BCS Infographic

#1
rockytop9808

rockytop9808

Ludicrous Display
Joined
Dec 2, 2009
Messages
6,591
Likes
8
#1
Interesting.

BSC+Scam.png
 
#3
#3
Intresting that the only opposers they could get were writers while the supporters were 3 coaches. If they wanted to prove their case more they should have had 3 coaches.
 
#6
#6
GreveHaller said:
Intresting that the only opposers they could get were writers while the supporters were 3 coaches. If they wanted to prove their case more they should have had 3 coaches.
Click to expand...

Coaches generally don't want to sound like whiners. Plus, Tressel has now been disgraced as a coach and benefited greatly from the BCS setup. And you might want to check the Stanford quote again.
 
#7
#7
Calculon said:
Coaches generally don't want to sound like whiners. Plus, Tressel has now been disgraced as a coach and benefited greatly from the BCS setup. And you might want to check the Stanford quote again.
Click to expand...

If so then they shouldnt have even included the coaches. They could have easily had 3 writers that were pro bowl and 3 pro playoff.

This isnt the only example of pretty shoddy arguments in his pretty picture. He wants to argue that the BCS cost more money because they pair two teams together regardless of distance a team must travel but fail to take into consideration not only is the BCS just one game but that in a playoff system (a) you would travel more because of more games and (b) the seedings determine the teams not geographical locations. If neutral locations are used you could have UMiami playing FSU in a 1st round game in Tempe. Could also have USC playing UCLA in the Rose Bowl. Even with the early round(s) at a home stadium you still could have #4 Stanford playing at #1 LSU. Seedings determine the matchups not location so his point is useless.
 
#8
#8
Interesting use of the word 'objective' with regard to a playoff system. Last time I checked, the selection and seeding of the 4, 8, or 16 teams would still be highly subjective and just as controversial.

I also found it interesting that whoever it was that put this together thought it necessary to interject that only 10 of the 13 years have given us a matchup of the top two teams according to the AP Poll. How many 1 vs. 2 bowl game matchups occurred prior to the BCS?
 
#9
#9
The BCS is much better than the system it replaced but is still ridiculous when compared to a playoff.

Anyone who defends the bowls/BCS as it is currently set up inevitably ends up making the same dumb arguments, like 'the BCS is great because it gets people talking.'
 
#10
#10
ukvols said:
The BCS is much better than the system it replaced but is still ridiculous when compared to a playoff.

Anyone who defends the bowls/BCS as it is currently set up inevitably ends up making the same dumb arguments, like 'the BCS is great because it gets people talking.'
Click to expand...

Any system in which the current conferences still exist is ridiculous and will inevitably lead to controversy at the end of the regular season.
 
#11
#11
ukvols said:
The BCS is much better than the system it replaced but is still ridiculous when compared to a playoff.

'
Click to expand...

conversely it can be argued that a playoff is ridiculous when attempting to determine a champion.

I dont think anyone argues that with any system the objective is to determine who is the best team, which is exactly what both do. The BCS currently takes 2 teams from a formula that is subjective (coaches, writers, and former players) combined with objective (computer formulas). Chances are that even with a playoff much of the same process will be used. The biggest difference is who gets in. In a playoff grid it is more important to fill spots than it is to ensure the best teams are playing. One more time on that: In a playoff grid it is more important to fill spots than it is to ensure the best teams are playing. 4, 8, even 16 spots are to be filled regardless of record. That is not determining who is the best team. That's just filling spots. Look at 04 when Auburn didnt get in to the NC game but Ok and USC did. All three were 13-0. All three worthy of an NC. Problem is that in a playoff, there's no room for 3 teams. You must have 4. California at 10-1? good season just not as good as the other 3. Same for Texas, Utah, Georgia, Louisville, Va Tech...... Adding any team with a lesser record devalues the intent of the process.

In the end both have their faults and both have their pluses but its not up to us the fans. Its up to the administrators and they dont look at this from our perspective. They look at it monetarily. If there was a possibility of a playoff making more money it would have already been done.
 
#13
#13
BigPapaCat said:
So...would you say that March Madness Basketball is the same?
Click to expand...

IMO, yes. With 68 teams in it the tourney and no team below seed 15 ever winning a game, this only adds to diminishing of its quality. When half the teams in one conference get invites (Big East) and other conferences scrape to get 1 team in, its more of a beauty contest than a facility to determine the nation's best team. And now there's talk of bumping it to 96. But again, its about filling slots.

Is it good tv? You bet for us sports junkies but that doesnt mean the best is being determined. It only means there's more tv to watch.
 
#14
#14
GreveHaller said:
IMO, yes. With 68 teams in it the tourney and no team below seed 15 ever winning a game, this only adds to diminishing of its quality. .
Click to expand...

Good. I was wondering if you would change issues and contradict yourself. Not many people are like you.
 
#15
#15
BigPapaCat said:
I was talking in the present situation.
Click to expand...

Their present situation is lightyears ahead of where they were at in the 90's.

Not saying they will ever be a consistent power, but the potential for the occasional top 5 season is there because it has happened.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top