PDA

View Full Version : Chicken @#$% BCS


Steeler in Carolina
12-06-2009, 08:30 PM
Put TCU vs. Boise in bowl games. This way, neither team can beat a BCS team. Way to fix the games BCS.

supa_fly_steeler
12-06-2009, 10:16 PM
bunch of twats, stupid system, FAIL

Nadroj 20
12-06-2009, 10:19 PM
http://sidelineblog.com/images/bcsjoke.jpg

supa_fly_steeler
12-06-2009, 10:21 PM
this made me really angry. hokies to own tennessee :D

revefsreleets
12-07-2009, 09:47 AM
Well, I don't think for a second that's the REAL reason they did this...I think they grabbed it because they had second choice, and matching up two of the other unbeatens makes a ton of sense...they can bill this as the OTHER National Championship game.

Personally, I think TCU will roll.

Fire Haley
12-07-2009, 10:14 AM
It's just college - I love all the match-ups, should be some great games.

Go Broncos!

revefsreleets
12-07-2009, 10:37 AM
http://www.ohio.com/sports/78665007.html

Not saying I agree with all of it, but it's a decent explanation....



How the major bowl lineup was made

Why Texas, Alabama gained shots at the title and others were left out

By Ralph D. Russo
Associated Press

Published on Monday, Dec 07, 2009

Should Texas be in the championship game? What was the case for TCU or Cincinnati to join Alabama in Pasadena, Calif., on Jan. 7? And wasn't Boise State supposed to get left out of the mix? The BCS often creates more questions than answers, so let's try to clear up a few mysteries right now.

Q: Why does Texas deserve to be in the championship game ahead of TCU, Cincinnati and Boise State?

A: Texas started the season ranked No. 2 and never slipped below No. 3 in the polls. Critics will note that, as the season progressed, the Longhorns' resume took some hits because the Big 12 wasn't as good this season as last. Texas has two victories against teams currently ranked in the Top 25 of the BCS standings or AP poll. TCU has two. Cincinnati has three. Boise State? Just one.

Texas played a soft nonconference slate, its best win coming against UCF. TCU won at Clemson. Cincinnati won at Oregon State. Boise State beat Oregon.

But despite all that, Texas still played a substantially tougher overall schedule than any of the other three, according to both the NCAA's rating and the Sagarin computer rating. And while the Big 12 was down, it still rated much better than either the Mountain West Conference (where TCU plays) and Western Athletic Conference (Boise State's league) in the Sagarin ratings. The Big 12 did trail the Big East.

There's no doubt the Longhorns' pedigree and starting position helped them win this race, but they still have the best case for being No. 2.

Q: Should we be questioning Alabama's worthiness, too?

A: No. The Crimson Tide's resume in impeccable. Alabama had three victories against currently ranked teams (Virginia Tech, LSU and Florida). Its schedule was rated fourth-toughest in the nation by the NCAA and 20th-toughest by Sagarin, tops by far among the unbeatens.

The SEC was the No. 1-rated conference by Sagarin, and anyone who watched Alabama dismantle the Gators saw a team that should be playing for a national championship.

Q: What is TCU's best argument for being in the championship game?

A: The Horned Frogs spent the second half of their season pummeling their opposition. TCU won its last six games by an average of 32 points, including routs of Utah and BYU. The Frogs look like a team that can compete with any opponent.

Q: What is Cincinnati's best argument for being in the championship game?

A: The Big East's relative strength compared to the Big 12. That, combined with the Bearcats' victory at Oregon State and one of the best offenses in the country.

Q: What is Boise State's best argument for being in the championship game?

A: The Broncos don't have a case. Since beating Oregon they have spent the rest of the season playing teams that range from slightly above-average (Fresno State and Nevada) to terrible (San Jose State, Hawaii, Utah State and Tulsa), with more terrible opponents than slightly above-average ones.

Q: Wasn't Boise State supposed to get shut out of the BCS once TCU earned an automatic bid?

A: Only one team from a conference without an automatic bid can earn an automatic bid by finishing in the top 12 of the final BCS standings. TCU locked that up. Conventional wisdom was the Broncos would get shut out like last year because the bowls aren't thrilled about inviting teams from those leagues — not big enough fan bases and not interesting enough to casual fans. But as marquee teams such as USC, Notre Dame and Miami accumulated losses, the Broncos became the only viable option.

