The problems with the current system are evident, and they would seem to indicate that a playoff system is coming. However, college football as a whole has no incentive in a playoff system. There are more than 50 bowl games, each of which brings a school money for even a mediocre season. Also, college coaches can just set their standards by whether or not their team plays in a bowl game, and several coaches get huge contracts based on that fact — that they are one of the top 100 teams in Division-I.
The BCS system is garbage. Everything that it was designed to prevent has happened. USC deserves the Sugar Bowl and they have a lot of motivation to beat the hell out of Michigan now and show that the number 1 team in the country has true ability (and class). Now I'm just hoping that Jason White's piss poor performance against K-State is enough to bump Larry Fitzgerald to the top of the Heisman race.
How can a team that isn't even the best in it's own conference be given a shot at the title of Nation's Best?
All we heard all year was how devastating a late season loss was in the BCS..... well, what happened? All the suddent the last game of the season, the conference championship game no less, doesn't matter?
What a bunch of shit..... so now the way it looks is like OU will have a title that hardly anyone thinks they deserve, or it will be a split championship, either way - totally hapless.
I don't want for college football to have a playoff system.
It would require more games (and aren't the players supposed to be STUDENTS?- I knew a couple of football players who always scheduled their tougher classes for the second semester, because while there would be training and spring practices during that semester, there weren't any games so there was more time to study), would take away from the "amateur" aspect of the sport, and adding more games would add to the risk of injury in a sport where a 250# player's main purpose is to run into and stop another 250# player.
I've read the suggestions for change: a playoff system, tweaking (again) the BCS, going back to the old way...and there are some tough choices to make, there. Surely it is unfair to USC not to playing for the national championship, but then again, I didn't mind BCS so much when Florida State was ranked #1 over Miami, who had beaten them in the season. I've always thought that there were 3 basics in judging a team against others in its division: Do they play tough teams or pansies? If they lose, do they lose to a higher ranked team or to a lower ranked team? Do they have squeaker wins and big losses or the other way around?
No computer will ever equal the mind of a sports fan, and no program can offer basic, common sense. I do think that we place too much emphasis on the BCS, even at the expense of the truth that is staring us in the face via the AP poll.
I just don't think the answer should be a playoff system.
The BCS probably had something to do with Oklahoma getting blown out by K-State. The Sooners knew they'd be in the title game win or lose, and they certainly played like it.
You can give every reason for a playoff system not working — schedules, classes, burden on the students. Then why do playoff systems work in Divisions I-AA, II and III? Those reasons should carry even more weight for players that are much less likely to make a career out of football.
at and lucy:
first a playoff system doesn't mean the other bowls wouldn't exist. if they take the top 8 BCS teams for the playoff, they can still keep all the other bowls. those bowls are already a sideshow to the BCS now, so not much changes. and lucy, i agree that the number of games shouldn't be increased, but there are ways around that. the NCAA controls the number of teams you can schedule, so they could therefore lower that number. this would not only keep the number of games down, but it would also keep teams from playing pansies early in the season like they do now.
I favor a combination of the old and new rules. Pollsters, not computers, should decide who is No. 1 and No. 2, and those top teams should be free from required bowl assignments that prevented bowl matchups of Nos. 1 and 2 in the past.
Oddly enough, when Hyman Roth said that, he was watching USC (against Notre Dame). Don't ask me why I know that.
I missed watching the Orangeman stomp the shit out of my beloved Irish-ugh! I wonder if Tyrone has packed up his office yet...
I was at the Army/Navy game on Saturday in Philadelphia, so I missed all of the college games. Navy kicked the shit out Army (my other team) but it was a great time. Nothing like watching football under a foot of snow and freezing conditions while surrounded by young men in uniform-sigh:). Definitely worth frezing my ass off for.
RE: TCU and Phil Mushnick.
get your facts straight you freckin idiot.
