of whatever system in other conferences are, would get the bid for the Big 12 Championship. Although Texas had beaten Oklahoma out-and-out, Oklahoma marched over Oklahoma State. The voters, in their almighty wisdom (the very same that didn't even realize that Penn State had a loss at one point in the season), decided to go with a team on a roll rather than THE TEAM THAT HAD BEATEN THEM.
I agree. That is stupid. If the records are the same, it should follow that whoever won when they played each other should go. But this is typical. Oregon got screwed royally a few years ago.

If you're going to have the best two teams in a conference play, having a team beaten outright by another in the same division in the conference play with the same record isn't right. By all means, if Texas had played instead of Oklahoma, it could have been an Oklahoma-Texas or Florida-Texas Bowl Championship Game, instead of what we have now.
No, it sure isn't right.
Teams get really completely screwed in this.

That's why I want the whole BCS crap ditched. We did just fine for almost a century without it (just counting when bowl games started, it's even longer if you just go by the start of college football). The previous way was better.

If everyone is scared of losing sponsorship/bowl money, take another page out of the NCAA Men's Basketball book and install two tourneys and additional bowl games.

You take the top 8 teams, they play for the Nat'l Championship. You take the next 8 teams, they play in another tournament. The rest of the bowl-eligible teams get divvied up and put into bowls. Done and done.

May even generate more revenue...

See, and what I would have a problem with would be just ditching bowls. I like bowl games.

I think the championship game, if there is one (I'm of the opinion that there doesn't need to be one, as I honestly don't care about that) should not be one of the existing bowl games. That just fucks with bowl games like the Rose Bowl that have traditional match-ups (Pac-10 vs. Big 10).

Yeah.. but is it not the main argument for fans of the Bowls, that a playoff system would mean choosing teams based on who has the most wins and not on who (they think) is actually better. And that this would "diminish the importance of the regular season." (real quote, there's no way I could make this shit up... no joke)

Which really is a poor argument when you think about it. Because you could still choose the criteria for selection.

Either way, we need a true national championship of some type.

That's not my main argument. Mine is that some conferences have traditional bowl games that predate this whole championship business by quite a long time, and those should be left damn well alone. I don't care who the national champion is, unless they're from the Pac-10 (with the exception of USC, who I deride at every opportunity), or maybe the Big 10.

Oklahoma, Texas, and Texas Tech all had the same record in the BCS and the conference - only one loss. Texas lost to Texas Tech, while Oklahoma lost to Texas, and Texas Tech to... something.

Anyway, the whole deal was that, whoever had the highest ranking in the BCS, instead of whatever system in other conferences are, would get the bid for the Big 12 Championship. Although Texas had beaten Oklahoma out-and-out, Oklahoma marched over Oklahoma State. The voters, in their almighty wisdom (the very same that didn't even realize that Penn State had a loss at one point in the season), decided to go with a team on a roll rather than THE TEAM THAT HAD BEATEN THEM.

If you're going to have the best two teams in a conference play, having a team beaten outright by another in the same division in the conference play with the same record isn't right. By all means, if Texas had played instead of Oklahoma, it could have been an Oklahoma-Texas or Florida-Texas Bowl Championship Game, instead of what we have now.

Oklahoma catapaulted over Texas not because of the Oklahoma State game, but because of the way they manhandled then #2 Texas Tech.

If Texas was in the national championship instead of Oklahoma, then Texas Tech would have the exact same argument that Texas has now. And if Texas Tech was in the national championship instead of Texas, then Oklahoma would have the same argument as Texas. Texas-Texas Tech-Oklahoma did a rock-paper-scissors thing, and that's why the predicament even arose.

I agree that Texas proable should have gotten to the Big 12 title game, but I have no doubt that Florida and Oklahoma are the two best teams in college football right now.

A true playoff would be quite unfeasible, extending the season into February or even March due to the enormous number of college teams.

How is that a bad thing?

How is that a bad thing?

In many places it's unfeasible and/or interferes with other sports.

Also this is college football. The athletes involved are students.

The whole BCS system is broken. Rankings are arbitrary, I know one of the guys who does them. It's all bullshit. The whole system should be chucked.

Obligitory Boomer Sooner though.