Q: Why did the Fiesta Bowl pair TCU and Boise State, two BCS busters?

A: Because the other alternative was Iowa against one of the two undefeated so-called outsiders, which is not much of an alternative. Now the Fiesta Bowl can tout a game matching two undefeated teams, something no BCS game other than the national game has ever been able to do.

Q: Did any team that deserved to be in get left out?

A: Definitely not. There was talk Penn State (10-2) might get selected over Iowa (10-2) because the Nittany Lions and coach Joe Paterno have more national appeal. But the Hawkeyes beat Penn State.

Q: Aside from the championship game, which BCS game is a must-watch?

A: Hard to pass up Tim Tebow's last college game. He should go out with a big performance against Cincinnati's porous defense. It'll also be interesting to see how the Bearcats' potent spread offense matches up with the Gators' talented defense. And by then everyone should know one way or the other if Brian Kelly is going to be Notre Dame's next coach.

Q: Is college football any closer to having a playoff and getting rid of this frustrating system?

A: Maybe, but don't count on it. The new four-year TV contract with ESPN starts next season. A four-team playoff was proposed and shot down before the new deal was signed. The constant nagging and threats from politicians, combined with too many lackluster BCS matchups such as Iowa-Georgia Tech, might sway the people in charge to change.

Dino 6 Rings
12-07-2009, 10:58 AM
I love the match up...why the Ef would I want TCU at 12-0 vs Iowa at 10-2 or Boise State at 12-0 vs Georgia Tech at 10-2?

Give me the two undefeated Non BCS Teams squaring off to see who really is the best of the non-big boys.

I love the game. Seriously...unless Cincy had a shot at either one of those teams, I love the matchup.

This way, both teams are playing for something, both teams show up, no let down for missing the title game as the BCS Team, like Bama or Oklahoma have done these last couple seasons. Give me 2 hungry teams, that both can score, out for something to prove any day of the week.

Its a GREAT FOOTBALL match up. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just being a whiney bitach and really just wants a playoff system and will point to anything as an excuse to argue for one.

revefsreleets
12-07-2009, 11:05 AM
Well, as I said, (and I don't think I'm being a whiny bitch about it at all), I'd have scheduled these other BCS games differently.

I'd have Oregon play Florida.
OSU vs. TCU
Cincy vs. Boise

I think those are all better match-ups. Florida is going to slaughter Cincinnati. TCU is going to roll over Boise. Ohio State Oregon will be a good game, but there are better match-ups to be had. I think TCU is the only undefeated team in the same stratosphere as Texas and Bama, and I don't thibnk ANYONE is going to beat Bama...

Dino 6 Rings
12-07-2009, 11:44 AM
No, you're not being whiney or bitchy about it...just saying...I've been hearing it all morning that its a 'bad matchup' and I totally disagree...I love seeing the two "cinderellas" having to square off against each other instead of getting to play an ugly step-sister for bragging rights.

Nadroj 20
12-07-2009, 11:49 AM
Well, as I said, (and I don't think I'm being a whiny bitch about it at all), I'd have scheduled these other BCS games differently.

I'd have Oregon play Florida.
OSU vs. TCU
Cincy vs. Boise

I think those are all better match-ups. Florida is going to slaughter Cincinnati. TCU is going to roll over Boise. Ohio State Oregon will be a good game, but there are better match-ups to be had. I think TCU is the only undefeated team in the same stratosphere as Texas and Bama, and I don't thibnk ANYONE is going to beat Bama...

Rose bowl takes Big ten champ and Pac ten champ thats just how it is. Thats why osu and oregon are matched up

SteelersinCA
12-07-2009, 01:22 PM
I love the match up...why the Ef would I want TCU at 12-0 vs Iowa at 10-2 or Boise State at 12-0 vs Georgia Tech at 10-2?

Give me the two undefeated Non BCS Teams squaring off to see who really is the best of the non-big boys.

I love the game. Seriously...unless Cincy had a shot at either one of those teams, I love the matchup.

This way, both teams are playing for something, both teams show up, no let down for missing the title game as the BCS Team, like Bama or Oklahoma have done these last couple seasons. Give me 2 hungry teams, that both can score, out for something to prove any day of the week.

Its a GREAT FOOTBALL match up. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just being a whiney bitach and really just wants a playoff system and will point to anything as an excuse to argue for one.

