More BCS Stupidity

[klunderbunker]

So let me get this straight.

Oregon rocks USC by 27 points to put them 4 spots ahead of the Trojans in the BCS polls from last week at number 8. This week, USC barely beats Arizona St., a .500 football team coming in. Oregon loses to Stanford, a good team, by 9, and the latest polls have the great and mighty Trojans 4 spots ahead of Oregon. In other words, two teams with the same record of 7-2 (Oregon lost to Stanford and undefeated Boise St. while USC lost to Oregon and Washington who is under .500 as well), but USC is 4 spots ahead of Oregon. In other words, a close loss to a good team drops you 8 spots in comparison to a team that barely beat an average team.

Yep, there's nothing unfair or biased about the BCS at all. So what does this say about the BCS? Is this fair? Is USC just that good or is this proof that there's a bias towards the past success of teams?

 

[Baller]

There is definitely bias in the BCS. USC doesnt belong where they are as Oregon deserves a top 10 bid if they are in the top 10 as you previously said. The only thing I find happy with the BCS is TCU over Cincinnati.

 

[gd]

It's just because it's USC, plain and simple. Switch the names of the two schools and you'd have an entirely different story. However, USC is a traditional power house, so they get preference from voters, it's just dumb. Sports shouldn't be like this. The Dallas Cowboys don't get handed playoff spots because they've had success in the past, they have to earn it. Just an awful system that doesn't make sense.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

So let me get this straight.

Oregon rocks USC by 27 points to put them 4 spots ahead of the Trojans in the BCS polls from last week at number 8. This week, USC barely beats Arizona St., a .500 football team coming in. Oregon loses to Stanford, a good team, by 9, and the latest polls have the great and mighty Trojans 4 spots ahead of Oregon. In other words, two teams with the same record of 7-2 (Oregon lost to Stanford and undefeated Boise St. while USC lost to Oregon and Washington who is under .500 as well), but USC is 4 spots ahead of Oregon. In other words, a close loss to a good team drops you 8 spots in comparison to a team that barely beat an average team.

Yep, there's nothing unfair or biased about the BCS at all. So what does this say about the BCS? Is this fair? Is USC just that good or is this proof that there's a bias towards the past success of teams?

Mostly it has to do with the past success of teams but it only seems to be that in USC's case these last few years. Oregon did beat #6 California and USC did beat Notre Dame who was ranked at the time I believe and Ohio State. This doesn't guarantee a Rose Bowl for USC yet but it will probably guarantee a BCS berth which I don't think they deserve right now.

 

[Shocky]

It's what I was bitching about last night when TCU jumped UC int he BCS. It's a completely stupid system in which it works. Logic says that Oregon stomps USC, therefor Oregon > USC. USC beats Ohio State, USC > OSU, so on and so forth. When you have a situation where teams ahve the same amount of losses, and have played head to head, then it becomes painfully obvious who should be in charge. Pitt has one loss and has blown everyone out they have played the last month, yet they sit behind a clump of two loss teams, makes zero sense.

It's a stupid system that simply doesn't work. So much human bias and conference favortism that goes into it. Essentially if you don't play in the Pac 10, Big 10, SEC or big 12, you have zero shot at a national championship.

 

[One Punch Doug Crashin]

the BCS is a shit system. plain and simple. look at last year's BCS bowl with Florida and Oklahoma and Utah running the table... albit in a weaker conference though. I digress however. TCU should be where they are based on the fact that they're blowing out their opponents. the scenario for TCU to be in the national Championship game however is completely different. I see them going to the Rose Bowl this year. Alabama has to lose to Florida and Texas needs to lose a game for TCU to be in the BCS championship game.

 

[Franchize1990]

There are three things that I've learned about the BCS throughout the ten or so years it's been put in.

1) You Have to let the Season Play Out

The National Championship isn't going to be decided for another month or so, where teams could/will lose and the standings will move and the strength of schedule can be viewed as a whole (which will help Cincinnati jump over TCU by the end of the season).

2) The BCS Only Cares About Number 1 and 2

I heard Mack Brown say this in an interview a couple of days ago and I agree with him 100%. He said that the only job of the BCS is to find the top two teams in the nation and pit them together in a game. As far as I can remember, they've gotten it right since the 05-06 regular season. For the others rated 3rd-12th, those teams are pretty much going to the same bowl games regardless.