Poor Texas *snicker*

In many places it's unfeasible and/or interferes with other sports.

Also this is college football. The athletes involved are students.

You wouldn't really need it to extend any longer than the current season (through Dec/early Jan) for a 'true' playoff. Top 8-12-16 teams. I would prefer top 8, because nobody is really going to care if the #9 team whines about being left out. Except the #9 team and its fans. :p

You wouldn't really need it to extend any longer than the current season (through Dec/early Jan) for a 'true' playoff. Top 8-12-16 teams. I would prefer top 8, because nobody is really going to care if the #9 team whines about being left out. Except the #9 team and its fans. :p

Many leagues would not want to be a part of it due to much older traditions.

The main fact is, I don't care about football on the other side of the country. I don't care about their teams unless they're playing a team from out here. And I don't want the Rose Bowl to end just so people can have a stupid playoff. I know many others that agree with me on this.

Many leagues would not want to be a part of it due to much older traditions.

The main fact is, I don't care about football on the other side of the country. I don't care about their teams unless they're playing a team from out here. And I don't want the Rose Bowl to end just so people can have a stupid playoff. I know many others that agree with me on this.

I understand your point, and I'm an Ohio State fan, so I share your love for the Rose Bowl.

But the Rose Bowl's historical role/significance is already broken. Was Illinois the best team in the Big 10 last year? No, not really. And if USC hadn't lost to (was it Oregon State?) this year, they wouldn't be playing in the Rose Bowl, they'd be playing in the NCG. Basically, the BCS already trumps the Rose Bowl, and the older traditions, so it's a moot point.

I understand your point, and I'm an Ohio State fan, so I share your love for the Rose Bowl.

But the Rose Bowl's historical role/significance is already broken. Was Illinois the best team in the Big 10 last year? No, not really. And if USC hadn't lost to (was it Oregon State?) this year, they wouldn't be playing in the Rose Bowl, they'd be playing in the NCG. Basically, the BCS already trumps the Rose Bowl, and the older traditions, so it's a moot point.

To many, I suppose. I still don't give a shit about the NCG. Neither do most of the people I know. But then again, I'm a Cal fan, so maybe that's it.

And yes, USC lost to Oregon State. Again. I was so happy. I was hoping UCLA would beat them too, keep them out of the Rose Bowl.

To many, I suppose. I still don't give a shit about the NCG. Neither do most of the people I know. But then again, I'm a Cal fan, so maybe that's it.

And yes, USC lost to Oregon State. Again. I was so happy. I was hoping UCLA would beat them too, keep them out of the Rose Bowl.

I only give a shit about the NCG because, well, it's the NCG.

A national championship > Rose Bowl bragging rights, IMO.

I was hoping for a re-match in the Rose Bowl, to give the Buckeyes (with Beanie this time, and Pryor as the starting QB) a chance to redeem themselves. Hats off to Penn State, though, they deserve to be there IMO.

It's tough being a Buckeye fan right now. Basically impossible to talk smack. :(

I do think that we're going to give Texas all that they can handle, though. I don't think it'll be the cake-fest that most expect.

I only give a shit about the NCG because, well, it's the NCG.

A national championship > Rose Bowl bragging rights, IMO.

I was hoping for a re-match in the Rose Bowl, to give the Buckeyes (with Beanie this time, and Pryor as the starting QB) a chance to redeem themselves. Hats off to Penn State, though, they deserve to be there IMO.

It's tough being a Buckeye fan right now. Basically impossible to talk smack. :(

I do think that we're going to give Texas all that they can handle, though. I don't think it'll be the cake-fest that most expect.

You think it's tough to be a Buckeye fan?

You're talking to a Bears fan. I went to most of the home games in 2001. You know, our season where we only won one game. And I was at pretty much all the home games in the seasons prior to that, too.

I don't do much bragging, but it's been too damn long since the Bears have been to the Rose Bowl (50 years). And it's been even longer since we've won it.

I don't give a shit about the NCG. Really. I couldn't care less who's "the best team in teh nation!" It's usually some team from the south that I hate, or that I don't care about, so why should I give a damn? I mainly care about the Pac-10. And somewhat about the Big 10 because they're closely associated with the Pac-10 and such. And a little about the WAC cause they're so weird. All the other crap is teams that at best I'm "meh" about. So for me, Rose Bowl > NCG, which is overhyped bullshit that regularly screws the Pac-10.