Exactly, why should TCU or Boise get punished by playing substandard teams like OSU, Iowa, Oregon or GT. Let the 2 undefeated teams play and let the 2 loss teams who couldn't hack it in worthless conferences play each other.

Dino 6 Rings
12-07-2009, 01:42 PM
Exactly, why should TCU or Boise get punished by playing substandard teams like OSU, Iowa, Oregon or GT. Let the 2 undefeated teams play and let the 2 loss teams who couldn't hack it in worthless conferences play each other.

LOL! Nice Spin ! :applaudit: :hatsoff:

revefsreleets
12-07-2009, 02:50 PM
TCU could beat either Oregon or OSU. In fact, I think they'd give Texas a ride, but they couldn't beat Alabama.

At this late stage, I don't see Boise beating either. Cinci would be a nice match for them. And LOL at the guy telling me about the Pac-10/Big Ten match-ups...I know all that. I'm just saying since we DON'T have a playoff, if I COULD, I'd split the match-ups differently.

Funny how Oregon is now substandard....just a few weeks ago they were playing the best football in D-1, and, to my mind, a team that DID play the best football in the whole division still CAN play the best football in the whole division....but, hey, what do I know?

Steeler in Carolina
12-07-2009, 06:40 PM
I don't mind the matchup between Boise and TCU. My problem with it is that everyone says TCU doesn't play anybody or Boise doesn't play anyone. Now, when one beats the other, everyone will say TCU doesn't deserve anything, they only beat Boise and they are not BCS.

The big boy conferences worst nightmare would be TCU and Boise winning their bowl games over BCS teams, so they match them together to avoid it.

SteelersinCA
12-07-2009, 07:34 PM
TCU could beat either Oregon or OSU. In fact, I think they'd give Texas a ride, but they couldn't beat Alabama.

At this late stage, I don't see Boise beating either. Cinci would be a nice match for them. And LOL at the guy telling me about the Pac-10/Big Ten match-ups...I know all that. I'm just saying since we DON'T have a playoff, if I COULD, I'd split the match-ups differently.

Funny how Oregon is now substandard....just a few weeks ago they were playing the best football in D-1, and, to my mind, a team that DID play the best football in the whole division still CAN play the best football in the whole division....but, hey, what do I know?

Oregon was playing the best football, but losing kind of put a damper on that.

revefsreleets
12-09-2009, 04:12 PM
Oregon was playing the best football, but losing kind of put a damper on that.

I think USC has been the best team in the Country a couple times in the last 5 years, but they choked in games they should have won and eliminated themselves. They showed up big in their bowl games, though.

MasterOfPuppets
12-09-2009, 04:14 PM
House takes step toward NCAA football playoff


WASHINGTON (AP) - A House subcommittee approved legislation Wednesday aimed at forcing college football to switch to a playoff system to determine a national champion, over the objections of some lawmakers who said Congress had more pressing matters on its plate.

The bill, which faces long odds of becoming law, would ban the promotion of a postseason NCAA Division I football game as a national championship unless that title contest is the result of a playoff. The measure passed by voice vote in a House Energy and Commerce Committee subcommittee, with one audible "no," from Rep. John Barrow, D-Ga.

"With all due respect, I really think we have more important things to spend our time on," Barrow said before the vote, although he stressed he didn't like the current Bowl Championship Series, either.

The bill's sponsor, GOP Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, said the BCS system is unfair and won't change unless prompted by Congress.

The vote came three days after the BCS selections were announced, including the Jan. 7 national title game between No. 1 Alabama and No. 2 Texas.

In a statement before the vote, BCS executive director Bill Han**** said, "With all the serious matters facing our country, surely Congress has more important issues than spending taxpayer money to dictate how college football is played."

The subcommittee chairman, Rep. Bobby Rush, an Illinois Democrat who co-sponsored the bill, said, "We can walk and chew gum at the same time."

Yet Barrow wasn't alone in criticizing his colleagues' priorities; Reps. Zach Space, D-Ohio, and Bart Stupak, D-Mich., made similar arguments. Space said that with people facing tough times, the decision to focus on college football sends the "wrong message."

The bill has a tough road ahead, given the wide geographic representation of schools in the six conferences — the ACC, Big East, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-10 and SEC — that get automatic BCS bowl bids.

"The schools in those six conferences, which have such a huge financial benefit from the system, have enormous clout," said Gary Roberts, dean of the Indiana University School of Law-Indianapolis and a sports law expert. "I don't see anything coming from this."

