Ending the BCS?
- Thread starter Jonny_B
- Start date
I kind of wish ND would join the Big 10. It would raise the level of their football team.
what about some solution regarding the conference championship games? it seems like they're been responsible for a couple record foul-ups recently where teams in non-championship conferences weren't even playing but got a boost. don't they all play the same number of games?
I kind of wish ND would join the Big 10. It would raise the level of their football team.
We dont want them
the BCS has been screwed from the start. As for Mizzou, they're in a line of 4 big 12 teams now that have been fucked out of a BCS championship thanks to the Big 12 championship. At the very least, all the other conferences (like the big 10, pac, etc.) should have a championship.
The fact that Kansas is going to the orange bowl when Mizzou (the ONLY ranked team KU played), beat them... is f'ing ridiculous. and Mizzou's only loss is to oklahoma, a team kansas never played. Someone wanna explain that to me?
Also, 32 bowls is f'ing ridiculous. Why not have ever conference have a championship. That gives you 11 teams. Add in 5 wild cards. 16 team playoff, by the end of december you'd have your bowls and a true champion.
Also, a 16 team playoff would only add 2 games to the schedule of the champions (it's 4 games, they'd play a conference championship and a bowl anyways.)
The problem is, the people that host the 32 bowls don't want to lose their games or some BS like that. And the sports writers need something to bitch about every year.
The fact that Kansas is going to the orange bowl when Mizzou (the ONLY ranked team KU played), beat them... is f'ing ridiculous. and Mizzou's only loss is to oklahoma, a team kansas never played. Someone wanna explain that to me?
Also, 32 bowls is f'ing ridiculous. Why not have ever conference have a championship. That gives you 11 teams. Add in 5 wild cards. 16 team playoff, by the end of december you'd have your bowls and a true champion.
Also, a 16 team playoff would only add 2 games to the schedule of the champions (it's 4 games, they'd play a conference championship and a bowl anyways.)
The problem is, the people that host the 32 bowls don't want to lose their games or some BS like that. And the sports writers need something to bitch about every year.
Is that why people said Ohio State didn't play anyone last year as well? Three times they played the #2 team in the country, and it sill didn't mean anything to a lot of people.
Yeah, and Hawaii is in a bowl game too. Know what their SoS was? 119th... Outta 119.
And then there's Kansas. GODDAMMIT FUCK THE BOWL SYSTEM
Bah, you just have to admit that there is a much better tournament way of doing it...
I understand that there is history involved, but godddammit.
I think you can keep the rankings as they are. Then you could do something like take any undefeated team that leads it's conference plus whoever hasn't been chosen by that method starting at the top of the list until you get 16 teams. there may be some controversy surrounding that 16th-17th team, but at that level teams have lost at least a couple games, so you can't say they didn't have a chance.
scrap conference playoffs.
scrap conference playoffs.
eh, still, if you don't make the top16... then quit bitching. 11 conference champs and 5 randoms that didn't win their conference yet should still be contenders... is definitely the way to go.
and like i said earlier, that theoretically only adds 2 games to whoever ends up playing in the championships schedule. so 2 teams would play 2 extra games, and 2 other teams would play 1 extra game.
and like i said earlier, that theoretically only adds 2 games to whoever ends up playing in the championships schedule. so 2 teams would play 2 extra games, and 2 other teams would play 1 extra game.
but they'll only be skewed so much. a 16 team play off would eliminate most of the BS because chances are, out of those 16 slots, they probably won't miss the best team in the country.
No they can still totally be skewed.
5 teams ranked in the SEC. Yet only 2 in the Pac10 when they Pac10 was a much tougher conference to play in this year? And this is after everything's played out
The important thing is to sort out the best team. Like you said, rankings are always skewed. if you take conf champs plus teams that are ranked high to fill it out you're bound to find the best team. If you want to sort out the exact rankings of all teams through play you need to play too many games.
No system, short of the playoffs as three game series' starting in August, or some kind of round robin thing starting in June, is going to put every team in its "proper" place.