The BCS Worked

[PeteCalvin]

Maybe a 1 loss Kansas does the same thing :noidea:.

That definitely would have stung Buckeye Nation more, for sure.

 

[TrickySU]

My point is that Auburn deserved to play in it and Oklahoma did not because the computers computers saw it that way. It shows EXACTLY what was wrong with the BCS. The Sooners started #2 and finished there, the only other very good team that played all year was Texas. Virginia Tech, whom Auburn did "squeak by" played that undefeated USC team in the opener and played them tight as I recall it was Reggie (VACATED) Bush who scored on VT very late in the 4th for USC to win. Auburn beat everyone they played in the SEC by A LOT. Only LSU was close and they wound up with 4 wins over top 10 teams. I think anyone that saw both Oklahoma play and Auburn play felt they got the shaft.

The very reason I posted this is because this is the prime example of it not working. I would have LOVED to see if USC could have scored on Auburn and I am absolutely sure that the Tigers would not have given up 55 when they only gave up 20 one time all season. That was the right matchup. The BCS didn't work. Sometimes cheaters win.

Plus, no disrespect but...weren't you like 12 then?

Maybe Auburn deserved to play in it, but if they did then we'd be saying Oklahoma deserved it instead. Like I said, back in 2004 I thought Auburn should've been in. I would've loved to see a USC/Auburn title game too. The argument though isn't whether it should've been Oklahoma or Auburn, the argument is that the best team won. USC was the best team in 2004. The BCS didn't give Auburn their shot, but USC was the dominant team in college football that year.

I was actually 9 at the time haha. But, I was still old enough to remember that year. I watched every BCS bowl and plenty of other bowls. I saw Auburn play well in their game. They were a good team. Then, I watched a USC team completely destroy an Oklahoma team that was only giving up 17 points per game. USC was dominant on all levels. Matt Leinart, Reggie Bush, LenDale White, Dwayne Jarrett, and Steve Smith on offense and Lawrence Jackson, Mike Patterson, Shaun Cody, and Lofa Tatupu on defense.

Plus, that USC team is called the best team of the decade.

 

[Millhouse]

Can anyone honestly say that the best team didn't win the national championship during the BCS era? I think a playoff is going to be fun, but ultimately, the BCS system crowned the best college football team each year. A playoff this year would have had Alabama and Stanford in it. Both teams lost in their BCS bowl games.

Not playing any games would've "worked".

We all thought Alabama would kill Oklahoma.

After all these games, how anyone could pretend to know who would win what is kidding themselves.

Auburn was lucky to make the BCS Championship and FSU barely won.

 

[SWC75]

For years we've had a two team playoff ... and team #3 is always pissed off.

Now we'll have a four team playoff ... and team #5 will be pissed off.

Somebody has to be on the bubble.

What you want is for the argument to be between teams that nobody really thinks could be the bets team in the country. Then your playoff is big enough. You want it to include ALL the contenders, not just a couple of them. With two teams, you will elave somebody out who should have been in there 76% of the time. With four teams you do it 30% of the time. (Per my study, above.) With 8 teams, you're done, unless the top conferences demand automatic bids. Then you might have to go to 16.

Since Division III runs a 32 team playoff, it's all perfectly doable.

 

[sufandu]

the argument is that the best team won. USC was the best team in 2004. Plus, that USC team is called the best team of the decade.

The point is, we don't know that because they never had the opportunity to settle it on the field. You can't assume just because they dropped 55 on Oklahoma that they would've beaten Auburn. Maybe they would have, maybe they wouldn't have. Oklahoma benefited from a system that didn't allow them to be leap frogged as along as they didn't lose. Auburn never had a chance to be #2 based on preseason rankings, not on field performance. As Millhouse pointed out, you can't assume anything before the games are played. This is especially true in an era where so few OOC games are played between major teams, and the few that are, are played in the first two weeks of the season. Teams can look very different in game 12 versus game 1. The BCS worked some of the time but certainly not enough of the time.

 

[TrickySU]

I'll also bring up the Alabama vs LSU rematch. The argument against a playoff had always been that it would devalue the regular season. By declaring Alabama the NC it completely made meaningless LSU's regular season win. What we ended up with were two 1 loss teams that had each beaten the other once. That is not what anyone would call conclusive.

