Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Other Sports' started by Alex1939, Aug 30, 2008.
Are you really going to try to deny that the Big 12 was the best conference this season?
No. I'm saying bowl games are as good an indication of the better team IN THAT PARTICULAR GAME as you can get. The rest is speculation.
Before the Sugar Bowl, most felt Bama was the better team. Though they may not have been as up for it as Utah, do we still feel Bama is the better team?
Better teams prove it on the field. That is why almost every major sport, besides D-I, has a playoff system.
Whats irritating is as you say Jeff, everyone said Alabama was better. Now they are saying, well, there are still 4 teams who would beat Utah right now........I say BS. The BCS being what it is, UTAH deserves to be ranked 1. Granted they might not be the best team out there, but until there is a playoff system, that team with the undefeated record, beat top teams, should be ranked 1. I dont even like utah, I am just calling it like I see it.
:smile: Glad my misplaced thread has risen more college football talk.
New Year's day was really boring this year, as far as college football entertainment goes. It is getting worse and worse, and the constant *****ing on television doesn't help.
Bottom line: I'm glad for the BCS, at least there is a championship. Every team knows how it works before the season starts... so QUIT YER *****IN!
USC... you are in the PAC10 so you can't lose, got it?
UTAH... you aren't in a major conference... you have to schedule 3 good major conference programs a season!
TEXAS... you lost to Texas Tech, deal with it! It is not the BCS fault that your conference uses a stupid tie-breaker and is in divisional format!!
I'll still believe the "true" champion of 2008 season (2009 postseason) will be decided on Thursday.
All of that said, playoffs are needed. I *****ed a lot before about making fair playoffs, which I still want. I still want to see every conference have a championship game...
but realistically, the easiest solution.. and the one I am in favor of..
16 team playoffs, 11 conference winners as automatic bid.
One of the biggest arguments is that college age athletes will be playing too many games, which is bunk. With an 11-game season, plus a conference championship... only TWO college teams will play a 16 game season. Four will play a 15 game season.
That really isn't disrupting too many programs.
Eh, git r dun. I'm thinking we'll see 20 years of BCS before any playoff scenario begins. that's roughly 9 more years. :cry:
a few problems with that. schedules are made so far in advance that there's no way of knowing who's going to be good or not. i'm sure ten years ago no one expected michigan to be starting over from scratch.
they beat oregan state who is in the top 25 of the coaches/ap polls and tcu who are ranked 11th and obviously they beat alabama who were 4th.
so they beat three quality bcs schools and also beat michigan, who no one knew ten years ago would be awful in 2008.
I still think you take the top eight BCS-ranked teams and work them into the current bowl system. Rotate who gets a first, second and the championship.
I know many of these bowls want teams from their region. The Rose Bowl knows they'll get USC 90% of the time which means huge revenue for them.
There is no way to have a true champion. Does anyone think that the Cardinals are one of the 2 best teams in the NFC? Playoffs reward you for getting hot late in the season. They are not indicative of an entire body of work.
The BCS is far from perfect, but at least in D1 you have to be hot both early and late.
Wrong. Cardinals were not hot late, they were blown out by the Vikings at home and the Patriots, so they lost like 2 of their last 3. They were ice cold heading into the playoffs.
Which only further proves my point. It's late now and they're hot now.