The current college bowl system features a championship game between the two top teams in the BCS standings, based on two polls and six computer rankings. Eight other schools get the Orange, Sugar, Fiesta and Rose bowls.

Under the BCS, the champions of those six big conference get automatic bids, while other conferences don't.

Although Alabama and Texas finished with undefeated seasons, so did several other teams that will not get a chance to play for the title game, including TCU, Cincinnati and Boise State.

Each will get to play in a BCS bowl: Cincinnati is the Big East champ; TCU, champion of the Mountain West, gets a bid awarded to a nonautomatic qualifying conference that meets certain criteria; and Boise State, winner of the Western Athletic Conference, gets an at-large bid.

At a May hearing, Barton warned college football officials that unless they took action toward a playoff system within two months, Congress probably would act. It took a little longer, but the timing of this week's vote isn't exactly a coincidence.

"Part of it is because BCS is in the news," Barton said before the meeting.

There is no Senate version, although Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, has pressed for a Justice Department antitrust investigation into the BCS.

Shortly after his election last year, Obama said there should be a playoff system.

"I'm going to throw my weight around a little bit," Obama said at the time. "I think it's the right thing to do."



http://msn.foxsports.com/cfb/story/10498270/House-takes-step-toward-NCAA-football-playoff

revefsreleets
12-09-2009, 04:22 PM
Well, they DO have more important matters at hand...but LOL at the dude from Georgia being the sourpuss...that wouldn't have ANYTHING to do with the Bulldogs relatively poor 7-5 showing this year, would it?

MasterOfPuppets
12-09-2009, 04:33 PM
"With all the serious matters facing our country, surely Congress has more important issues than spending taxpayer money to dictate how college football is played."


hey the way i see it, if they're spending time on this, then they're NOT thinking up NEW ways to screw the taxpayers.....
its pretty obvious the ncaa is never going to change this cash grab format... its the taxpayers who want to see it changed, so this might be the first time in history that congress actually listens to the people...:noidea:

i love how miami,clemson and BC, got dicked out of the gator bowl to a 6-6 florida state just to show case bowdens last game against his former team.....i hate WVU , but i hope the win by 40....

43Hitman
12-09-2009, 06:26 PM
hey the way i see it, if they're spending time on this, then they're NOT thinking up NEW ways to screw the taxpayers.....
its pretty obvious the ncaa is never going to change this cash grab format... its the taxpayers who want to see it changed, so this might be the first time in history that congress actually listens to the people...:noidea:

i love how miami,clemson and BC, got dicked out of the gator bowl to a 6-6 florida state just to show case bowdens last game against his former team.....i hate WVU , but i hope the win by 40....

That's borderline criminal in my opinion.:banging: FSU sucks and has no business playing on TV much less a bowl game.

St33lersguy
12-09-2009, 07:52 PM
Come on, Obama, do something.

I mean, this is one thing even die-hard Republicans would appreciate.

Do you seriously want govt. involvement, they'll get involved too much and destroy college football, everything they try and control, they @%^$ up

MACH1
12-09-2009, 07:58 PM
Exactly, why should TCU or Boise get punished by playing substandard teams like OSU, Iowa, Oregon or GT. Let the 2 undefeated teams play and let the 2 loss teams who couldn't hack it in worthless conferences play each other.

Ding Ding Ding We have a winner.

Western teams never get the respect.

revefsreleets
12-10-2009, 12:54 PM
Ding Ding Ding We have a winner.

Western teams never get the respect.
Isn't USC a Western team?
Isn't Oregon.

They don't get respect because of their conference. PERIOD. Toss in the super weak OOC schedules and it only gets worse. Boise and TCU are BOTH guilty of scheduling lower division foes. Texas Christian schedule FCS Texas State. Boise scheduled Cal-Davis.

MACH1
12-10-2009, 01:18 PM
It will expose the BCS for the spineless, pathetic cowards they are. They think that matchup will protect their precious monopoly while appeasing the masses. Have some balls, you greedy basterds and let them either show the nation they deserve a good match-up or prove your point with a blow-out.