The whole fraud the last 16 years was that we had no blueprint for a playoff. We've had a blueprint for decades. It's call the FCS, Division II, and Division III.

Edit: The 4 years discussed represent 25% of the BCS era. 75% success is a C grade in any college course.

I discussed 2004 Auburn again in my previous post.

2000 is the only year I will say the best team may not have won. Oklahoma was dominant though. They played a tougher schedule and that team is considered the 6th best in the decade.

2007 you said I knocked a team (Miami) one year for losing a game, but ignore a late season loss. I'm not ignoring the late season loss. The difference is that everyone lost late that year. Missouri, West Virginia, Oklahoma, and Kansas all lost late. Who should've been in over LSU? LSU had the best body of work. They beat #9 Virginia Tech 48-7 (VT finished the year ranked 3rd), beat 6 ranked teams (7 if you include Ohio State), and both of their losses came in triple overtime games.

In 2011 Alabama was the best team in college football. The National Championship just proved it. In the regular season matchup, Alabama missed 3 field goals in regulation and 1 in overtime. The National Championship was dominated by Alabama. Bama had the top ranked defense in the country. Their defense ranked first in all four major, team defensive categories. This is the first time it happened since Oklahoma in 1986. I wasn't happy that Alabama won another championship, but they were the best team in the country.

 

[Marsh01]

For years we've had a two team playoff ... and team #3 is always pissed off.

Now we'll have a four team playoff ... and team #5 will be pissed off.

Somebody has to be on the bubble.

Yea but at least more than 2 teams will be invited to the big boy table. Its a start

 

[SWC75]

What i hated most about the BCS was the "single elimination" concept. Firstly, it wasn't equal for all teams. Some teams could lose and still make it. Others could not. And teams that lost early had an advantage over teams that lost late. But my big objection is this: in the NFL you have 25-30 year old players who have played for their teams for several eyars. They are given 4 exhibition games to prepare for the seoasn. They play 16 games. 7-9 teams have made the playoffs, (and had a home game!). A 9-7 team has won the Super Bowl. The NFL is very forgiving of defeat and the emphasis is on the team you become by the end of the season. In college, you have kaleidoscopic line-ups aof players in their alte teens and early 20's. You get no exhibition games. You play 12 games and, unless you are one of the elite programs, you can lose a game in August and your national title hopes are crushed.

The ideal would probably be to organize eight conferences, (Big East, ACC, SEC, Big 10, Big 8. SWC, WAC and Pac whatever), and make sure that all the schools that have shown the capability to produce a national championships, (including you, Notre Dame!) are in those 8 conferences. Then have the conference winners play off for the national championship. Since that isn't happening, and 8 team playoff with maybe 5 auto bids to the ACC, SWC, Big 10, Big 12 and Pac 12 and 3 at large teams looks pretty good.

 

[Marsh01]

What i hated most about the BCS was the "single elimination" concept. Firstly, it wasn't equal for all teams. Some teams could lose and still make it. Others could not. And teams that lost early had an advantage over teams that lost late. But my big objection is this: in the NFL you have 25-30 year old players who have played for their teams for several eyars. They are given 4 exhibition games to prepare for the seoasn. They play 16 games. 7-9 teams have made the playoffs, (and had a home game!). A 9-7 team has won the Super Bowl. The NFL is very forgiving of defeat and the emphasis is on the team you become by the end of the season. In college, you have kaleidoscopic line-ups aof players in their alte teens and early 20's. You get no exhibition games. You play 12 games and, unless you are one of the elite programs, you can lose a game in August and your national title hopes are crushed.

The ideal would probably be to organize eight conferences, (Big East, ACC, SEC, Big 10, Big 8. SWC, WAC and Pac whatever), and make sure that all the schools that have shown the capability to produce a national championships, (including you, Notre Dame!) are in those 8 conferences. Then have the conference winners play off for the national championship. Since that isn't happening, and 8 team playoff with maybe 5 auto bids to the ACC, SWC, Big 10, Big 12 and Pac 12 and 3 at large teams looks pretty good.

The whole "entire season is a playoff" argument makes me want to puke.

 

[sufandu]

I discussed 2004 Auburn again in my previous post.

