The BCS

XRpredator

AssClown SuperPowers
Damn Yankees
Joined
Aug 2, 2000
Messages
13,511
Likes
19
#1
Riddle me this, silly peoples: How does a #2 and #3 team play for a national title, while the #1 ranked team plays #4 for no shot whatsoever?

Oklahoma? whatever! Let my right now give my congratulations to the Eastern Champion, whoever wins the Sugar Bowl. All of us over here on the west side of the Rockies will know the truth, the USC Trojans (love 'em or hate 'em) will be the National Champions after they beat Michigan in the Rose Bowl.

Freakin' eastern bias :|
 

Jon K.

Subscriber
Joined
Mar 26, 2001
Messages
1,354
Likes
4
#2
Pred; USC ain't the only one getting screwed here. When LSU wins the Sugar, there will be discourse throughout the land about who the "real" champion is.

Unless USC gets beat by Michigan. Even then; Michigan will claim to be the "real" champion.

Sort of like Langston.
 

BEEF706

Sponsoring Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2002
Messages
1,566
Likes
0
#3
Pred, much as I hate the BCS, (and don't get me started, playoffs now!!!) you really can't compare the USC's pac 10 cake walk with an SEC schedule Sorry, but most of the PAC 10 couldn't survive 1/2 of an SEC schedule, that's why we need playoffs, until we do ALL BOWL GAMES ARE JUST EXIBITIONS. ( not that I won't be watchin') :flame:
 

dirt bike dave

Sponsoring Member
Joined
May 3, 2000
Messages
5,349
Likes
3
#4
You PAC 10 bashers might want to check out some NFL rosters.  Plenty of PAC 10 players there - not sure of the current stats, but as a general rule there are more PAC 10 players on NFL rosters than any other conference.  You might ask a few of those guys about the Pac 10 'cakewalk'.

I heard on ESPN that if Notre Dame had beat Syracuse last Saturday, the copmuter would have put USC in the national championship game!  How can anyone possibly defend a system like that?

BTW, the only blemish on USC's record was a multiple overtime loss to Cal.  That was a GREAT college football game.  Cal played out of their minds at home and deserved to win that day, but it was CLOSE.  I'll bet if Cal had not blown a 4th quarter lead against Oregon the computer would have put USC as #1.  

I am not a USC fan, but they got jobbed.  They need to do some serious fixing to the BCS computer program if they want to keep any credibility.
 
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
29,202
Likes
718
Location
Dallas
#5
Everybody bashes the BCS. Everybody bashed the polls. No one has come up with a solution that is do-able for the universities. There are revenues (far fewer teams would see TV rev), expenses and a TON of other issues that have to be worked-out... who's stopping the play-off system from happening? The UNIVERSITIES. The smaller programs will suffer. The big programs will get bigger and wealthier. As it is, even smaller programs at the bottom of the pile can get a Bowl Invitation and the big fat CHECK that comes with it for not only them but some for their conference as well. Maybe somebody will figure it all out. Until then, they use the BCS, get over it.

Good thing you have the keys Pred! But who's gonna drive ya? :p

Psst...Pred... the BCS decides the champs, not the polls, remember? That's the system that's agreed to and used. Since taking on this system, why are polls still here? The polls are nothing more than one of many factors used to determine the #1 and #2. Those are the rules everyone is playing by.

And if the Writer's and Coach's polls didn't jive? It was because of that and the "Hypothetical National Champion" that the BCS came to be. We ended up with Dual National Champions without it. Say what? The BCS isn't perfect, but IMHO, it's at least based on math.

The problem? A loss no one believed would happen. When you look at the schedules, how badly OU dismantled everyone, all year, #1 offense, #1 defense, the loss, when compared to the other top 2 team's losses.. (ie; USC losing to a high school team called Cal), the numbers still came out with OU ahead. The BSC is there to consider THE WHOLE YEAR. If USC had a schedule that was even close to LSU or OU, it would be different. At the very least, it's based on crunching the numbers rather than opinion.

Another negative to all of this; it was reported all week (prior to the game) that OU didn't even "need" to win the K-State game to stay in the Sugar Bowl! Since when in college ball do have a throw-away game? The play-off scenario could bring the same situation and it seems to me that's what some don't like... it could end-up like the NFL, ie; you've got a play-off spot secured before the last game, so you hold-out all your starters and just go thru the motions. Even with no play-off, that's what just happened to OU in a way. Sad.

Do I like the BCS? Nope. Do I like the polls? Nope. Give us play-off's. As it is, three teams "could" be up for the title game, but only two can play. The good thing about all of this is, it may effect a change.

We all sound like moto dad's anyway. Too bad for the PLAYERS. All they did was hang it out all year and becuase the media, the fans and the powers that be can't come-up with a system that makes THEM happy, the players suffer.
 

XRpredator

AssClown SuperPowers
Damn Yankees
Joined
Aug 2, 2000
Messages
13,511
Likes
19
#6
I agree that playoffs are the key, and it could be done. And we could still have bowl games. I'm no Papa Joe Chevalier, but it don't take a mental giant to figure out how to do a playoff system. Hell, it works in every other division of NCAA football!

And don't worry, I can drive myself just fine in the ol' Whaaaambulance :debil:

and another thing, don't go thinking I'm a fan of USC (the University of Spoiled Children), I just think there is an eastern bias in all facets of college sports.
 

Smitty

Alowishus Devadander
Joined
Nov 10, 1999
Messages
707
Likes
0
#7
Pred, don't forget OU still isn't across the Mississippi and we all bitch about the Eastern Bias all day long just like you. Ever wonder why ESPN can't quit talking about a sophomore wide reciever on a very mediocre football team winning the Heisman?