Boise St. deserves a shot at the National championship, but since you won't allow that to happen, let them play Florida. Let TCU have a match-up that allows them to prove how good they are. Or, are you afraid that they will expose you for the frauds you are? TWO non-BCS wins would certainly make a mess of your house of cards.

revefsreleets
12-10-2009, 02:53 PM
Well, Boise would be destroyed by Florida. But I think Boise/Cincy would be a good match-up. Lot's of offense and not much defense...68-65 Boise win.

TCU and OSU would be a great match-up...lots of DEFENSE in that one.

Let Florida and Oregon play. Another great match-up.

MACH1
12-10-2009, 02:57 PM
Well, Boise would be destroyed by Florida. But I think Boise/Cincy would be a good match-up. Lot's of offense and not much defense...68-65 Boise win.

TCU and OSU would be a great match-up...lots of DEFENSE in that one.

Let Florida and Oregon play. Another great match-up.

Boise beat Oregon this year. You logic is flawed.

Let Boise and Florida play each other and see who wins. That's what a championship is all about isn't it.

Nation's Winningest Team Since 1999. - 108 - 20 (.844)

Bu Bu Bu they don't play in the big ten.

Nadroj 20
12-10-2009, 03:00 PM
Well, Boise would be destroyed by Florida. But I think Boise/Cincy would be a good match-up. Lot's of offense and not much defense...68-65 Boise win.

TCU and OSU would be a great match-up...lots of DEFENSE in that one.

Let Florida and Oregon play. Another great match-up.

OSU cant play anyone else other then oregon because the rose bowl takes big ten champ and pac 10 champ, unless those two are in the NT in this case they arent so if Ohio State makes a BCS game and its not the NT they will always play the Pac 10 champ unless they are in the NT, its stupid i know but thats how it works.

revefsreleets
12-10-2009, 03:09 PM
Boise beat Oregon this year. You logic is flawed.

In Boise...at the beginning of the season...before Oregon really "locked in".

Let me make this clear. If Oregon could get another crack at Boise, I think they'd destroy them. No "logic flaw", just football logic. Revenge would play a part. At times this year Oregon and Florida were playing national championship football.

As for the rest, I KNOW all that about the Pac-10/Big 10...I'm saying if we COULD get in there and move some match-ups around that's how I would do it...

MACH1
12-10-2009, 03:22 PM
In Boise...at the beginning of the season...before Oregon really "locked in".

Let me make this clear. If Oregon could get another crack at Boise, I think they'd destroy them. No "logic flaw", just football logic. Revenge would play a part. At times this year Oregon and Florida were playing national championship football.

As for the rest, I KNOW all that about the Pac-10/Big 10...I'm saying if we COULD get in there and move some match-ups around that's how I would do it...

Doesn't matter, they ALREADY BEAT THEM!

Thats like saying give the steelers another crack at the raiders, the raiders will get destroyed this time, revenge.

MACH1
12-10-2009, 03:25 PM
Bottom line I think the BCS is nothing but BS anyways.

revefsreleets
12-10-2009, 04:15 PM
Doesn't matter, they ALREADY BEAT THEM!

Thats like saying give the steelers another crack at the raiders, the raiders will get destroyed this time, revenge.

FSU beat Florida in their 1996 (I think???) game like 31-24. The teams were #1 and #2. They rematched in the NCG and Florida DESTROYED THEM by 30 points.

College ball is a lot different than the NFL. If this was college ball, the '95 Steelers were relegated to the Masengil Douche/Ladies Speedstick Feminine Hygiene Products Bowl the second they lost their 3rd game. But they lost 5 regular season games and still won it all.

Agree about the BCS which is, more or less, what this is really all about...

Steeler in Carolina
12-10-2009, 11:43 PM
FSU beat Florida in their 1996 (I think???) game like 31-24. The teams were #1 and #2. They rematched in the NCG and Florida DESTROYED THEM by 30 points.

College ball is a lot different than the NFL. If this was college ball, the '95 Steelers were relegated to the Masengil Douche/Ladies Speedstick Feminine Hygiene Products Bowl the second they lost their 3rd game. But they lost 5 regular season games and still won it all.

Agree about the BCS which is, more or less, what this is really all about...

But, that was unfair to FSU. They had to beat Florida twice to win the MNC, but Florida only had to beat FSU once. Without a playoff, it will always be a mythical national championship.

revefsreleets
12-11-2009, 09:29 AM
But, that was unfair to FSU. They had to beat Florida twice to win the MNC, but Florida only had to beat FSU once. Without a playoff, it will always be a mythical national championship.