3) Blame the People Voting in the Harris Poll and the USA Today Poll

2/3 of the BCS standings come from the human votes. That's why USC is rated higher than Oregon ( USC is 10 in the Harris and 10 in the USA Today while Oregon is 14 in the Harris and 16 in the USA Today. Oregon actually has the edge over SC in the computer rankings.) Same case for Cincinnati and TCU, UC is 5th in both human polls while TCU is 4th (Computer rankings have UC in 3rd TCU in 4th and Texas in 5th). The BCS just takes what the other rankings say in each poll and average them out to find an "overall" best.

I feel that if we realize these three things, we'll find that the BCS isn't as terible as the media and everybody else says it is.

 

[Shocky]

I've always thought the problem with the BCS compilation is the Human element involved in it, particularly the "Coaches Poll". Does anyone actually believe that these coaches in the middle of game planning, coaching a game, and all of the other hoorah that goes into being a head coach, can, by noon Sunday, place 25 votes for the USA Today Poll? No.

These coaches are told whom to vote for by people in the university, or they vote by simply looking at scores. It's physically impossible for these guys to watch every single game and know what is going on. The conference biases is blatantly obvious, and the voting for traditional powers is sickening, it explains why teams like Notre Dame, and Michigan sniff the top 25 this year, until they utterly expose themselves for the shit they are. Chances are if either team wins this weekend, someone will put them in the top 25.

This is why the BCS is a failure, the human element. Whose to say that #1 and #2 are the legit two best teams int he country. Hell, look at last year. Texas? Utah? Both had legit gripes to play in that game and didn't have a chance, doesn't sound like it was right to me.

A playoff system isn't perfect, but i trust people getting a field of 16 and the cream of the crop rising to the top, as opposed to bias human voters putting in two traditional powers.

 

[TheProdigy]

If you have an 8 team playoff the teams that are 9th or 10th will be complaining. Just the nature of the system. The sad thing is that teams like TCU, Boise State, etc. KNOW they need to schedule good teams non-conference to even have a CHANCE. Yet a team like Florida can schedule Troy, Florida International, etc. etc. and get away with it.

Not to mention if you throw TCU in Florida's shoes, 10-0 record, 8-0 in SEC TCU is in the title hunt, and Florida is desperate for losses. Now I don't mean just swap "names" of the schools. I'm saying completely reverse it. If TCU palys the same schedule but is SEC affiliated they are in the title game with that schedule.

Hell, look at what Boise State has done. They've basically said contact us and we'll play you in a game. Here at Boise or at your place, one and done. I believe it's for the 2011 season because week 1 they have an open date. Nobody has called...and why not? If you lose to Boise State your dreams are dashed, and no one wants to risk that chance. Kudo's to Oregon for playing a team like Boise, and Oklahoma for playing BYU.

Hell even give USC credit, they are always trying to schedule quality opponents, even Ohio State. OSU had the series with Vince Young and Texas, now with USC. USC has played Va. Tech, Ohio State, Notre Dame. At least they go out and try while Alabama, and Florida, and NOW Texas beat up on terrible non-power FBS schools, or FCS (1-AA) schools.

The system is flawed, and unless you are in a power conference you stand no chance.

I've suggested ways to improve it, from having football conference alignments. For instance Boise state in the pac-10 for football ONLY, and TCU in big 12, etc. etc. Gives TCU the opportunity to "play" Florida's schedule.

I'm also all for a big 10-ACC Challenge like they have in hoops. Week one has conferences cross-over. SEC-Big 12, pac 10-Big 10, Big East-ACC. Now we don't need to see Texas-Bama, or USC-Ohio State, but even a Nebraska-Florida, Oregon-Penn State, and WVU-Miami game would be absolutely fantastic.

Then a 10-team playoff with the six BCS conference champion teams receiving byes and the four at-larges playing at the site of the higher ranked team. You play those games thanksgiving weekend, and have the 2nd round played at the higher teams site the weekend after. Then your in the final four, you play at 2 of the 4 major bowl games on new years day and take a week off. After that you play the championship game, and third place game at the other 2 sites. That way everyone gets their money, it doesn't interfere with your finals, and a true champion is crowned. This year the field would be Florida/Bama, Texas, Cinci, Ohio State, Pac-10 winner, and ACC champ...then add into the field Florida/Bama loser, TCU, Boise State, and another at-large team and you have a hell of a tourny. Imagine a round 1 game played at TCU between Boise and TCU and the winner plays #1 seed Bama or Florida in the second round, and the Bama/Florida loser could ultimately play TEXAS in the second round. It would make for excellent football.

Anyway, that's all of my long rant.