FanNation - The Republic of Sport

The BCS blows...thank you thank you, I'll be signing autographs after the show.

Why does there have to be any automatic bids? Why not just give the top 10 teams in the BCS standings a bid? This year 3 teams from the same division, not to mention the same conference (Big 12), arguably deserve a bid, and arguably no team from the ACC or Big East deserves one. The Mountain West sure does, and arguably is the third best conference in the nation (sorry, Pac 10). Of course, the ultimate solution is a 16 team playoff, which would include the other undefeated team, Ball State.

I'd complain more about the inclusion of the Big East champ than the ACC champ this year.

Worth noting: in 2004, the first time Utah busted the BCS, Boise State was also undefeated, but was ranked behind the Utes and didn't get to go to a BCS bowl. History repeats.

It's all about the money. The conferences that receive the automatic bids want them because the bowls give them money. And the bowls want those conferences because they draw TV and attendance revenues. While Boise State's a deserving program athletically, it's far from what the bowls would say is deserving financially.

BSU would crush Utah. Just like a couple years ago.

I think you meant Pac 10, not Big Ten, with two teams. If Oregon State beats Oregon next week, there will likely be just two at-large berths, and those will go to USC and the SEC runner-up. Texas or Oklahoma will earn an automatic berth as the #3 team with the other in the NCG. Ohio State will be going to the Capital One Bowl. Now, if Oregon State loses, I would contend that Boise State deserves to go more than Ohio State which has flopped in the past two NCG's. Maybe the Fiesta Bowl thinks Boise State would be a better opponent for Texas/Oklahoma and would force the Sugar to pick Utah.

Realistically and considering the financial difference, there should be criteria to determine which six conferences earn automatic berths. The current system is good at creating a NCG that otherwise couldn't have happened, but the other games are often uninteresting because you get a top 5 team playing a 20th-ranked team from a bad conference.

The BCS system is fundamentally unreasonable and unfair. The rankings assigned to teams that play in different conferences are based on purely subjective biases about the relative strength of conferences that cannot be substantiated. It is impossible to objectively compare the relative strength of teams that play in different conferences because they play entirely different schedules. The Big 12 plays against the Big 12, the SEC plays against the SEC, the Pac-10 plays against the Pac-10 and so on.

The great myth this year is that the Big 12 is the top conference in the nation. The reason I call it a myth is there is no way of knowing with any certainty whether it is true or not. Personally, my impression is the Big 12 is overrated and top teams from that conference would be overmatched against the likes of Florida, USC, or even Penn State to name a few. I believe Big 12 teams would lose the battle at the line of scrimmage. Of course, I can't prove that this is so, but neither can the BCS show with any certainty that their rankings in any way mimic the relative strength of teams that they rank. The whole BCS system is fundamentally subjective.

Under the circumstances, I think we should abandon the notion that there is an NCAA Football champion. Perhaps at some time in the future, they will institute a playoff, but who is anybody kidding by calling this BCS thing a championship? Using polls and computer programs to crown a football championship is a complete sham. All it really amounts to is a beauty contest.

He did mean Big Ten. Ohio State would likely get a bid, with an Oregon State loss, just because of their drawing power, not because they are deserving.

BCS-Florida-Alabama winner vs. Oklahoma/Texas
Fiesta-Ohio State vs. Oklahoma/Texas
Rose-USC vs. Penn State
Orange-ACC? vs. Cincinnati
Sugar-Florida-Alabama loser vs. Utah

If Oregon State wins, bump Ohio State and send USC to Tempe and you would be correct.

If Missouri wins, let's call for a playoff, because the Big 12 will get screwed. I don't agree on the assessment of the Big 12. While the other conferences boast two great BCS-bowl quality teams at best (SEC, Big 10, and Pac 10 or 12 mediocre teams (the ACC), the Big 12 is at least four deep and maybe five, and I would put Nebraska up against the sixth best team in any other conference and they would...probably lose. I went too far. The rest of the North past Missouri is pretty awful, and Missouri isn't that great either.

Why is it being considered impossible for Utah to play for a national championship? They are undefeated through a tough conference schedule. They beat three top 25 teams, Oregon St., TCU, and BYU. Last time I checked, Alabama is the only other undefeated team in the running, and they will most likely lose badly to Florida. If the Utes get stuck playing some bad team from the ACC or Big East as their BCS reward again, that would really be a shame. I'd like to see them play Florida for the BCS title. GO UTES!!!