Ah, the BCS ranking system: the only system wherein the guys supporting it accept a 20% error rate as reasonable.

We haven't been this forgiving to either Bush or Cheney.

Seriously, I would support a play-off series. But if it is used, then the old bowl-game match-ups have to be used when setting up the seeds and the final games between inter-conference teams.

Alternatively, Barack Obama is a supporter of the play-off system. What he should do is invite this year's winner of the Rose Bowl to the White House and name them the Presidential Champions for the season. Doing this should motivate the BCS guys to shape up, or at the very least, it should just piss them off enough to change.

Next year, depending on how it all pans out (somebody should spike Tebow's Gatorade with Ketamine), Obama can do the same with another Bowl Game winner that isn't the technical BCS champ.

Ah, the BCS ranking system: the only system wherein the guys supporting it accept a 20% error rate as reasonable.

We haven't been this forgiving to either Bush or Cheney.

Seriously, I would support a play-off series. But if it is used, then the old bowl-game match-ups have to be used when setting up the seeds and the final games between inter-conference teams.

Alternatively, Barack Obama is a supporter of the play-off system. What he should do is invite this year's winner of the Rose Bowl to the White House and name them the Presidential Champions for the season. Doing this should motivate the BCS guys to shape up, or at the very least, it should just piss them off enough to change.

Next year, depending on how it all pans out (somebody should spike Tebow's Gatorade with Ketamine), Obama can do the same with another Bowl Game winner that isn't the technical BCS champ.

I might support that. They should do that, or just get rid of the BCS and go back to how things were previously.

And on the Obama inviting the winner of the Rose Bowl to the White House and making them Presidential Champions... go Penn State! lol I hate SC.

You think it's tough to be a Buckeye fan?

You're talking to a Bears fan.

Ouch.

Then again, Cal is one of those schools with, you know, admissions standards. You're pretty much at a disadvantage from the get-go.

Whatever the answer is, please, NO NEW BOWL GAMES! There's too friggin' many as is.

Ouch.

Then again, Cal is one of those schools with, you know, admissions standards. You're pretty much at a disadvantage from the get-go.

Yes. It's rather amazing that the football team is once again a major player in the Pac-10 (we even have the best running back in the league, which is astounding). Of course, the Pac-10 is usually fairly close in terms of how good all the teams are. Basically anybody can usually beat anybody, if conditions are right. This year the Washingtons were both terrible, though.

I might support that. They should do that, or just get rid of the BCS and go back to how things were previously.

And on the Obama inviting the winner of the Rose Bowl to the White House and making them Presidential Champions... go Penn State! lol I hate SC.

See, this is not too much of an issue. The right effort, properly applied, could be sticking it to those rankings boys rather quickly. Besides, I've started to think that the whole system is elitism at its best.

Think about it. We don't allow those skilled in political science to be the only ones allowed to vote. We don't use computer systems with complex formula deductions to choose the president (we use simple computer systems that just subtract votes from one guy to give it to another). So why do allow an elite group of coaches and sports writers using debatable software to determine the rankings? Because they want to keep as much authority to themselves as possible, in order to ensure their own job security when in fact we could do with a lot less influence (and a lot less sports writers) from this group.

Whatever the answer is, please, NO NEW BOWL GAMES! There's too friggin' many as is.

Yes, and I would say that the Holiday Bowl should be eliminated. Nobody likes going there.

See, this is not too much of an issue. The right effort, properly applied, could be sticking it to those rankings boys rather quickly. Besides, I've started to think that the whole system is elitism at its best.

Think about it. We don't allow those skilled in political science to be the only ones allowed to vote. We don't use computer systems with complex formula deductions to choose the president (we use simple computer systems that just subtract votes from one guy to give it to another). So why do allow an elite group of coaches and sports writers using debatable software to determine the rankings? Because they want to keep as much authority to themselves as possible, in order to ensure their own job security when in fact we could do with a lot less influence (and a lot less sports writers) from this group.

Yeah, the coaches poll is ridiculous. It's basically just a bunch of guys creaming themselves while they think about the SEC.