Pivotal month in BCS talks
Moderators: greenyellow, UOducksTK1
-
Bud Lee
- All Pac-12
- Posts: 5540
- Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 7:03 am
- Location: Da Boot
-
UOducksTK1
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37802
- Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 11:28 pm
- GM: Boston Celtics GM
- Location: Portland, Oregon
Re: Pivotal month in BCS talks
And here I read the title as "Pivotal mouth in BCS talks"...
lol you can then play the rabbit and pick a trail to go on with that way of thinking.
lol you can then play the rabbit and pick a trail to go on with that way of thinking.
Do Not Fear. Isaiah 41:13
-
Kimber45
- Three Star Recruit
- Posts: 498
- Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:39 pm
- Location: Alaska
Re: Pivotal month in BCS talks
I'm still conflicted over the best way to "fix" the current BCS system.
The BCS was originally implemented match the two best teams in order to determine a single national football champion. For the most part the BCS system has worked. Some of the time, last year in particular, it has not.
The regular season "Game of the Century" last year between LSU and Alabama was a 9-6 turdfest only mildly more entertaining than the 3-0 OSU bowl win over Pittsburgh a few years back. Nevertheless, LSU won, and should not have had to play Alabama again in order to be annoited the best team in the country. The box score of the MNC rematch - which I still have not actually watched - reflects an LSU beatdown on the order of suprise butt secks. A shutout in the MNC is simply an unconscionable abmonination.
One fix I'd propose to the system is that if your team has already beaten the team ranked #2 in the BCS at years end, you are the champs ipso facto and there is no need to play the championship game.
Another largely incomplete thought that rumbles around in my pea sized brain is that if the BCS system needs to be fixed, then why don't we do away with the BCS system entirely and start over. The four team playoff concept does nothing to amelioate the negative aspects of the BCS including coach and conference lobbying as well as a several mysterious computer algorithms. Instead of moving forward with the BCS, is a better solution available going back to the starting point and trying again?
I'm in favor of only conference champs playing for the MNC (sorry SEC). There are also, on occasion, a few non-BCS conference teams who are worthy (hello Utah).
Why not have the six BCS champs and two non-BCS at large in an eight game playoff? I know that is a three round playoff, but only for the last two teams. Maybe cut the regular season by one game, have the conference champs play in the 8 team playoff and have the conference champ loser play their last game in one of the already-way-too-many bowl games?
The BCS was originally implemented match the two best teams in order to determine a single national football champion. For the most part the BCS system has worked. Some of the time, last year in particular, it has not.
The regular season "Game of the Century" last year between LSU and Alabama was a 9-6 turdfest only mildly more entertaining than the 3-0 OSU bowl win over Pittsburgh a few years back. Nevertheless, LSU won, and should not have had to play Alabama again in order to be annoited the best team in the country. The box score of the MNC rematch - which I still have not actually watched - reflects an LSU beatdown on the order of suprise butt secks. A shutout in the MNC is simply an unconscionable abmonination.
One fix I'd propose to the system is that if your team has already beaten the team ranked #2 in the BCS at years end, you are the champs ipso facto and there is no need to play the championship game.
Another largely incomplete thought that rumbles around in my pea sized brain is that if the BCS system needs to be fixed, then why don't we do away with the BCS system entirely and start over. The four team playoff concept does nothing to amelioate the negative aspects of the BCS including coach and conference lobbying as well as a several mysterious computer algorithms. Instead of moving forward with the BCS, is a better solution available going back to the starting point and trying again?
I'm in favor of only conference champs playing for the MNC (sorry SEC). There are also, on occasion, a few non-BCS conference teams who are worthy (hello Utah).
Why not have the six BCS champs and two non-BCS at large in an eight game playoff? I know that is a three round playoff, but only for the last two teams. Maybe cut the regular season by one game, have the conference champs play in the 8 team playoff and have the conference champ loser play their last game in one of the already-way-too-many bowl games?
-
duck55
- Senior
- Posts: 2166
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 1:37 am
- Location: Keizer OR
Re: Pivotal month in BCS talks
Fixed to Dr Lou and ESPN's requirements.Kimber45 wrote:I'm still conflicted over the best way to "fix" the current BCS system.
Why not have the six BCS champs and one non-BCS at large and Notre Dame, in an eight game playoff? I know that is a three round playoff, but only for the last two teams. Maybe cut the regular season by one game, have the conference champs play in the 8 team playoff and have the conference champ loser play their last game in one of the already-way-too-many bowl games?
I like the concept but it leaves teams like Bama and Stanford last year out while letting teams like BSU and Boston College in instead.
-
Bud Lee
- All Pac-12
- Posts: 5540
- Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 7:03 am
- Location: Da Boot
Re: Pivotal month in BCS talks
Two things are for certain. First, 2012 will be the last year with our current system; all of the powers that be are all in agreement on that. Second, we will have a come to Geez by November because that is the end of the BCS TV contract.