The BCS Mess

The term "champion" is even more subjective than an AP poll.

 

alright collin.

You have a tournament or playoff. The winner of the tournament is the champion. There is nothing subjective about it.

 

Champion of what? The tournament? The league?

As a fan I love the playoffs, but not because I believe it always produces the best team.

 

"best team" - you want to talk about subjective?

yes the champion is whoever wins the tournament or playoff. Is it always the "best" team? No - but without a doubt the winner is the champion.

Now please tell me how the current system in place determines which team is the "best"

 

Stay tuned playoff fans....My newest installment of the tournament I've been working on for the past few years will be released next Sat after all of the conference championship games are decided.

 

Ok. I'm going to jerk off to Windy Nix and then retire for the night. Have a nice evening, fellas.

 

Wise One's thread: Can Southern Cal lose? Heh. Idiot.

So, you fucking moron, are you telling me that the #1 and #2 teams in the BCS rankings don't actually play each other and determine the winner on the field?

 

Wendy Nix? Really?

Anyway, I think the beef here is when multiple teams have legitimate claims to get into the championship game.

The Big 12 is a great example of this, with the 3 teams trying to get the one game vs Missouri. TX beats OU, OU beats TT, TT beats TX, and OU probably comes out on top because they lost first.

 

This is exactly why I think a playoff would be better, but I know that it doesn't mean that the best team will win. Texas may be better than OU, but OU will likely be in the championship game. The one thing I would want for the playoffs is no autobids, which would never happen. Cincy is not the best team in the country, neither is BC. If Oregon State had won the pac-10, they wouldn't deserve a shot at the title more than USC.

When you have PSU, USC, Florida, Alabama, Texas, Oklahoma and TTU all with a claim to a shot at the title, the best two teams might not even be playing for the title. But the system is the way it is, and the BCS has made college football more interesting. I would prefer a playoff system, but I don't expect one.

 

And for me it's exactly why a playoff would be a horrible idea. If a playoff existed, the attitude towards the UT-OU, UT-TT, OU-TT, and OU-OKS games would have been "who gives a shit?" because they wouldn't carry the same weight. Most would assume that Texas, Oklahoma, and maybe the others would get into any playoff, so the individual games lose their luster.

Again, how do you know that? You're right, but admitting the reason why you "know" that Cincinnati and BC aren't the best team in the country means acknowledging the validity of the logic used in the BCS system. If you stick by that old "play the games on the field in a playoff!" crap then you can't insist that Cincinnati or BC couldn't win out against the best from other conferences.

That's why I like to get people talking about the issue instead of just ranting. The more people explain their reasoning, the more they begin to realize that they actually can't justify a playoff, and that they themselves employ the reasoning used by the BCS.