-
You do not need to register if you are not going to pay the yearly fee to post. If you register please click here or log in go to "settings" then "my account" then "User Upgrades" and you can renew.
HuskerMax readers can save 50% on Omaha Steaks .
Locked due to no posts in 60 days. Report 1st post if need unlocked Lost in all of the BCS hand-wringing
- Thread starter huskrthill
- Start date
- Status
The location of the major bowl games aside.. Going to a playoff system only cheapens the regular season. The BCS system is broken, I'm not arguing that.. but changing to another system that isn't fool proof isn't the answer.
That is a "no doubt about it." Currently, the bowl committees keep over half the revenue made from the BCS bowl games -- money that should go back to the universities -- but instead goes to rich investors who pocket it and hold extravagant parties and vacations. Every other collegiate sport's playoff systems gets money that's fed directly back into the college system -- and not distributed among doctors, lawyers, and businessmen who have no direct relation to the NCAA nor the schools playing the games. It's an outsourced post-season, which is why the NCAA doesn't recognize the champion of FBS football -- the only varsity sport where that's the case. "We'll let somebody else run our post-season, pocket a huge chunk of coin, and won't officially recognize the champion" ... sad but true.
It doesn't have to, it could make the regular season better. Seedings, home field advantage and berths based on regular season results. Teams motivated to improve non-conf SOS to earn scarce at-large bids.
Meanwhile, last night's BS rematch completely cheapened what happened in Tuscaloosa in November.
It still cheapens it. Yes, you can put factors on the results of the regular season that will affect the playoff settings.. But I will forever and always hate the fact that a team can be crowned as the best college/pro football team in the world with anything more than 2 losses.
And as for the 'rematch'.. Who else would you have chosen to play for the NC? I don't know what to say.. I hate admitting that the SEC has ever other conference smoked in the talent dept, but LSU and Bama were really the only choices for the best college team in the nation. Bama's ONLY loss was to LSU (then the best team in the nation), by 3 points.. IN OVERTIME. Meanwhile, the only other team that was argued to play LSU in the NC game was OSU, who's, only loss came to Iowa State. Bottom line, they had their chance and lost it.
So, sorry.. but calling the NCG a 'BS rematch' is mostly foolish.
Last edited:
and you do realize there's been teams with 0 or 1 loss that have been completely shut out of any opportunity ....
I can run around naked... spray paint my entire body pink ... rub toothpaste in my hair ... and flip off the elderly ... what do I win?
Funny, thats what you guys said about the BCS.
Who exactly are "you guys" ? Heck, the internet was in its infancy ... and there wasn't even a HuskerMax or Huskerpedia.
The BCS was "masterminded" by a former SEC commissioner ... I'm sure he's feeling rather satisfied with the system he created.
Yup. But as well all know (or at least SHOULD know), not all teams with 0 - 1 loss gained their record equally. Did they beat 3 or 4 of the best teams in the nation en route to their almost/completely unblemished season? Or did they squeak by 11 teams with only 4-6 wins?
Last edited:
I argued this quite a bit on the other thread so I'll try to be succinct. My characterization of last night's game as a BS rematch has nothing to do with Alabama and whether or not they were they were the clear-cut choice as #2 heading into the game. It had to do with the process in place, the BCS, which has *as its own tagline* "Every Game Counts." LSU beat Alabama in Tuscaloosa and that game was not only rendered meaningless, but actually "rewarded" LSU with a more difficult path to the title game than Bama ultimately enjoyed. It's hypocrisy at its highest, which is saying something coming from the BcS.
Was Bama better than Okie State? I don't know, you don't know, Phil Steele doesn't know...NO ONE knows. That's the problem with the system. It is entirely subjective. But what I do know is Bama had their chance against LSU in November and blew it. They did not deserve another shot.
So would a +1 have helped one loss Boise & Houston? - please elaborate
I think this point is exactly why a playoff involving more than just the top two anointed teams is necessary.
Really? Because the regular season game between LSU and Alabama didn't matter one bit. In fact, as it turns out, it was better for alabama to have lost that game as they didn't have to face an extra tough game like LSU did.
Personally, I'm hoping they limit the "final 4" to conference champions. That alone would make the regular season absolutely critical.
If anyone ever wins a 4 team playoff with 3 losses I will be right there with you. But it won't happen.
Actually, it clarified the results. You see, in November Bama missed 4 FG's any one of which wins the game for them in regulation. They also had a receiver allow the ball to be stolen from him at the 1 yard line in a near miraculous defensive play for LSU. Bama was better but unlucky in game #1. In game #2, they weren't lucky at all but they were not unlucky...hence the route was on.
Last edited:
- Status