Truth be told, once Florida LOST that first match-up, that should have been curtains for them. Either Florida gets bumped and the next team in line plays, or they should have let Michigan and OSU (when THEY were #1 and #2 and the game came RIGHT down to the wire) replay for the NCG in 2007.

But, again, these are all compelling reasons to scrap this current system...

SteelersinCA
12-11-2009, 11:47 AM
The national title game is fine, no one really is complaining about that, it's the other games and who really cares who finishes 3rd? Maybe the people who finish 3rd but they are losers anyway already. As long as they get the NCG right I could not care less who plays for 3rd place.

revefsreleets
12-12-2009, 07:31 AM
The national title game is fine, no one really is complaining about that, it's the other games and who really cares who finishes 3rd? Maybe the people who finish 3rd but they are losers anyway already. As long as they get the NCG right I could not care less who plays for 3rd place.

That's harsh...there are 120 D1 teams. The other 119 care MIGHTILY where they finish.

Steeler in Carolina
12-12-2009, 10:40 PM
I agree that the title game is the correct 2 teams. My whole problem is that everyone says TCU doesn't play anybody, or Boise doesn't play anybody. This would have been their chance to play someone and the BCS screws it up and matches them up together. Now, when TCU beats Boise, everyone will say they don't deserve to be ranked high because they only beat Boise.

SteelersinCA
12-13-2009, 02:52 AM
That's harsh...there are 120 D1 teams. The other 119 care MIGHTILY where they finish.

I acknowledged the losers that are fighting for 3rd and below may care, but nothing is ever going to get changed so that 5th place is the team deserving 5th place. That's just simple truth.

revefsreleets
12-14-2009, 01:49 PM
I acknowledged the losers that are fighting for 3rd and below may care, but nothing is ever going to get changed so that 5th place is the team deserving 5th place. That's just simple truth.


The flaw in your argument is that EVERYONE cares about the NCG and NOBODY cares about the other games. The average college fan has his team he cheers for and cares deeply about it, even if that team is a perennial loser. The rankings have meaning for ALL those teams, even if they aren't necessarily completely agreed with. PLUS, those post-season rankings have a direct correlation with the following PRE-season rankings, which have HUGE importance.

Anyway, George Will chimed in...as usual, he's spot on. Notice how he concurs and agrees with many of our mutual sentiments, but his overriding point is that it's simply not Congress' place to intercede....

http://www.ohio.com/editorial/commentary/79196367.html

Congress deserves a major penalty if it fiddles with the BCS By George F. Will
Washington Post

Published on Monday, Dec 14, 2009
WASHINGTON: Two Saturdays ago, the nation was one tick of a Texas clock away from a cultural crisis. Nebraska led Texas 12-10 in the Big 12 Conference championship football game in Cowboys Stadium in Arlington. Texas had the ball on Nebraska's 29-yard line when time expired. Or so it seemed.





Texas was unbeaten entering the game and was third in the Bowl Championship Series ranking. But that Saturday, Alabama, which was ranked second, defeated top-ranked Florida. Because, however, 3,600 seconds had elapsed in Arlington, a defeated Texas would not be playing Alabama Jan. 7 in the BCS game to determine the national champion.



But Texas was resuscitated by football's excruciating mania for perfection. A game is 60 minutes of actual football sliced into slivers and scattered among almost that many minutes of officials standing around brooding about whether they called the last play correctly.



A replay official in Cowboys Stadium consulted videotape and decided that when the previous play ended, only 3,599 seconds of the game had elapsed. So one second was put back on the clock, Texas kicked a field goal and will play Alabama after all. And the nation will be spared the culture shock of seeing one of three other teams — Texas Christian, Cincinnati or Boise State — play Alabama.



These upstarts are undefeated, which is admirable, but they also are unglamorous, which is unforgivable: It might mean fewer television viewers for the beer and pickup truck commercials that will be broadcast during replay delays on the Jan. 7 telecast.



U.S. Rep. Joe Barton, who considers the BCS part of the axis of evil, is incandescent, and prepared. Last January, this 13-term Republican, whose district includes Cowboys Stadium and nearly nuzzles TCU in Fort Worth, introduced the College Football Playoff Act of 2009, which says: It shall be unlawful to ''promote, market, or advertise'' a postseason Division I football game as a national championship game unless it is ''the final game of a single elimination post-season playoff system'' for which all Division I teams are, at the beginning of the season, equally eligible.