2000 is the only year I will say the best team may not have won. Oklahoma was dominant though. They played a tougher schedule and that team is considered the 6th best in the decade.

2007 you said I knocked a team (Miami) one year for losing a game, but ignore a late season loss. I'm not ignoring the late season loss. The difference is that everyone lost late that year. Missouri, West Virginia, Oklahoma, and Kansas all lost late. Who should've been in over LSU? LSU had the best body of work. They beat #9 Virginia Tech 48-7 (VT finished the year ranked 3rd), beat 6 ranked teams (7 if you include Ohio State), and both of their losses came in triple overtime games.

In 2011 Alabama was the best team in college football. The National Championship just proved it. In the regular season matchup, Alabama missed 3 field goals in regulation and 1 in overtime. The National Championship was dominated by Alabama. Bama had the top ranked defense in the country. Their defense ranked first in all four major, team defensive categories. This is the first time it happened since Oklahoma in 1986. I wasn't happy that Alabama won another championship, but they were the best team in the country.

I didn't say you knocked Miami. I said the system did. If it works one way one year it has to work the same way in other years. BTW, Miami was dominant that year too. They beat #1 FSU, #2 Virginia Tech by 20 and # 7 Florida by 17, in addition to all of their other blow outs. The biggest difference was that they played their first ranked team on the road the second week of the season. Oklahoma didn't see a ranked team until October. And it's not as if they didn't have some tight games. They squeaked by a 3-8 Oklahoma State team with a score of 12-7.

Kansas had one fewer loss than LSU and they also beat Virginia Tech. Kansas's one loss was to a Missouri team that finished at #7 and LSU's second loss was to unranked (at the time) Arkansas. The primary problem here is that teams were judged too much against what they had done the previous year. Had Kansas had a good year in 2006 they would've had a higher preseason rank and wouldn't have had as far to climb when teams in front of them lost. The main point is, and you keep missing this so I'll put it in bold for you, we can't know for sure because it wasn't settled on the field.

If we played the "they beat this team who beat this team by this much" game this year, we'd say FSU wins last night by at least 35 because they crushed Clemson who beat a healthy Georgia team that Auburn had to get lucky to beat even though, when Auburn played them, they had a bunch of injuries. It doesn't work unless it's settled on the field.

And with Alabama-vs-LSU, I always thought kicking was part of football. I think Alabama would agree. Just ask them about the Ironbowl this year. You keep ignoring the general points being made. If the regular season is going to mean something (and that was the argument), then the LSU win at Alabama ( I'll repeat, it was a conference win on the road) should count as much as the neutral site win Alabama had.

Why are you trying so hard to defend a system that had so many flaws in it? Check your ego for a moment, and see that, far too often, it didn't allow things to be handled on the field.

 

[Marsh01]

we can't know for sure because it wasn't settled on the field.

This is spot on. You never get the NC State over Houston or Villanova over Georgetown moments in college football because the system is so hell bent on getting the 2 best teams to play for the title which drives me absolutely crazy. I want upsets. I want cinderellas. I want a 3 loss team to make it to the football championship game. This is what makes sports so great. If it works out where 1 plays 2 then so be it. College football purists (media and fans) have this bug up their a$$ and think that the sport is bigger than life itself and they "deserve" to see the best teams play.

Screw that. You deserve nothing and should be happy with who ends up in the title game regardless of records or rankings. No other sport operates like college football and I am glad because it would ruin the beauty of it.

 

[sufandu]

College football purists (media and fans) have this bug up their a$$ and think that the sport is bigger than life itself and they "deserve" to see the best teams play.

And with the BCS system that wasn't even the case often enough. The whole "body of work" thing was far to inconsistently applied. Each year it had a different definition. Also, with the lack of non-conference match-ups between major teams we had no way of knowing for sure who's body of work was actually the best. "This is the best conference." How do we know that? Is it because your two best teams beat teams that people assumed would be good but by week 9 had 4 losses? This rush to play so many conference games has taken away an aspect of college football that was great when there were so many independents, a variety of match-ups throughout the season. I know it'll never happen, but I'd love to see no more than 7 conference games and 5 non-conference games with some of those taking place after september (and I don't mean the fodder games that the big boys play before their rivalry games).

 

[Scooch]

How on earth do you determine that the "best" team won?