Ever heard Mike Lupica talk about us? I actually saw Corso say White shouldn't win the Heisman because we basically win by too much and haven't had any close games!!!! CORSO Do you think JASON may have anything to do with tthe scoring??? Last year we didn't score 50 a game.

BTW, the ideal scenario is OU plays LSU, USC plays Michigan, winners play one more to settle the deal.

And as one last note. Imagine OU, LSU, USC all lost in wk 1 to the respective teams (KSU, Cal, FLA) and the remainder of their seasons compared, can anyone deny that OU would still be number one in that comparison? HUGE defeats of Texas, OSU, and Tech. 50 pts a game, #1 D. The Human polls simply reflect the timing of the loss, in other words if we still had 3, 6, 9 more games to play the outcome of the human polls could certainly reverse.
 

Smitty

Alowishus Devadander
Joined
Nov 10, 1999
Messages
707
Likes
0
#8
Don't forget that K State is currently ranked 10th, Florida is 17th, and Cal is not ranked, didn't even recieve a vote.
 

BEEF706

Sponsoring Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2002
Messages
1,566
Likes
0
#9
Sorry Dave, but even if they have a lot of NFL plyers, they DO NOT have the top to bottom strength of the SEC, You think Oregon State or Stanford could play in the SEC? How about CAL? USC looks like a great football team, but I don't think they have played a very tough schedule. Of course the real key to all of this is if a playoff system were established then we woulden't be using up all of this bandwidth with arguments that can't be settled on the field. (PS, I know I have an SEC bias, UGA class of 82 :) )
 

dirt bike dave

Sponsoring Member
Joined
May 3, 2000
Messages
5,349
Likes
3
#10
Beef, Oregon State and Stanford are not strong every single year, but it wasn't that long ago (2001) that Oregon State beat a highly touted Notre Dame team 41-9 in the Fiesta Bowl.  Its amazing how often the PAC 10 teams surprise the 'experts' on New Year's Day. 

Regarding Stanford, they do pretty well for an 'academic' school.  What % of UGA or SEC players could even get admitted to Stanford? 

BTW, I found a website that shows there are currently 31 Cal players active in the NFL.  I'll bet USC has far more.  Last info I could find for your Georgia Bulldogs was for 2000, when there were 20 players on the NFL opening day rosters.   The same page says Florida had 34 NFL players. 

Playing in the Pac 10 is no cakewalk.  The teams and coaches are talented, and they play good football. 

Go Bears! (Class of '84)
 
Last edited:

BEEF706

Sponsoring Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2002
Messages
1,566
Likes
0
#11
Nope not a lot of Bulldawgs in the academc class to get into Stanford, heck not even a lot of UGA football players who could get into UGA without help, :o (and as much as I love college football the SEC IS too much about big$ games and not enough about kids in school) and I don't really think the PAC10 has always been a cakewalk, I do think it was this year. BTW, one of my very favorite athletes of all time was from CAl. Steve Bartkowski, QB for my woeful Atlanta Falcons, got to play on a softball team with him once, he was our centerfielder, I was the catcher, he threw a ball to me form the fence that got to me on the fly and nearly knocked me down, those NFL qb's have some major arm strength.
 

dirt bike dave

Sponsoring Member
Joined
May 3, 2000
Messages
5,349
Likes
3
#12
Bartkowski!  Now you are talking!  One of many outstanding Cal QBs.  If memory serves me correctly, he was a Pac-10 baseball player, too.  Must have been a pretty good softball team!

BTW, you got me thinking about conferences & relative strength.  As a PAC-10 guy, I like to point out the NFL stats as IMO that is a way to eliminate the media and polling bias.  Just found this report from the NFL Player's Association.

http://www.nflpa.org/PDFs/Shared/Which_Schools_Produced_The_Most_NFL_Players_1998-2002.pdf

It lists the top 36 schools in terms of most NFL players from '98 thru '02. 

Guess how many Pac-10 teams make the list?

EIGHT of the top 30 schools.  Not bad for a weak conference with no top-to-bottom strength . ;)

BTW, Georgia is #15 on the list. 

The report also shows % of players that start in the NFL and % that got degrees.
 
Last edited:

Timr

Lifetime Sponsor
Joined
Jul 26, 1999
Messages
1,972
Likes
2
#13
Originally posted by dirt bike dave

It lists the top 36 schools in terms of most NFL players from '98 thru '02. 

Guess how many Pac-10 teams make the list?

EIGHT of the top 30 schools.  Not bad for a weak conference with no top-to-bottom strength . ;)

BTW, Georgia is #15 on the list. 

The report also shows % of players that start in the NFL and % that got degrees.
How many of those players from the PAC 10 in the NFL play defense.  I'm going to guess not too many.  There's no doubt that the PAC 10 can run the "West Coast offense", and there's talented QBs, Recievers, and even offensive lineman.

But, look at this stat:  In USC's last game of the season, against non-ranked Oregon State, they gave up 543 yards in total offense.  While the score shows one thing, that shows that they are beatable by a team that has some real offensive power. 
 

MrLuckey

Fire Marshall Ed
Joined
Feb 9, 2000
Messages
3,718
Likes
0
#14
Having more 'individuals' in the NFL says absolutely nothing about having good 'teams' in the conference, it's merely a method of convincing yourself.
 
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
29,202
Likes
718
Location
Dallas
#15
Gotta agree with that.
Just do a search on some of the NFL greats. There are soo many that came from schools you've probably never heard of. I don't think there's really any correlation between making it to the NFL and how good the college team was.

Where you are in the draft is probably effected by that, but how many #1 picks actually paid off?

BTW: the coaches/ap polls have split the "National Championship" between two schools, 7 times since 1970.