Barton believes in limited government, but not so limited that it cannot right outrageous wrongs, such as the absence of a playoff. Bipartisanship lives: Barack Obama, who wants to fix everything — health care, the climate, the pothole on your street, college football — also wants a playoff.



''They keep trying to tinker with the current system,'' Barton says, ''and to me it's like — and I don't mean this directly — it's like communism. You can't fix it.'' He would toss the BCS into the ashcan of history where, arguably, it belongs.
''It is,'' he says, ''simply a cartel, much like OPEC.'' It uses an ''arbitrary computer system'' and ''complicated algorithms'' to determine who gets to play in the ''mythical championship game.'' He has a point.



January's game will be the 12th since the BCS system was created in 1998, and Alabama will be just the 12th different university represented in the decisive game. (Texas won it in 2006.) By giving the winners of six major football conferences automatic bids to one of the four most lucrative bowl games (Rose, Fiesta, Sugar, Orange) plus the national championship game, the BCS virtually guarantees that the rich get richer — and get the television exposure that attracts blue-chip recruits.



Occasionally a declasse team crashes the BCS party: Undefeated Utah was allowed into the 2005 Fiesta Bowl. Then Utah lost its coach, Urban Meyer, to Florida, a school in the Southeastern Conference, whose winner always plays in a BCS bowl.



If congressional pressure leads to, say, a four-team playoff, half a dozen other teams will call that ''arbitrary'' and will pressure Congress to press for an eight-team playoff. Eventually the season will end when spring practice begins.
The BCS has effectively created a two-tier bowl system — the big four bowls plus the national championship game, with their gigantic television contracts, and the 29 much less profitable bowls — which is unfair. It also is none of Congress' business.



Barton's bill makes the usual perfunctory nod to the Constitution, finding that college teams travel in interstate commerce, and college games ''involve and affect'' such commerce and therefore — the usual non sequitur — it is fine for Congress to meddle.



Barton's bill, which should draw a 15-yard penalty for unnecessary roughness to the idea of limited government, demonstrates how Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce has become an end run around that idea.
Will is a Washington Post columnist. He can be e-mailed at georgewill@washpost.com.

SteelersinCA
12-14-2009, 03:21 PM
What importance do preseason rankings carry?

revefsreleets
12-14-2009, 04:05 PM
What importance do preseason rankings carry?


Seriously? You don't know? Instead of me explaining, why don't I post up a good article from a rare blogger who actually KNOWS what he's talking about?

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/38258-college-football-why-preseason-polls-matter