Was the 2003 SU hoops team the "best" team? They were a #3 seed, after all.
Was the 2011 Mavs the "best" team?
Was the 2013 Ravens the "best" team?

The BCS did exactly what it set out to do, pair a somewhat arbitrarily decided #1 vs. #2. Whether either of those teams were the "best" is completely unknowable.

 

[TDTOrange]

How on earth do you determine that the "best" team won?

Was the 2003 SU hoops team the "best" team? They were a #3 seed, after all.
Was the 2011 Mavs the "best" team?
Was the 2013 Ravens the "best" team?

The BCS did exactly what it set out to do, pair a somewhat arbitrarily decided #1 vs. #2. Whether either of those teams were the "best" is completely unknowable.

^ This

The "best" team is always going to be subjective, and something people can argue about in a sports bar or internet forum. A champion is determined on the field, and finally college football is entering into an era that will crown a champion.

 

[TrickySU]

I didn't say you knocked Miami. I said the system did. If it works one way one year it has to work the same way in other years. BTW, Miami was dominant that year too. They beat #1 FSU, #2 Virginia Tech by 20 and # 7 Florida by 17, in addition to all of their other blow outs. The biggest difference was that they played their first ranked team on the road the second week of the season. Oklahoma didn't see a ranked team until October. And it's not as if they didn't have some tight games. They squeaked by a 3-8 Oklahoma State team with a score of 12-7.

Kansas had one fewer loss than LSU and they also beat Virginia Tech. Kansas's one loss was to a Missouri team that finished at #7 and LSU's second loss was to unranked (at the time) Arkansas. The primary problem here is that teams were judged too much against what they had done the previous year. Had Kansas had a good year in 2006 they would've had a higher preseason rank and wouldn't have had as far to climb when teams in front of them lost. The main point is, and you keep missing this so I'll put it in bold for you, we can't know for sure because it wasn't settled on the field.

If we played the "they beat this team who beat this team by this much" game this year, we'd say FSU wins last night by at least 35 because they crushed Clemson who beat a healthy Georgia team that Auburn had to get lucky to beat even though, when Auburn played them, they had a bunch of injuries. It doesn't work unless it's settled on the field.

And with Alabama-vs-LSU, I always thought kicking was part of football. I think Alabama would agree. Just ask them about the Ironbowl this year. You keep ignoring the general points being made. If the regular season is going to mean something (and that was the argument), then the LSU win at Alabama ( I'll repeat, it was a conference win on the road) should count as much as the neutral site win Alabama had.

Why are you trying so hard to defend a system that had so many flaws in it? Check your ego for a moment, and see that, far too often, it didn't allow things to be handled on the field.

I already said I'll give you Miami in 2000.

A playoff in 2007 would have left out Kansas and Missouri so there would be no difference. #2 Kansas played #3 Missouri in the regular season finale. Kansas lost and then Missouri lost in the Big 12 Championship to Oklahoma. Kansas wasn't ranked to start the season yet they were ranked 2nd going into their last regular season game. I think they did just fine even though they were unranked in the preseason. Again there was no definitive best team in 2007 and not even a playoff would have helped.

Kicking is part of football. Here's what you're not getting: Alabama was the best team in college football in 2011. Can you honestly say they weren't?

A playoff would have just as many flaws. How many times does the best team win in college basketball? I love the the NCAA tournament for basketball. It is the greatest postseason tournament in all of sports. Marsh is right in saying that the upsets and Cinderella's are what make sports so great. I completely agree. A playoff in football would be fun. Rooting for upsets and Cinderella's would be great, but that doesn't mean the best team will win.

The point is the BCS put #1 vs. #2. You might not get that in a playoff.

 

[Marsh01]

How on earth do you determine that the "best" team won?

Was the 2003 SU hoops team the "best" team? They were a #3 seed, after all.
Was the 2011 Mavs the "best" team?
Was the 2013 Ravens the "best" team?

The BCS did exactly what it set out to do, pair a somewhat arbitrarily decided #1 vs. #2. Whether either of those teams were the "best" is completely unknowable.

Spot on. The best team never wins because the sport is afraid to actually have a team like Missouri this year or pick a team from previous years win a national title in their beloved billion dollar sport.

