If Kansas wins out they have to play for the BCS title. If they don't, it'll be another blow to a ridiculous system. How anyone still supports the BCS is beyond me. If a team can go undefeated and still not have a chance to play for championship, something is wrong. I don't care who they've beat and who everyone else has lost to. They did everything a football team could possibly do. If you're saying that a team can be perfect and still not deserve a shot at the championship then what's the point in that team playing at all?
It makes no sense. Why bother playing the regular season if nothing you do is going to be good enough. There needs to be a playoff system, and it needs to include at least eight teams.
I love college football up until this time of the year. It's around now when I remember why it is inferior to almost every other major sport in America. If you can't handle your championship right, then the rest of it doesn't mean a thing.
40 billion reasons why the BCS sucks
Moderator: DBacks
-
Cardinals
- Posts: 8041
- Joined: Sat May 18, 2002 1:00 am
- Location: Manch Vegas, CT
- Name: John Paul Starkey
i support the BCS because it makes every game count.
the only problem with it is that the timing of the losses means everything. if you go 11-1 and are #1 all year and your one loss is the last week of the year, you're fucked, and a pair of 1 loss teams who are inferior will almost certainly be ahead of you.
so it's a dual edged sword.
the only problem with it is that the timing of the losses means everything. if you go 11-1 and are #1 all year and your one loss is the last week of the year, you're fucked, and a pair of 1 loss teams who are inferior will almost certainly be ahead of you.
so it's a dual edged sword.
12, 14, 15, 17, 22
Gabe, it will always be flawed. The problem is that how are you supposed to know that a team is going to be good at the beginning of the season and who isnt? If university of wyoming decides to start the season 6-0, who wouldve known that at the beginning of the year if they arent "supposed" to be good? at that point its too late for them to just start jumping teams. Also you dont think a team that has 1 lose and has beaten 8 ranked teams is better than a team that has 0 loses and hasnt played a ranked team all year?
I'm not saying they're not better, I'm simply saying that the unbeaten team deserves a shot. If you think they don't, then there's no point in having that team at all. Why should they play? They're playing for nothing, and that's not fair. Everybody in D1 should start the season with the thought that they could potentially win a championship, just like they do in college basketball. You might have to play perfect, but if you do, you get to go to the playoffs and you have your shot at glory.Brewers wrote:Also you dont think a team that has 1 lose and has beaten 8 ranked teams is better than a team that has 0 loses and hasnt played a ranked team all year?
As the system is right now, the majority of teams have no shot at the championship even before the first snap of the first game. It's fucked up.
Yeah...but so what? I'd rather sacrifice one or two games at the end of a season so that the season as a whole isn't a complete joke. Every year there's an argument over who gets to play for the title. That's ridiculous. You should have to earn it on the field by beating the other teams who fought to get there.Pirates wrote:a playoff system will detract from the intensity of the regular season games. you never see a college team resting their regulars unless its a blowout like you see in the NFL when a playoff spot is wrapped up.
I understand people think BCS makes every regular season game count. But it doesn't. It actually makes a shitload of games mean absolutely nothing. If Kansas goes undefeated and they don't get to play for the title, all of their games meant nothing. Why? Because of the BCS.
it doesn't matter whose fault it is. it can be fixed by eliminating the BCS and going to a playoff system.Brewers wrote:gabe thats not the BCS' fault its the fact that the writers rank the teams the way they want. A lose in the 1st week of the season is better then a lose in the last week because the writers rank the teams which effects the BCS
Alright, I've been biting my tongue but can't anymore....
Lose is a verb, it's something you do. You 'lose a game'. You don't have 'eight wins and a lose'.
It's not a noun. The word you're looking for is 'loss'. It's 'eight wins and a loss'.
It's really hard to take someone seriously who doesn't have that simple grasp of the English language.
Lose is a verb, it's something you do. You 'lose a game'. You don't have 'eight wins and a lose'.
It's not a noun. The word you're looking for is 'loss'. It's 'eight wins and a loss'.
It's really hard to take someone seriously who doesn't have that simple grasp of the English language.
-
Nationals
- Posts: 1904
- Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 8:00 am
- Location: West Hartford, CT
- Name: Ian Schnaufer
As sweet as a playoff would be, it'll never happen. Too many special interests in the mid-December bowls with their dot-com sponsors guised in the excuse "Oh these are student athletes and they can't POSSIBLY take more time off from classes." Which is complete crap, by the way. I TA for a large intro-level class that has, surprise surprise, a couple of Longhorn jocks in it. When they show up for the tests (who needs lectures when you can study the damn playbook instead for the Greater Glory of Texas), the product is excreable. Painfully bad tests. I have no f*ing clue how they maintain their GPAs.Cubs wrote:it doesn't matter whose fault it is. it can be fixed by eliminating the BCS and going to a playoff system.Brewers wrote:gabe thats not the BCS' fault its the fact that the writers rank the teams the way they want. A lose in the 1st week of the season is better then a lose in the last week because the writers rank the teams which effects the BCS
Sorry for the tangenting into an attack on NCAA Division-I athletics in general. It's all just so damned corrupt.
-
Rockies
- Posts: 2649
- Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 1:00 am
- Location: Denver, CO
- Name: Nate Hunter
- Contact:
The only way to incorporate the bcs driven intensity every week, the monetary interests of the conferences, and the call for a playoff system...a plus one system. Add one more level, 4 teams make the "playoff." There is still a need to win every week because a loss will almost definitely drop you out of the top 4, and they can keep the bcs in tact as is to rank the top 4 teams. There of course will always be debate about the last spot in, whether it be between the 2 and 3 team, the 8 and 9 team, whatever. As long as its an opinionated poll there will always be disagreements, but thats what makes it so fun.
Also if Kansas wins out they will be going to the BCS Championship game. The more messed up situation in my mind would be Hawaii, who could go undefeated and not even be invited to to a BCS bowl. It would be easy to blame Hawaii for its weak scheduling (Washington is the only BCS school they will play) but that is only because BCS schools by and large aren't willing to put Hawaii on the schedule. A playoff system which gave teams some margin of error in the regular season would likely encourage big conference teams to schedule the Hawaii and Boise States of the world which would give those teams a chance to compete. As it stands now we have a system where half of Division I-A is eliminated before the season starts.
First off, you're an idiot. That just needed to be restated since you've proven it several times in this debate already.
Secondly, if the Giants had beaten the Pats tonight, would you be claiming the giants were 'as good as' or better than the Patriots?
My guess would be yes because, as was pointed out in the first sentence, you're an idiot.
Secondly, if the Giants had beaten the Pats tonight, would you be claiming the giants were 'as good as' or better than the Patriots?
My guess would be yes because, as was pointed out in the first sentence, you're an idiot.
Bren you cant compare college football and the NFL. The NFL is made up of 32 teams, we will always know that if a crap team beats a great team its because anything can happen in pro football on any given day and that they arent better but played better that day. If the Giants beat the Patriots the Giants wouldnt be considered a better team, because not only was it week 17 and week 17 is a joke, but because they simply arent the better team.
In college football we have over 100 teams and there are no common opponents like there are in the NFL or a constant playing of somewhat if the same teams. UCONN lost to Wake Forest by 14, so you are going to tell me that UCONN is the better team? SHOW ME ANY EVIDENCE WHERE UCONN IS A BETTER TEAM BESIDES THE FACT THAT THEY LOST.
In college football we have over 100 teams and there are no common opponents like there are in the NFL or a constant playing of somewhat if the same teams. UCONN lost to Wake Forest by 14, so you are going to tell me that UCONN is the better team? SHOW ME ANY EVIDENCE WHERE UCONN IS A BETTER TEAM BESIDES THE FACT THAT THEY LOST.
uh huh... tell me, who did the Giants rest? Who did the Pats rest? Where exactly did either team take it easy and save it for next week? Neither team did. Week 17 may be a joke in some games, but mentioning it in connection to the Pats/Giants game is one more data point for the "Jake Levine: Idiot" file.Brewers wrote:because not only was it week 17 and week 17 is a joke, but because they simply arent the better team.
As for proof that UCONN is better than Wake.
BCS ranked them higher.
AP ranked them higher.
USA Today ranked them higher.
And gosh, I can't imagine playing a Bowl in North Carolina MIGHT have been to Wake Forest's advantage. Just a little bit.
Yup, the opinions of people who know several thousand times more about football than you do.Brewers wrote:Uconn blew a 10-0 lead, and again RANKINGS MEAN NOTHING, its all an opinion. Oh and Uconn is still better because they lost.
Recap: Any team that is ranked higher by the BCS, AP , USA polls and loses to a lower ranked team, is better.
So do you still think Appalachian State is better than Michigan?
thats irrelevant, it was the 1st week of the season and a hard playing app st came and upset a michigan team that didnt look good at all. This was a game between 2 teams that were very close. And the better team won thats the bottom line. You can't argue that Uconn is better. Both teams were 9-4 on the year and Wake was 5-3 in conference and Uconn was 5-2. Almost identical teams and Wake won by 14. Bottom line Wake Forrest is a better team this year. Can't argue that.