RE: TCU and Phil Mushnick
If every reporter took the same approach and care to every detail and aspect of their article as Mr. Mushnick did we'd all be reading the National Enquirer for the news of the day. Mr. Mushnick failed to report that the days TCU played during the week were:
1) During two holiday breaks
2) At home (no school missed)
3) Were scheduled by CUSA in an effort to gain the conference TV money with ESPN
4) a non issue considering the team missed at the most 2 days of class all year.
Furthermore, TCU has NEVER practiced during finals or dead days, and has NEVER played a bowl game during finals week. TCU has a concrete commitment to its players in helping them achieve on and off the field, TCU boasts one of the highest graduation rates in CUSA among their players a point I'm sure Mr. Mushnick just failed to report due to space limitations in the NY Post.
Next time you want to rip a school for putting academics first you should try doing some research... then again this is just an opinion blog.
As an Oklhahoma fan, let me offer an argument as to why OU should be in the Sugar Bowl.
Sure OU wasn't its conference champion, technically. But they did only lose one conference game (just so happens it was the championship). USC and LSU also lost one conference game. Why does OU get punished for their loss being in the championship when USC doesn't even have to play a championship game?
Since we would all agree that a conference championship is 99% for money purposes, and since we know that only 3 conferences have the game, I think it would be fair to consider the championship as just another conference game. This being the case, let's compare the losses of the three teams.
OU loses in Kansas City to Kansas State on a neutral field 35-7. This is the worst loss (point margin) of the three. Kansas State is ranked #15 in the nation.
LSU loses in Jacksonville to Florida on a neutral field 19-7. Rivalry game. Florida is unranked at the time.
USC loses at Cal 34-31 in 3 OT. This is the worst loss (opponent) of the three. Cal is unranked and finishes the year 7-6.
ADVANTAGE LSU, DISADVANTAGE USC
Now compare the three teams non-conference schedules:
OU's 4 non-conference games were North Texas (New Orleans Bowl), UCLA (Las Vegas Bowl), @ Alabama (not a good team at all) and Fresno State (Silicon Valley Classic)
LSU's 4 non conference games were UL-Monroe (1-11), Louisiana Tech (5-7), Arizona (worst team in the Pac-10) and Western Illinois (I-AA)
USC's 4 non-conference games @Auburn (Music City Bowl), BYU (bottom of the Mountain West), Hawaii (Hawaii Bowl), and Notre Dame (definitely a down year)
ADVANTAGE OU, DISADVANTAGE LSU
How about the conferences schedule?
OU's toughest conference game was obviously K State (#10 currently) on a neutral field, but the Sooners also faced #5 Texas on a neutral field (65-13), and #22 Oklahoma State at home (52-9)
LSU faced #17 Florida on a neutral field (7-19), #11 Georgia twice, once on a neutral field and once at home (17-10 and 34-13), and #18 Mississippi on the road (17-14)
USC's only ranked Pac-10 opponent was #14 Washington State at home (43-16)
ADVANTAGE LSU, DISADVATAGE USC
The only argument that USC has is that if there weren't college football overtime that they would be #1 unanimously at 11-0-1. But there is overtime, and there is a BCS. The BCS's job is to make sure that the whole season matters. This is the undying pro-BCS argument! "It makes every game matter." Well if every game matters, then it doesn't matter that OU lost latest or that OU lost in their "conference championship" game.
Do I think USC deserves a chance at the title, definitely. I am just as in favor of a playoff as you all are, but with the system we have, to say that OU doesn't deserve to be there is not only wrong, but it shows that you haven't done much homework.
With the BCS in place, OU and LSU deserve the Sugar Bowl more than USC. It's that simple.
My money says that Michigan wins in Pasadena anyways.
The only ranked conference opponent for USC was #14 Washington State at home.
The problems with the current system are evident, and they would seem to indicate that a playoff system is coming. However, college football as a whole has no incentive in a playoff system. There are more than 50 bowl games, each of which brings a school money for even a mediocre season. Also, college coaches can just set their standards by whether or not their team plays in a bowl game, and several coaches get huge contracts based on that fact — that they are one of the top 100 teams in Division-I.
Posted by at December 8, 2003 1:49 AM