Congratulations, BCS.
Once again you've proven your uncanny ability to take the two "best" teams—one of which is the least-deserving title-game participant since Oklahoma dropped the Big 12 title game to Colorado—and pit them against each other to decide the "national champion."
Give me a break. Ohio State didn't play anyone with a pulse outside the Big Ten. Let's not forget that they also lost at home to a mediocre Illinois team who was exposed big time against USC.
LSU lost at home too, but it was in triple overtime. I don't believe there is such a thing as a good loss, but it's far less glaring than Ohio State's. Even though they lost to Kentucky as well—also in triple overtime—I would just as soon hand LSU the title right now. They play in a tougher conference—and more importantly, walked all over Virginia Tech in September. If you want to win a championship, you should have to earn your way there by beating quality opponents.
Talk of a "plus-one" has emerged once again, and although this is much more feasible than a playoff, chances are it won't be happening any time soon. Anyway, this year has been so crazy that picking the top four teams would be just as difficult as selecting two title game participants.
Supposing a playoff is on the way, how many teams do you include? 8? 16? What happens when you have to include a 9-3 conference champion? This isn't March Madness—college football has no room for Cinderellas.
Either way, the Pac-10 and Big Ten are so adamantly opposed to a playoff that even discussing one is foolish. A plus-one is slightly more possible, but even that wouldn't really solve the problem.
Although I am a die-hard Michigan fan, I would just as soon have everyone else tell Jim Delaney and Thomas Hansen to shove it. Issue the two respective conferences an ultimatum saying they can have the Rose Bowl, but can't play for or win any national championships until they agree to see some sense and spare us another USC-Illinois beatdown in the future.
However, this is still not likely, nor do I believe it gives us a true champion any more than the BCS does.
So what's the solution? I propose we move back to the old bowl tie-ins for three reasons. First, so much of college football is decided by human voters already, so we may as well let them vote on the best team and give them the championship. We already vote on a president—why not implement the same thing here?
This leads to the second benefit, which is better regular season games. With teams seeking to impress voters, the regular season essentially becomes an audititon for the #1 spot. Teams will be forced to schedule quality opponents in an attempt to make a statement early in the season, leading to quality games throughout the year. Once again, if you want to win a championship, you will need to prove your worthiness on the field.
16 comments Last one added about 1 year ago — Leave a Comment
Anonymous about 1 year ago
what a jackass. Get a life dude.
Edit Comment Cancel
Anonymous about 1 year ago
"And no losing at home to Stanford or Pitt. Devastating home losses like these should be just that—devastating. You shouldn't win a title if you can't take care of business at home."
Yeah coming from a Michigan fan you shouldn't cast stones on other teams losses. Appy state ring a bell. Atleast those teams lost to opponents in their same division and conference. A loss to Pitt from WVU really effected their beat down on your nation title contender Oklahoma.
"Play the bowl games, and then let the voters decide. No more Auburn or Georgia/USC/Oklahoma/West Virginia/Virginia Tech being left out to a "more deserving" team. Play good non-conference games, win your conference, and then win your bowl and we'll talk. "
4 out of those 6 teams won their conference and their bowl games. So clearly you have no fucking clue about college football. Please go back into your Michigan igloo and enjoy freezing your ass off for the next 4 months.
Guy who loathes Michigan and despises Ohio State!!!
Who the fuck would want to live there!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Edit Comment Cancel
Tom Peterson about 1 year ago
I never said Michigan deserved to play for a title, and I'm not casting stones. App State was embarrassing, and so was Oregon. And bowl games aren't necessarily an accurate reflection on a team's talent level. Any decent coach with a month to prepare is going to have his team ready. How do you think Boise State snuck up on Oklahoma? They weren't more talented, just better prepared. And Oklahoma beat Missouri twice this year, even if the Tigers were overrated, they were #1 for a while. You should also probably learn to read, because I did in fact include West Virginia as a possible title game snub. And can you give me a quality non-conference win by any of those teams other than LSU over Virginia Tech? Let's talk about those 4 teams. USC lost at home to Stanford. West Virginia lost at home to Pitt. Oklahoma maybe deserved a spot, who can say. The whole point is that teams would play good games OUTSIDE their conferences. It doesn't take any balls for USC to play Stanford, they have to do that.
