Potential BCS antitrust case (merged)

#151
#151
tvolsfan said:
I like TCU, and I would have like it if they could have gotten a shot. That being said, there wasn't really a lot of debate in 2009 and 2010. 2006 really shouldn't be on the list, either.
Click to expand...

Sorry disagree, 2009 Boise was for real. They did beat TCU
 
Last edited:
#153
#153
tvolsfan said:
Ohio State and Wisconsin probably could have argued that they deserved a shot. Kansas State, UCLA, and Arizona all had one loss, and Tulane was unbeaten, but I don't really feel like they deserved a shot.
Click to expand...

Sorry but I would of not wanted UT to play UCLA that year. UCLA was a beast yes their d sucked but their offense was fierce.
 
#161
#161
therealUT said:
Butler was not one of the ten best teams in the nation. The fact that they made the National Title two years in a row should demonstrate that the NCAA Tournament is incredibly flawed.
Click to expand...
Agreed. This Final Four, while entertaining, showed that this certainly wasn't the best way to determine a champion.
 
#163
#163
tvolsfan said:
I imagine TCU was incredibly let down about playing Boise State. They were waiting all year long to prove themselves and they weren't even given a real chance.
Click to expand...
That year was total bs by the BCS. Letting them play each other was a discrace to the BCS
 
#165
#165
The way I've always said it is this: any system in which a team could theoretically win every game it ever plays and never earn a championship is a sham.

Also, as or more importantly, the success of a football program does carry heavy real world implications.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#166
#166
tvolsfan said:
Give me a break. Anyone who watched Cincy at all knew damn well they weren't one of the top two teams in the country. It was EXTREMELY obvious when watching them.
Click to expand...

That's the problem! A team won every single game they played, but shouldn't be given a chance because they didn't score enough style points? That's the mark of a good system? How pathetic.
 
#167
#167
milohimself said:
The way I've always said it is this: any system in which a team could theoretically win every game it ever plays and never earn a championship is a sham.

Also, as or more importantly, the success of a football program does carry heavy real world implications.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

And the opposite is also true: any system where you can lose every game and win a championship is a sham.

How? Take the SEC. A team could theoretically lose every regular season game , run the table in the SEC tourney, get the auto invite to MM, and run the table there. Could it happen? yes. Would I put money on it? oh, heck no but the point is the same.
 
#168
#168
GreveHaller said:
And the opposite is also true: any system where you can lose every game and win a championship is a sham.

How? Take the SEC. A team could theoretically lose every regular season game , run the table in the SEC tourney, get the auto invite to MM, and run the table there. Could it happen? yes. Would I put money on it? oh, heck no but the point is the same.
Click to expand...

That's college basketball's problem. They have to take the bad (the efficiency of the system) with the good (unparalleled excitement). In college football, people are acting like it's a crime on humanity if an 11-2 team competes for the title. Or a 13-0 team, apparently.
 
Last edited:
#169
#169
UTRavens said:
That's the problem! A team won every single game they played, but shouldn't be given a chance because they didn't score enough style points? That's the mark of a good system? How pathetic.
Click to expand...
It's not because of style points. It's because they simply weren't close to being the best team in the country.
 
#170
#170
UTRavens said:
That's college basketball's problem. They have to take the bad (the efficiency of the system) with the good (unparalleled excitement). In college football, people are acting like it's a crime on humanity if an 11-2 team competes for the title. Or a 13-0 team, apparently.
Click to expand...
You know what else is exciting?

Stoerner's fumble in 1998
Ed Reed's pick six against Boston College in 2001
Half the 2002 Buckeyes regular season
USC's stand on first and goal against Cal in 2004
Vince Young's heroics in the Shoe in 2005
Half of the 2006 Gators regular season
Half the 2007 LSU regular season
Rocky Block in 2009
Auburn's comeback against Alabama in 2010

All which unquestionably would have meant considerably less if they just chose more than half of the top 25 to create a playoff system.
 
#171
#171
GreveHaller said:
And the opposite is also true: any system where you can lose every game and win a championship is a sham.

How? Take the SEC. A team could theoretically lose every regular season game , run the table in the SEC tourney, get the auto invite to MM, and run the table there. Could it happen? yes. Would I put money on it? oh, heck no but the point is the same.
Click to expand...

That's mcbb. The NCAA tournament is exciting but a terrible way to provide a championship.

Even an 8 team playoff can have a way to demand regular season success but give a fair shot to non bcs conference teams to win a national title.

Ps, the NCAA mcbb tourney is infinitely more legitimate than the bcs
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#172
#172
milohimself said:
That's mcbb. The NCAA tournament is exciting but a terrible way to provide a championship.

Even an 8 team playoff can have a way to demand regular season success but give a fair shot to non bcs conference teams to win a national title.

Ps, the NCAA mcbb tourney is infinitely more legitimate than the bcs
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...
Is it better? I can understand that, because it guarantees no deserving teams get left out. Infinitely better? I have hard time believing that after seeing a team that went .500 in conference beating a Horizon League Co-Champion for the national title. Especially since the teams they beat in the national semifinals weren't good enough to win their conferences, either.
 
#173
#173
tvolsfan said:
It's not because of style points. It's because they simply weren't close to being the best team in the country.
Click to expand...

The goal of football is to win the game. Nothing else. If you think it's okay to refuse to give a team a chance because they didn't look good enough when they won every single game they played...that's a farce.
 
#174
#174
tvolsfan said:
You know what else is exciting?

Stoerner's fumble in 1998
Ed Reed's pick six against Boston College in 2001
Half the 2002 Buckeyes regular season
USC's stand on first and goal against Cal in 2004
Vince Young's heroics in the Shoe in 2005
Half of the 2006 Gators regular season
Half the 2007 LSU regular season
Rocky Block in 2009
Auburn's comeback against Alabama in 2010

All which unquestionably would have meant considerably less if they just chose more than half of the top 25 to create a playoff system.
Click to expand...

March Madness has that many great, season defining moments every single year. A playoff in college football would so the same, even a small one.

But on that note...what about all of the great moments that didn't matter because the BCS didn't allow them to?

- Cincinnati's thrilling end to its 2009 season
- Boise State's choke against Nevada
- Auburn's epic early season victory over LSU in 2004
- Half of Oregon's 2001 season
- Miami's thriller over Florida State in 2000, which the BCS intelligently used as a springboard for...Florida State?
- Washington's thriller over Miami in 2000, which no one remembers even though Washington also had only one loss, yet people only complain about Miami getting snubbed (and so many other close games involving the Husklies that year, including a 33-30 victory over one loss Oregon State)
 
#175
#175
tvolsfan said:
Is it better? I can understand that, because it guarantees no deserving teams get left out. Infinitely better? I have hard time believing that after seeing a team that went .500 in conference beating a Horizon League Co-Champion for the national title. Especially since the teams they beat in the national semifinals weren't good enough to win their conferences, either.
Click to expand...

One is a series of games used to determine a tournament champion, the other is a popularity contest. The NCAAMCBBNCT may be far from perfect, but it is still infinitely better than the BCS.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top