College Basketball may be far from perfect but in the end they have perfected a way to decide who is national champion and that is all that matters.

 

[Marsh01]

The point in the BCS put #1 vs. #2. You might not get that in a playoff.

And thats ok. We dont need this force fed 1 vs 2. I never got the mindset of this. If it works out then super. If it doesnt then thats what every sport deals with.

 

[Alsacs]

How on earth do you determine that the "best" team won?

Was the 2003 SU hoops team the "best" team? They were a #3 seed, after all.
Was the 2011 Mavs the "best" team?
Was the 2013 Ravens the "best" team?

The BCS did exactly what it set out to do, pair a somewhat arbitrarily decided #1 vs. #2. Whether either of those teams were the "best" is completely unknowable.

These are completely different animals. The NBA/NFL have playoffs that every team equally has a chance to qualify for based on how they perform in the season. Even in the NCAA Tournament has automatic tournament bids for every conference so every team controls their destiny to some extent. In college football PRESEASON rankings can affect how teams can qualify for the BCS Championship. In 2004, Oklahoma and USC were 1-2 in the polls THE ENTIRE year and even though Auburn went 13-0 thru the SEC they never passed either of those teams in the polls which were 2/3s of the BCS rankings. The only good thing the BCS did was get the B1G/Pac-12 out of their Rose Bowl shell and guarantee whatever two teams the BCS spit out as 1-2 would play for the NC title. The BCS didn't get it right and was way too subjective rather than objective. The fact that 2 polls are 2/3s of the system makes things impossible to be done without bias. For the NCAA tournament you have subjectivity in who gets in, but for the most part none of the last 5 teams in the NCAA tournament ever wins the NC title. The top teams win the tournament and they are established over the course of a season.

 

[TrickySU]

And thats ok. We dont need this force fed 1 vs 2. I never got the mindset of this. If it works out then super. If it doesnt then thats what every sport deals with.

Here's my point. If you want to crown the best college football team, then the BCS was the best system. If you want an entertaining and fun system, then a playoff is the way to go.

 

[TrickySU]

These are completely different animals. The NBA/NFL have playoffs that every team equally has a chance to qualify for based on how they perform in the season. Even in the NCAA Tournament has automatic tournament bids for every conference so every team controls their destiny to some extent. In college football PRESEASON rankings can affect how teams can qualify for the BCS Championship. In 2004, Oklahoma and USC were 1-2 in the polls THE ENTIRE year and even though Auburn went 13-0 thru the SEC they never passed either of those teams in the polls which were 2/3s of the BCS rankings. The only good thing the BCS did was get the B1G/Pac-12 out of their Rose Bowl shell and guarantee whatever two teams the BCS spit out as 1-2 would play for the NC title. The BCS didn't get it right and was way too subjective rather than objective. The fact that 2 polls are 2/3s of the system makes things impossible to be done without bias. For the NCAA tournament you have subjectivity in who gets in, but for the most part none of the last 5 teams in the NCAA tournament ever wins the NC title. The top teams win the tournament and they are established over the course of a season.

I think 2004 was really the only year that preseason polls made a difference and USC was still the best team. Last year Notre Dame went from unranked to #2 and it has happened plenty of other years.

 

[Marsh01]

Here's my point. If you want to crown the best college football team, then the BCS was the best system. If you want an entertaining and fun system, then a playoff is the way to go.

I hear you but then to your point then every sport is a fun and entertaining system then and we really dont get a true champion in any sport?

The way to get a best champion is to win it in the field/court. Then there are no arguments and no second guessing. The best team doesnt always win and that is what makes sports so great. I dont have a problem if the 7th best team wins it. College football needs to get off their "we are better than everyone else" stoop.

 

[sufandu]

I already said I'll give you Miami in 2000.

A playoff in 2007 would have left out Kansas and Missouri so there would be no difference. #2 Kansas played #3 Missouri in the regular season finale. Kansas lost and then Missouri lost in the Big 12 Championship to Oklahoma. Kansas wasn't ranked to start the season yet they were ranked 2nd going into their last regular season game. I think they did just fine even though they were unranked in the preseason. Again there was no definitive best team in 2007 and not even a playoff would have helped.

Kicking is part of football. Here's what you're not getting: Alabama was the best team in college football in 2011. Can you honestly say they weren't?

A playoff would have just as many flaws. How many times does the best team win in college basketball? I love the the NCAA tournament for basketball. It is the greatest postseason tournament in all of sports. Marsh is right in saying that the upsets and Cinderella's are what make sports so great. I completely agree. A playoff in football would be fun. Rooting for upsets and Cinderella's would be great, but that doesn't mean the best team will win.

The point is the BCS put #1 vs. #2. You might not get that in a playoff.

At one time or another the BCS failed to do what it was claimed to do:
1. Definitively put the best to teams together: We agree that Miami may have been the best team at the end of the year.

2. It won't devalue the regular season the way a playoff does: LSU's win over Alabama was devalued by Alabama's win in the rematch, regardless of who anyone thinks was the best team. I can honestly say that.

3. Put teams in with the best resume: This one is so subjective it's nearly impossible. What determines a better resume, good wins or bad losses? Kansas had no losses as bad, but fewer good wins than LSU in 2007, and we haven't really considered the other 2 loss teams. An eight team playoff (what I eventually hope to see) would've been ideal here. And how do we know what is a good/bad win/loss until we can look back at the season with some perspective. Texas and Baylor wins over Oklahoma this year suddenly look a little better now that Oklahoma beat Alabama.

No system will ever be without controversy. A playoff system will allow things to be settled on the field more conclusively than the BCS did. The idea that we had no idea how to implement it was a fraud (I already explained why in another post).

 

[sufandu]

I think 2004 was really the only year that preseason polls made a difference and USC was still the best team. Last year Notre Dame went from unranked to #2 and it has happened plenty of other years.

You keep saying USC was the best team like it is a fact. Two teams finished undefeated that year (actually it was 3, but I won't try and argue for Utah). No one will ever know for sure which one was better. It doesn't matter how enamored you were with Reggie Bush and Matt Leinart, no one will ever know who was better because they didn't play each other.

If you don't understand the media bias with regards to Notre Dame, there is no hope for you.

 

[RF2044]

The BCS was a wreck. The times they got it right it was like going into a very dark bar with sunglasses on and walking out with the prettiest girl. The end result was okay, but there were far better ways of determining the winner.

Also, you can't justify the BCS by how jilted teams performed in bowls that they really didn't want to play in. This year proves that --Alabama, Ohio State wanted to play in the big game; Baylor wanted a different opponent; Stanford was playing in its 3rd straight Rose Bowl. In each case, their opponent was much, much happier to be there.

Nonsense. The BCS was designed to remove the subjectivity that went into determining champions under the prior system, as well as to compensate for the two best teams often not playing each other due to conference bowl affiliation obligations.

The BCS formula has been much criticized--but at the end of the day it was just math. If people don't like the evaluative criteria or the weighting certain factors had, then they could be changed. And that happened often. Now, you could certainly argue about the mathematical inputs, whether the wrong factors were weighted too heavily, etc. but at the end of the day the two "best" teams as calculated by that year's mathematical model were identified and matched up.

I don't have an issue with a playoff system. It will probably be more exciting, it just won't necessarily guarantee that the "best" teams meet up in the NC game every year. Marsh's points above say it all, IMO. But I think you are going to see even worse politics than ever before in the polling system to jockey teams into that top 4. Imagine having an awesome season and being ranked the #5 team, but missing out on the NC playoffs? Especially if human subjectivity is part of how participants are determined [especially given conference bias, media bias, the impact of being rated highly to begin the season, etc.]. 4 is too few. 8 is probably too few; have a tough time justifying two top ten teams being left out of the playoff. Will be interesting to see how it plays out the first few years.

 

[TrickySU]

I hear you but then to your point then every sport is a fun and entertaining system then and we really dont get a true champion in any sport?

The way to get a best champion is to win it in the field/court. Then there are no arguments and no second guessing. The best team doesnt always win and that is what makes sports so great. I dont have a problem if the 7th best team wins it. College football needs to get off their "we are better than everyone else" stoop.

I think we're pretty much on the same page. The BCS was also entertaining and fun to watch as shown by this year's championship and 2005. You can get a true champion in a playoff system, it just doesn't happen as often as it did with the BCS. Either way I think a playoff will be nice to have.