Edit Comment Cancel
Anonymous about 1 year ago
I don't see why you're attacking him because of what team he likes, and ignore the concepts he is trying to present. Concepts that are all too real, and aren't going to be fixed because of a football cartel. No one can ignore that the BCS is a screwed up system and needs to be fixed. A plus-one system, while a little more fair, would still have flaws. I'd like to see a playoff, but it will probably never happen just like going back to the voting system won't happen. It's not about finding out who the best team is; it's about making money.
Edit Comment Cancel
Paul Gotham about 1 year ago
I hardly consider this year's version of the Big Ten to be a 'real conference'. ND played a more difficult schedule than most of the Big Ten - try adding USC, BC, and a bowl-bound Navy to your games.
I am not in favor of the power conferences retaining their entitlement to the crown.
Edit Comment Cancel
Anonymous about 1 year ago
Right now, the conferences are trying to add a plus 1. The hold outs? Big Ten and Pac Ten. Would you like to guess why?
Edit Comment Cancel
Anonymous about 1 year ago
Tom,
Your reply to my comment was as ignorrant as your article. The only thing you justified was that you are a complete moron.
"Finally, the old system would lead to more intriguing bowl games. Here's what it would look like this year:
Rose: Ohio St.-USC
Fiesta: Oklahoma-Georgia
Sugar: LSU-Kansas (should probably be Mizzou)
Orange: Va Tech- West Virginia "
Now can you give me a team in your matchup that had a quality non-conference win excluding the previously mentioned LSU-VT game. Don't bother to try and convince me that oklahoma played a quality miami team.
-Guy who thinks Michigan and Ohio State and the big televen are very overrated!
Edit Comment Cancel
Anonymous about 1 year ago
Wow! What a pile of crap. I feel dumber now that I read this garabage and wasted a couple minutes of my life. Please never write another article!
Edit Comment Cancel
Tom Peterson about 1 year ago
All you're doing is restating my point that we need better regular season games. LSU had the only good nonconference win, therefore they are the only deserving title game particpant, which they proved last night. You'll have to try harder than that
Edit Comment Cancel
Tom Peterson about 1 year ago
And as far as ND is concerned, I'm not saying they play a weak schedule, I just think they should be forced to join a BCS conference in order to reap the benefits of the system, whatever that may turn out to be
Edit Comment Cancel
Andrew the Terrible about 1 year ago
Damn right about ND. It just doesn't seem fair that they have opportunity to go to a BCS game with ALL THREE SERVICE ACADEMIES on their schedule. Yea, those teams used to be tough. In the 1950's.
Last I checked, the BigTen (top-heavy eleven) needed a twelfth team and a conference championship game that isn't the annual OSU/Michigan game. ND, located right in the heart of BigTen territory, seems to be the optimal fit.
I do (for the most part) agree with your statement about going back to the original BCS bowl schedules. But, which of these games would be the title game? Do you imply that we should go back to a Rose-Orange-Fiesta-Sugar and THEN the title game? Or do you imply that we should go back to split championships?
Another interesting idea I have is this: if your team plays a 1-AA (FCS) team during the regular season, your team is automatically ineligible for BCS games. I know this would cause a huge fuss amont those FCS teams who enjoy playing the big boys, but there is money involved here. That could potentially knock a BCS-eligible team's total regular-season games played down to 10 or 11, instead of a national champion team winning twelve games -- and losing two.
Why go back, one may ask?
My answer: sure did seem to work better then that it does now. A two-loss team is our national champion.
Edit Comment Cancel
Andrew the Terrible about 1 year ago
***I didn't clarify one of my questions to you, allow me to re-state:
I do (for the most part) agree with your statement about going back to the original BCS bowl schedules. But, which of these games would be the title game? Do you imply that we should go back to a Rose-Orange-Fiesta-Sugar and THEN the title game?
i.e. +1 system, as many of the ducks at espn are calling for.