QUOTE(#2):

Originally posted 01:30 AM ET  11.23 by FlameOfYah

Why does there have to be any automatic bids? Why not just give the top 10 teams in the BCS standings a bid? This year 3 teams from the same division, not to mention the same conference (Big 12), arguably deserve a bid, and arguably no team from the ACC or Big East deserves one.

Back on earth, likely Big East champ Cincinnati gave Oklahoma a better game than Texas Tech did.

QUOTE(#11):

Originally posted 02:48 AM ET  11.23 by CuseFanInSoCal

Back on earth, likely Big East champ Cincinnati gave Oklahoma a better game than Texas Tech did.

It's a toss-up. More importantly, none of the BCS games will be played in Norman--where it's next to impossible to beat Oklahoma (or even come close sometimes).

"Is it fair that the ACC automatically earns a bid over a potentially undefeated mid-major with a BCS victory already under its belt?"

You really think some undefeated mid-major team would still be undefeated if it played in the ACC? Well, think that if you like--delusions help one face reality (sort of). More importantly: is it fair that any conference champ doesn't get to play for the NCAA I-A championship? (No.) Is the BCS ever fair? (No.) Do the BCS conferences care that the BCS is not fair? (No... they did create the BCS for themselves, after all.) Only a true playoff system will ever produce a true national champion.

At the very least, can we all agree that 3 losses disqualifies a team for a BCS bowl? I'm just worried that Utah will get stuck playing another 3 loss team. Pitt from 2004 was a joke. Granted I don't think this year's Utah team has the same fire power as the 2004 team, but at the very least give them a big-time matchup once they've earned it.

Three of the worst teams in the nation play in the WAC. Add to that the only decent Boise St victory was a game over Oregon playing with a third string QB. Boise St is, like Hawaii last year, unproven and unlikely to be one of the top teams. For a BCS bowl a team should have to prove itself first. No more Hawaiis.

This may sound like a cop-out, but why not institute a playoff using the BCS system that is already in place? Use the BCS standings to determine the bracket. If you pull out, say, the top 6 teams, #1 and #2 get a bye. Then, it looks like this:

Orange: 3 vs. 6
Sugar: 4 vs. 5
Rose: 1 vs. lowest remaining
Fiesta: 2 vs. highest remaining
BCS: Last two remaining

Also, all of the non-BCS bowls in December and New Year's Day can still go on for all bowl-eligible teams. If need be to broaden the playoff, we bring in a couple of the non-BCS New Year's games (Gator, Capital One, Cotton, etc.).

Ultimately, tailor it as you see fit. But, the main idea is that the bowl games still get their revenue. The BCS appeasers still are happy. Everybody else still goes bowling. And there is a playoff system.

I agree with everything GlennAllen wrote in post 13. Why pick on the ACC? Despite its past BCS bowl game performances, its teams handled themselves fine when they played out of conference this season. I don't think a conference should be punished for being as balanced as the ACC or as unbalanced as the Pac-10. I hope that the BCS is one day replaced with a more equitable system -- if only to end these silly conference strength debates.

Yeah... We need a playoff.

As a Utah fan, I would shiver if the Utes ever had to face Boise State...it's sort of a shame they can't both be invited to face each other to settle the best of the non-BCS question. Boise State is a highly talented group who wore the mantle of BCS Buster with great class. I am sure they will be back in the mix. Would love to see them in the MWC.

QUOTE(#14):

Originally posted 08:10 AM ET  11.23 by twoody20007

At the very least, can we all agree that 3 losses disqualifies a team for a BCS bowl? I'm just worried that Utah will get stuck playing another 3 loss team. Pitt from 2004 was a joke. Granted I don't think this year's Utah team has the same fire power as the 2004 team, but at the very least give them a big-time matchup once they've earned it.

No. Given BCS rules, three-loss teams have to be allowed or there often will not be enough teams for all the BCS bowls.

Besides, I don't think you have to worry about your Utes playing a three-loss team. They seem bound for the Fiesta or Sugar (the Big East champ seems likely to be Cinci, and Utah is certainly more attractive to bowls than they are, hence the Bearcats fall to the Orange, and the Big East streak of BCS bowl wins continues), and while it's theoretically possible for them to face a three-loss team in either (Florida loses to FSU and 'Bama AND Georgia loses to Georgia Tech likely puts a three-loss SEC runner-up Florida in the sugar; Missouri loses to Kansas but wins the Big 12 title game would definitely put a three-loss Big 12 champ in the Fiesta), it doesn't seem likely.