Terry, you are so full of shit I can smell you from here! Some interesting reading on the BCS. http://sports.yahoo.com/news/chuck-the-bcs-175022477.html No, not that it ever "got it right," because that's a completely subjective call in the first place and quite absurd in its own right. Would it be "right" to anyone to set the Super Bowl matchup now as Seattle vs. Denver and then stand around for a month while we cancel the NFL playoffs? Or would that simply be the dumbest idea ever?
I always liked the plus 1 idea. In 2011 force Alabama to play Oklahoma State for the right to play LSU. This year force Auburn and Michigan State to play each other for the right to play Florida State. But on the other hand, I'm tired of hearing about how this is going to diminish the regular season, because in 2011 the BCS proved that the regular season doesn't mean shit when they awarded an unearned rematch for Alabama.
There's not a thing that's incorrect with what I posted. If reading comprehension is your forte', you'll notice I didn't say it paired the two best teams in college football. It put #1 vs #2 which was the purpose of its creation. I do find it ludicrous when people point to the NFL model as reason to criticize college football. It's apples and oranges.
Hey T. Your statement is factually accurate. It's the machinations behind the rankings that I think some, including myself, took issue with. Computer nerds who were never required to say what went into their formulas just seemed like bullshit. There were years where the rankings did not pass the eyeball test of even the most casual football fan. Going forward we may look back and see things haven't changed much or there will be an expansion to 8...who knows. If anything the elimination of having to win your conference as a requirement that favors certain conferences, the SEC, and certain teams like USC, Ohio St, Oklahoma, etc. Personally I would like to see a national overhaul of the bowl tie-ins. It is so stupid sometimes to know there could be great games but fans get saddled with contractual crap.
It did always pair up number 1 with number 2, but who's 1 and who's 2 was all complete speculation and pole smoking.
At a casual glance it would seem using a computer to determine rankings would have eliminated any human bias. Yet, when you look at Jeff Sagarin's ratings do you wonder, like I have, why they chose to use the Pure ELO versus his overall rankings? This season left us with UofSC ranked #2 by his system. By his system alone the top four teams would have been FSU, UofSC, Michigan State, and Auburn. You surely see the odd team there. Oregon would have been ranked higher than Mizzou. Again, it makes me shake my head. These computers have benefited some and hurt others. A bad loss on a schedule killed some post season appearances—as it should have. In terms of the SEC, the major bowl tie-ins we have in the future will work well. When Slive made the move to lock in SEC and Big12 teams to the Sugar (when they aren't in the playoffs) that move should provide good match-ups the majority of the time. Then again you look at the Cotton where top teams from both conferences have met and the SEC has won 10 of the last 11 I believe. In fact, I'm thinking that the six sites that will host playoffs should have good games each season. The committee taking these selections out of the hands of the bowl committee's should work well. You know what, K? As I see it the bowl system worked its best before the BCS. Back then those games meant something to most of the teams. You rarely saw a team "not want to be there" because they weren't part of the big game. In the end we'll still have our shockers. Hell, I thought the Baylor vs UCF game would be a blow-out.
Well, they haven't declared the champion before the bowls in a long time so I'm not quite sure what you meant by this. LSU would have been tied to the Sugar Bowl and we could have faced Bama again in that scenario. However I'm sure the Sugar Bowl committee would have heard from many influencial lsu folks reminding then not to do what they did in the 1959 season. Plus many of the guys on the committee are also huge LSU boosters.
But neither did the coaches poll, because the coaches had agendas. And neither did the sportswriters poll, who tended to favor teams in big media cities (USC, Texas) or with old football traditions (Notre Dame). In 2003, the AP selected a champion who did not even participate in the championship game! The computers were consistent at least and helped balance out human bias.
