For the most part, I have stayed silent about the recent BCS events. Now I have gathered my thoughts so here goes my rant... Blame the voters. They are the ones who wrongfully voted for USC as the #1 team in the country. They are clearly #3. The BCS got it right. The voters and coaches do not watch all of the games and obviously don't have any clue about the relative strength or weakness of the schedules of the teams in question. Heck the coaches don't even fill out their own ballots! Most of the votes are swayed by politics and favortism. Face it, the Big 10 and Pac 10 votes go one way and the Big 12 and SEC voters go another way. This situation is why the BCS was invented. If the voters were educated enough or honest enough to vote correctly, LSU and OU would be #1 and #2 (which is which, I have no idea). It is the voters fault for being WRONG. Thank goodness the BCS worked and corrected this wrong. LSU and OU are the best two teams in the country. They have the same number of loses as USC and they played the tougher games and lost to tougher teams. Simple isn't it? Add to the fact that OU or LSU would wipe the floor with them... Don't get me wrong, USC is right up there with Georgia (who has a very good team). IMHO, put USC in the SEC and they have 3 loses (just like UGA). But we won't see their weakness until the Rose bowl (if we see it at all) because their schedule sucked. They did not have to contend with the brutality of playing in a conference like the SEC and having to go up against Bama, Ole Miss, Arky, and UGA all in a row. It takes a physical toll on the players that USC players don't have to contend with. So for now, we have to listen to the biased media trying to stir up crap so that they can get record ratings for the Rose bowl AND the Sugar bowl. To solve all of this, we need a 4 team play-off!!! Not 8, not 16. 4. Leave the BCS exactly as it is and let it choose the best 4 teams (too bad if you are number 5, those are the breaks with any play-off system). Let two of the BCS bowls be the first round played after Christmas. Let one bowl be the championship game played after New Years. Then have two BCS games (add the Cotton Bowl) on New Years day. That is adding one BCS bowl (more money) and still allowing 8 teams in the BCS. It gives real meaning to two more BCS bowls which will help ratings. It also spreads the BCS over 7 or more days which will help ratings for all bowl games immensely. Many of the arguments against play-offs and the BCS are satisfied. We don't want them clobbering finals for the players. We don't want teams playing a bunch more games. We don't want 3 loss teams to have a shot at a title because that would tend to weaken interest in the regular season (even a 2 loss team winning it sucks, but that should not happen too often). Doesn't this seem logical and simple to implement? Very little change can make so much of a difference.
tigermark, I agree with you, I've been saying this for 2 days now. According to the coaches the pac10 is better than the sec How many top ten and top 25 teams were in the pac 10 compared to the sec?
I agree, but I want the people element completely removed. First 1 loss teams, tie breaker is SOS, losers out. No points for winning the BULLS*IT popularity contest.
It'll never happen. People are already crying about the 'Computers are ruling the humans' and dumba$$ crap like that. I think it's so stupid how media starts crying when the BCS does what it was supposed to. Override the obvious bias by National media.
quote by TundraTiger: I agree, but I want the people element completely removed. ....................................................................................................... That's also what I've been saying. How can coaches vote usc #1 ahead of us? They and anyone knows the sec and we got the shaft. The coaches knows better than that.
