BCS - Essentially got it right?

[Tharvot]

Before the BCS system, there was always a debate over which team was really the best in the nation. We had split titles (Michigan and Nebraska was the last one I think) and endless debate.

Really, thinking back on it, the BCS essentially got things right. I don't have any complaint about the teams that have been crowned champs under the system. I think each champ was the deserved national champion. There has been some debate over some teams being snubbed from the title game, but in the end, the best team has taken the title each year IMO.

Will the 4-team playoff have the same stigma? Honestly, there isn't much difference between #5 and #4...really there is marginal difference between #4 and the rest of the top 10 most years. Won't the 4-team playoff just be littered with the same complaints? What is the magic number then? 8, 10?

CFB post season is going to get messier before it gets better.

 

[WhiteMamba]

No major disasters I suppose.

I was always in the minority in thinking the best team was crowned champion.

I like to give the Bama fans shit about it. But outside of a year or two... They did good.

 

[romeo212000]

The only time they really screwed up was the LSU vs Bama rematch year.

 

[Tharvot]

The only time they really screwed up was the LSU vs Bama rematch year.

Yeah, I hated that and didn't watch it at all...but when Bama trounced LSU, the BCS was justified in their pick.

 

[Codaxx]

Before the BCS system, there was always a debate over which team was really the best in the nation. We had split titles (Michigan and Nebraska was the last one I think) and endless debate.

Really, thinking back on it, the BCS essentially got things right. I don't have any complaint about the teams that have been crowned champs under the system. I think each champ was the deserved national champion. There has been some debate over some teams being snubbed from the title game, but in the end, the best team has taken the title each year IMO.

Will the 4-team playoff have the same stigma? Honestly, there isn't much difference between #5 and #4...really there is marginal difference between #4 and the rest of the top 10 most years. Won't the 4-team playoff just be littered with the same complaints? What is the magic number then? 8, 10?

CFB post season is going to get messier before it gets better.

-
I am not sure how you can say that. There have been some terrible decisions. I believe the dog has won around 50% of the games, so the match-ups are more important than you care to admit. You are saying the team that won deserved the title, only because it is harder to picture the alternate universe. Ohio State was clearly better than Florida, until they played. I think the BCS has been right in about 2/3rds of their match-ups. I think there is a massive difference between arguing about #2 and #3 and #4 and #5. Assume every game is a coin flip. Currently #2 has a 50% chance and #3 has a 0% chance. new system #4 has a 25% and #5 has a 0%. It is significantly difference argument. Now consider that #4 will not be favored in its games and the argument is even less significant.

 

[romeo212000]

Yeah, I hated that and didn't watch it at all...but when Bama trounced LSU, the BCS was justified in their pick.

I disagree. Anything can happen on any given day and Alabama did not deserve that shot.

 

[Codaxx]

Yeah, I hated that and didn't watch it at all...but when Bama trounced LSU, the BCS was justified in their pick.

-
The results do not justify the pick. You are assuming that Ok State would not have beaten LSU that day.

 

[WhiteMamba]

The only time they really screwed up was the LSU vs Bama rematch year.

Oregon got a bit of a raw deal in 2001. #2 in both polls. Nebraska #4 I believe. Colorado beat em pretty good and the Buffs won the conference but the Huskers got the bid.

Worked out well for Oregon cuz I don't think anyone was beating 2001 Miami.

THe Ducks ended up curb stomping Colorado so it worked out ok.

 

[Tharvot]

-
I am not sure how you can say that. There have been some terrible decisions. I believe the dog has won around 50% of the games, so the match-ups are more important than you care to admit. You are saying the team that won deserved the title, only because it is harder to picture the alternate universe. Ohio State was clearly better than Florida, until they played. I think the BCS has been right in about 2/3rds of their match-ups. I think there is a massive difference between arguing about #2 and #3 and #4 and #5. Assume every game is a coin flip. Currently #2 has a 50% chance and #3 has a 0% chance. new system #4 has a 25% and #5 has a 0%. It is significantly difference argument. Now consider that #4 will not be favored in its games and the argument is even less significant.

Florida got in that title game, even though there was cry for Michigan to go for a rematch, and they clearly showed they deserved the spot.

Name one crowned champ that shouldn't have been there under the BCS system. I can't think of any.

There have been some teams that had cases for belonging in the game, but I don't there were any situations where the 2 teams in the game were undeserving.

 

[Tharvot]

-
The results do not justify the pick. You are assuming that Ok State would not have beaten LSU that day.

No I'm not. The fact that Alabama won proves that they were deserving of a slot there. OKSt had a case to be there too.

You can make the same argument for a 4-team playoff too. Say team #4 beats team #1 in the play-in. That clearly proves that #4 deserved their spot, but it doesn't say that team #5 couldn't have also won...they probably have a similar resume to the team that got in above them.

So, you don't really resolve any of the complaints. Year in and year out, most teams in the top 10 at the end of the season are pretty even. There are usually a couple that stand out, but on any given day most of them could win vs any of the others.