Edit Comment Cancel
Tom Peterson about 1 year ago
Split championships, but really I think only the AP should have any say. I don't think the coaches can give a fair evaluation of every team, especially when they have their own interests in mind. So just one poll would exist and whoever is voted number one takes the title. Therefore, there isn't really a "title" game, any one of eight teams could technically have a shot. I don't want to give the impression that this is better than a playoff or that it more accurately decides a champion. I am merely saying that since a playoff is so far off, maybe the old system would be an improvement on the BCS.
The major problem with college football is money, and I completely agree that FBS teams should not be allowed to schedule FCS teams. If you want to play the big boys, make the leap like Western Kentucky
Edit Comment Cancel
Andrew the Terrible about 1 year ago
exactly.
good point on the coaches' poll as well. Spurrier (and his voting for Duke) is a classic example of this.
of course, every BCS system will have its share of holes. I can think of numerous scenarios where teams would get left out, wrong teams going to wrong bowls, etc., but until a playoff (12 teams with four first-round byes is my opinion) is installed, taking a step back would drastically improve the current system.
Edit Comment Cancel
Ben Gunby about 1 year ago
If they go to old bowl tie-ins, have the Big 12 champ play in Dallas in the Cotton Bowl. Then you could have Big XII vs SEC in the Cotton Bowl, like it is now, only on a bigger stage.
Edit Comment Cancel
Bozo_bus about 1 year ago
Go back to the AP picking their perennial favorites? Are you crazy? Do you realize that after USC is stripped of its 2004 title, and ignoring the couple of weeks this past season that LSU was #1, the AP poll will have failed to vote #1 the eventual BCS Champion for at least ONE week in the regular season in 6 years? NOT once! That is hard to do! Letting the AP decide is letting the least capable body imaginable decide. The AP could not get it right if their lives depended on it! Let me remind you that tOSU was #1 prior to this year's CG. Of course, if you actually mean allow the AP to anoint their favorites Champs as in days past, why not just award the next 10 championships to USC and to the tOSU/UM winner. Throw one or two to OU. The rest of America's teams could fight for #4 every year. For all its flaws the BCS requires the Champion to play at least 1 game against somebody--unless the Very PACIFIC 10* Champ is playing the Big 10 Champ. The BCS requires an actual win on the field. Letting typewriters decide is the worst idea since that was how it was done.
Your idea to tell the Big 10 and VERY PACIFIC 10 to keep their Rose Bowl and jump in the ocean is right on. Let the REAL football conferences have a playoff. My suggestion for the format:
1) Pick the top 2 to play in 2 separate BCS bowls that alternate every year.
2) Pick #3 and #4 to play in separate bowls Christmas weekend.
3) Pick #5, #6, #7, and #8 to play in lesser pre-Christmas bowls
The winners of the pre-Christmas bowls advance to play #3 and #4 on Christmas week.
Christmas week winners play #1 and #2
The 2 winners of the 2 selected BCS bowl games play the next week for the NC.
As for the "best team" issue:
If the Patriots played the Giants 10 times, they would win more often than not, but the Giants are the Champions because they won the Championship Game. The "best team" does not always win. Picking a "Champion" by a vote on the "best team" notion (ignoring the obvious biases) was NEVER a good idea. Champions come through in the clutch--whether they are better than the other team or not. It measures heart as well as skill. Statistics will never be a metric that measures heart. Nor are statistics acquired against inferior opponents (e. g., VERY PACIFIC 10* or the BIG 10) a meaningful metric. tOSU #1 ranked defense proved mediocre against a good SEC opponent. Votes based on padded won-loss records and statistics yield paper Champions who have proven nothing. Even the pathetic 1 game playoff the BCS offers is FAR superior to any vote-for-your-darling-team.
* This season/post season the Very Pacific 10 Champ played not 1 final AP Top 15 team. LSU played and defeated 5. Yet we hear voices proclaiming the Trojans were "the best." Such is the nature of delusional biases. That the Trojans finished in the Top 2-3 after playing no one is a testament to voter bias and media incompetence. WE DO NOT WANT THESE PEOPLE CROWNING CHAMPIONS BY DECREE.
Edit Comment Cancel
Leave a Comment
You must register to post a comment.