A lot of people have the opinion that preseason polls don't matter.
Well this is a look at preseason polls and just how much they do matter in winning a national title. Overcoming a low, or even non-ranking in a preseason poll is the most difficult obstacle for an undefeated team to overcome on the road to the national championship. With the addition of the BCS, this has become even more important since if you aren't number one or number two, you have no shot at a title. Strength of schedule also has become more important in winning a title.
With the help of my buddy Stuart Carter, let's take a look at the importance of preseason polls in college football, using Auburn's 2004 season as a reference.
Preseason to No. 1
Always a popular debate among college football fans is the current system of ranking the teams, which includes preseason polls. For Auburn fans, this topic became a primary issue when the 2004 Auburn Tigers were left out of the BCS National Championship game. By the end of the 2004 regular season, the so-called experts in an attempt to justify the matchup of Oklahoma and Southern Cal questioned Auburn’s strength of schedule.
We could debate all day long who deserved to be in the BCS Championship Game in 2004, but in the end a worthy team was going to be left out. This is why under the current BCS system preseason rankings are sometimes the first major step toward being crowned No. 1 at the end of the season. Being ranked in the top five to start the season won’t always get you there but it can increase your odds.
History of preseason rankings...
From 1960-2007 there were 57 teams crowned No. 1 by the AP, UPI or BCS. Of those 57 teams, 27 (47.3 percent) began the season ranked in the top five of the Associated Press Poll. More than 75 percent (43) began the season ranked in the top 10 and 84 percent (48) were ranked in the preseason top 15. Only six teams started the season unranked and three of those teams were from the decade of the 1960s. This included Minnesota in 1960, USC in 1962, Michigan State in 1965, Clemson in 1981, BYU in 1984 and Georgia Tech in 1990.
Broken down by decade, here are the average preseason rankings of the eventual national champion.
1960-1969 10.0
1970-1979 4.7
1980-1989 11.7
1990-1999 6.3
2000-2007 7.4
When you consider that nearly half of the national championship teams were ranked in the preseason top five and 75 percent were ranked in the top 10, it’s indicative that preseason rankings play a major role in deciding the eventual champion. This is the very reason why Auburn was left out during the 2004 season. Auburn began the season ranked No. 17 in the AP Poll while Oklahoma and Southern Cal held the top two spots. Auburn was able to climb the polls but unfortunately for the Tigers, they finished the regular season third in the polls.
Preseason No.1 and No. 2
From 1960 through 2004 there have only been two seasons that the preseason No. 1 and No. 2 stayed in the top two slots before the bowl games. It happened during the 1970 season when Ohio State and Texas started the season No. 1 and No. 2 and remained in the top two slots by time the last regular season game was played. It did not happen again until 2004. For Auburn, it was simply bad timing to go 12-0 before the bowl games. Any other season other than 1970 or 2004 and Auburn plays for the national championship.
Strength of Schedule...
In terms of strength of schedule, the 2004 Auburn Tigers had it tougher than more than 70 percent of the eventual teams crowned No. 1 from 1960-2007. Of the 16 teams that had a greater strength of schedule, only four of them finished the season undefeated and untied. Thirteen teams actually had a strength of schedule below .500, which was a primary reason those 13 teams combined for a record of 149-0-1. The 1980 Georgia Bulldogs had the weakest strength of schedule followed by Brigham Young in 1984.
A primary factor in winning it all is the schedule. The 1983 Auburn Tigers proved it was not worth the risk of playing a difficult schedule being snubbed by the voters with Miami ’s Orange Bowl victory over the Nebraska Cornhuskers. What Auburn accomplished during the entire 1983 season did not carry the same weight as Miami’s bowl win. The 2006 Florida Gators had the greatest strength of schedule among the other mythical national champions but it was Southern Cal’s loss during the last week of the regular season that gave the Gators a shot at Ohio State in the BCS Championship.

SteelersinCA
12-15-2009, 10:45 AM
I don't get into the stats, what I'd like to see the stats for is a BCS team going undefeated and not making the NCG. I bet that's a rarity. In the rare circumstance where that does happen, I'm sure preseason ranking has an effect. Just my opinion that doesn't make it HUGE, but reasonable minds can differ I suppose.

He says if you aren't #1 or #2 you have no shot. I stopped reading after that. Alabama was 5th. Oops.

revefsreleets
12-15-2009, 01:09 PM
He was stating that #1 and #2's almost NEVER stay there...it's always lower ranked teams moving up. The point is that these preseason rankings aren't very accurate and carry too much weight. You're actually reading it as the opposite of what he's really saying.

SteelersinCA
12-15-2009, 02:57 PM
Like I said I stopped reading after that so perhaps I am opposite of what he said. I just don't think pre-season rankings are that significant. Take OSU for example, they'll be ranked in the top 10 regardless of a win or loss in the Rose Bowl. I think the rankings are more determined based on who is coming back and their performance throughout the season than on one bowl game. If OSU wins out, they'll play for the title, I can practically guarantee it. Likewise, you can virtually guarantee that for any BCS team. So far it has only happened once in the history of the BCS, to auburn, and in my humble opinion 10% of the time is not significant but for that year.

All I care about is quality games to watch. Outside of the NCG I don't even think about where that team would rank based upon a win or loss. I can't think the average fan does, they just want to be entertained. So as long as the BCS keeps getting the NCG right, what is the impetus to change it? So far they have been pretty spot on in that regard and the point of a playoff is to crown a champion. To me it seems like the teams who didn't do their job and take care of business want another bite of the apple. I think it's unfair.

So far it remains simple, win your games, play for the crystal football. Lose, trip up, take a week off, join the rest of the whiners and criers clamoring for another shot because you couldn't handle your business. That's how I see it. Not saying I'm right and anyone else is wrong.

revefsreleets
12-15-2009, 03:07 PM
The bottom line is that the preseason stats DO have a direct bearing on where teams end up. It's why teams like OSU and USC have an easier trip to the big bowls than TCU. In fact, I think the BCS ratings actually take preseason ratings into account in their formula.

That needs tweaking, too, if they are going to keep the current system in place.