 

[Tharvot]

Oregon got a bit of a raw deal in 2001. #2 in both polls. Nebraska #4 I believe. Colorado beat em pretty good and the Buffs won the conference but the Huskers got the bid.

Worked out well for Oregon cuz I don't think anyone was beating 2001 Miami.

THe Ducks ended up curb stomping Colorado so it worked out ok.

Agree. At the end of the day, the BCS probably got the champ right, but maybe not the #2. A similar thing happened when Ohio State got back in the title game to play LSU. They weren't the #2 that year, and lost to Illinois near the end of the season. But, everyone in front of them also lost in the final 2 weeks and they snuck in (as #1 I think?)...then got soundly beaten by a better LSU team that was the real #1 most of the season.

At the end of the day, maybe a different team would have given LSU a better game that year (WVU was really strong if I recall), but I think LSU was definitely the correct champ.

 

[Codaxx]

Florida got in that title game, even though there was cry for Michigan to go for a rematch, and they clearly showed they deserved the spot.

Name one crowned champ that shouldn't have been there under the BCS system. I can't think of any.

There have been some teams that had cases for belonging in the game, but I don't there were any situations where the 2 teams in the game were undeserving.

-
I dont think 2 teams have been undeserving, but at least one team has been questionable. I was actually OK with Florida. Much better SOS. I pted that out, because it is the only BCS champ that did not finish #1 in the F+ rankings. Did LSU with 2 losses deserve to be there? Very debatable. I am just not ready to assume they were the only 2 loss team that would have beaten OSU that day. Did Nebraska deserve to be in? That is a hell no. Did OU deserve to be in after getting pasted by KSU? Hell no. Would LSU have won a title if USC played them instead of OU? Not sure. Would USC have beaten Auburn? Not sure.

 

[theboardref]

Before the BCS system, there was always a debate over which team was really the best in the nation. We had split titles (Michigan and Nebraska was the last one I think) and endless debate.

Really, thinking back on it, the BCS essentially got things right. I don't have any complaint about the teams that have been crowned champs under the system. I think each champ was the deserved national champion. There has been some debate over some teams being snubbed from the title game, but in the end, the best team has taken the title each year IMO.

Will the 4-team playoff have the same stigma? Honestly, there isn't much difference between #5 and #4...really there is marginal difference between #4 and the rest of the top 10 most years. Won't the 4-team playoff just be littered with the same complaints? What is the magic number then? 8, 10?

CFB post season is going to get messier before it gets better.

This also comes from a fan of a team that got nearly an endless supply of chances to get slaughtered in the title game...

 

[Codaxx]

At the end of the day, maybe a different team would have given LSU a better game that year (WVU was really strong if I recall), but I think LSU was definitely the correct champ.[/QUOTE]

this is probably the most debatable champ. LSU did not look particularly good coming into the game. They were quite banged up. Most believed Georgia was the better team a the end of the regular season. I actually said at the time that Georgia would easily beat LSU had they played in SEC champ game, but give LSU a month to heal and I am not sure LSU would lose to Georgia. 8 teams finished with 2 or less losses that yr. Easily the hardest yr to say that the correct NC was crowned.

 

[GamingGator]

Auburn is the only team i can think of that should have been in the NCG that wasn't.

 

[Tharvot]

This also comes from a fan of a team that got nearly an endless supply of chances to get slaughtered in the title game...

Right. 3 chances. The same # LSU has gotten.

The only time they really didn't deserve their spot was vs LSU and Ohio State only got that chance because everyone ahead of them lost in the closing weeks.

They beat Miami in the '01 season when they were huge underdogs and got smoked by UF in '06 when they were the unanimous #1 heading in to the game.

 

[boomtown]

when quality losses were brought to the table...it was on its way out
we saw utah pound alabama, louisville pound florida...is it really justified to just assume a team deserves another shot because it lost to number one? there's nothing unreasonable about thinking osu could've rolled LSU...or the other way around...who knows? that would have been one of the best nc matchups ever...but the bcs fucked it up

 

[rolltide14_0]

when quality losses were brought to the table...it was on its way out
we saw utah pound alabama, louisville pound florida...is it really justified to just assume a team deserves another shot because it lost to number one? there's nothing unreasonable about thinking osu could've rolled LSU...or the other way around...who knows? that would have been one of the best nc matchups ever...but the bcs fucked it up

Well it makes sense in my bias opinion. We lost in OT to the #1 team in the country, and regardless of the circumstances, Oklahoma State dropped a game to an unranked team that they should have blown out.

 

[romeo212000]

Well it makes sense in my bias opinion. We lost in OT to the #1 team in the country, and regardless of the circumstances, Oklahoma State dropped a game to an unranked team that they should have blown out.

And you bama fans still ignore the circumstances surrounding that loss.

 

[bocomo007]

Yeah, I hated that and didn't watch it at all...but when Bama trounced LSU, the BCS was justified in their pick.

Yeah, i hated the idea of a stupid rematch and didn't think bama deserved it but after we laid and egg in the game, i had to just shut my mouth