Conference Championship requirement Example

Here's why it was left in after the Nebraska fiasco......
Lets say LSU and Tenn are the 2 best teams in the country, and Tenn lost in the 2nd game of the year to Ga. We go undefeated, and win the SECCG over Ga who finished 6-1 in the SEC,. Tenn wins out and finishes up 11-1 and was also 6-1 in the SEC.
These two teams (LSU / TENN) are voted #1 and #2 in both the AP and Coaches polls after the SECCG. Tenn's SOS is as strong as ours and they have several wins over top 20 teams.

Is it fair to keep Tenn out of the BCS title game just because they did'nt play in the SECCG ?

Same example, another conference, Nebraska and Oklahoma could be in the same situation.... or two Big 10 teams who don't play each other in the reg season, but both go undefeated

Bottom line....... there is always an example to illustrate how the system does'nt work in a particular scenario. But at this time, the BCS system is the way the rules were set-up for this season.

It pisses me off that the same type media driven frenzy that cost Peyton Manning the Heisman, has cast doubt on our National Championship.

 

Yeah, what about the year the Coaches voted in Nebraska #1 because it ws Osborne's last year. How would that factor into the BCS ?
Thats exactly why you can't put too much stock in the human polls - they are too easily corrupted and influenced.

 

Good point Buck. The bottom line is that no matter how much the BCS is tweaked, there is always a probability for another fiasco. The only way not to have a problem is to have only one poll. Tweak the BCS to no longer use the human polls in the equation and tell the writers to piss off.

 

Unfortunately the talk is to give the human polls more input into the final selection. The implication being that the human polls were right. Since the human polls were the determining factor for so many years, the "powers that be" just cannot get it into their heads that the BCS was not the problem this year. It was the human polls. Although this will never happen, a simple solution would be to have NO polling until after, say, game 5 of the regular season.

 

to me it seems like the bcs worked fine this year. the only problem is that people are stupid. and that is hard to cure. we need a system in place that makes the stupid people understand that if you have a weaker strength of schedule than other teams with the same record, you dont go the national championship.

 

Good points in the original post. How about modifying the clause to say that the only way you can be in the championship game without winning your conference is if you are playing the conference champ in the championship game?

All BCS conferences need a championship game. If they can't see that by now...

I wish everyone could agree on a 4 team playoff. Maybe even use the bowls (Cotton, Capital One?) for the first round. Argument for #4 vs. #5 is much less controversial than #2 vs. #3.

I thought I heard that some of the computers used margin of victory/loss with a 21 point cap but some computers didn't put it in the equation. Did ANY of them use margin of victory this year? That would be USC's ONLY complaint and I wouldn't be opposed to putting it in next year (as long as it was capped).

 

Let me add that USC and the PAC 10 agreed to the rules before the season like everyone keeps mentioning. They should have complained before the season if they felt it was an issue.

 

I still believe Oklahoma shouldn't have been painted as having "not won their conference." Did they win their Conference Championship Game? No. But they still had the best record in their conference despite the loss. That gave them the same number of losses as Texas, but they beat Texas head-to-head. So by the same token that USC is conference champ, so was Oklahoma.

As a side note, LSU and Miami (OH) are the ONLY teams to win their conference by both title game AND regular season record.

 

This BCS will get tweeked every year that more than 2 teams finish with the same record cause the media is always going to focus on who was left out instead of who got in. Kind of like when they announce the brackets for the Road to the Final Four, they hardly even talk about who got in for a couple of days, it's about who got left out and who got screwed with the seeding. That is just the way the media is, always. And the tweeks will alwayshave to be done as like Kramer said, there is no perfect system. Another scenario in the conference champ thing that I really believe will happen the first year they have that rule is one like this: let's say USC and WSU don't play each other next year. USC goes 10-1 and looses to Oregon at Oregon but are number one at the end of the year. WSU goes 9-2 but both of their losses are out of conference. USC then could not go to a BCS NC per the new rule and would get left out again. I am really hoping and praying that will happen, really, bad, more than bad. It would be so great after them being the reason for the change!!! And then OU and LSU can meet in the CG again and LSU doesn't fumble the ball, get a punt blocked etc, and we win by 20 this time.