No more worn out than high school teams, or D1-AA teams, or pro teams, or any other team from any other organized collegiate sport on earth.
I've been working all day. I meant that without a head-to-head match, we can't assume one undefeated team to be worse than another. That's all. And for the BCS to work, it must make that distinction, and that's one major flaw.
As long as that "prior performance" is from the current season, it makes a lot of sense to me. (I don't like pre-season polls at all, and if I had my druthers I'd remove the human element completely from the rankings, and use the computer polls only (allowing the computer polls to consider margin of victory too).
Very few like the current 2-team system. Yes, any system, whether it's a 4-team, 8-team, 12-team, or 16-team system, will leave some room for controversy - but my opinion is that the further away you move from the top, the less important that controversy will be. For example, the basketball tournament has 64 (there's some sort of "play-in" game actually, so 65 I guess) teams. Each year there's probably a list of teams that complain that they should not have been excluded. How controversial is that each year, in your opinion? Look at the recent history of the BCS - how many years would have still produced controversy with a 4-team playoff? Such a system would have "solved" 2003 and 2004. It would still not solve the non-BCS undefeated teams, however. That's why I'd like the 12-team system previously mentioned. But a 4-team system would be an improvement, so I'd take it over the current 2-team system.
But see, that's exactly my point. The one and only criteria on which to reliably base a championship system is a playoff. Otherwise, why not use a computer to designate a champion with no games played at all?
Let me know when you figure a way to set the playoff field using ZERO polls, human or otherwise. Until then, you have fixed nothing, we still have a flawed system, and somebody gets screwed because of someone else's opinion.
I can't necessarily agree with this either. So what happens when a strong say... 1 loss LSU loses to 1 loss FLA in the SECCG. LSU is now a 2 loss team, and FLA is a 1 loss automatically in the playoffs. Now the ACC sends a 3 or 4 loss conf. champ to the play-offs and a better LSU team is on the outside looking in. I know this is how other leagues decide their playoff teams. and maybe it would be LSU's fault for not winning the SECCG. even with a complete swap to a play-off system, it can be not fair. wildcard maybe?!?:grin:
Okay, I concede that it's not possible to have a system devoid of some complaints, if only because of huge amount of teams in the NCAA. However, the system currently in place is much, MUCH more flawed than what is acceptable.
Re-read the part of clair's post that you bolded. Especially the part that mentions 5 at-large teams.
Ahhh... It's college football. Short of completely reorganizing into neat conferences that are conducive to a playoff system, it'll never be perfect. I don't mean to dismiss Atreus21's consternation, but - well - I guess I'm dismissing it. The BCS method isn't flawless. But at the end of the day, it works most years and it gives us a chance to put the two best (by BCS' definition) teams in the same stadium to fight it out. A four game playoff would extend the season too much (by two games for teams in the SEC, assuming one of the four would be the SECCG and another would be the bowl game). One of coach Miles' goals is for these kids to graduate, remember. They have exams in December, if I remember correctly... Take a deep breath, perhaps start drinking, and focus on the Tigers, not the polls. :LSU231: :LSU231: :LSU231: :LSU231: :LSU231: :LSU231: :LSU231: :LSU231: :thumb:
