The Impending Doom For the BCS That Is Boise State...

[cotton]

The best thing that could happen for college football would be for Boise to get into the title game based upon the stupid formula, and then get absolutely pantsed by Texas or Florida or somebody. Maybe then we could finally move towards a playoff and away from a beauty pageant.

That won't make it happen; I'd argue that we have had worse (see: Nebraska,) and it didn't change anything other than a tweak to the computer program. What it would take to shake things up is somebody like Boise beating a controversial major in the NCG.

Picture this: Florida loses at LSU without Tebow, then wins out, squeaking by Bama in the SECCG again. Texas loses Colt McCoy in the Big XII championship, but finishes with BSU as the only undefeated. Half of the Longhorns come down with swine flu and lose 24-23 on a last second FG to Boise in the NCG, while Florida pantses Ohio State in the Sugar and Bama beats Cincy by triple digits in the Orange. Boise hoists the trophy.

I'm not saying that is likely to happen, but you will need to see something equivalent to BYU '84 to bring about meaningful change.

 

[tvolsfan]

And what happens when Boise State wins. Then the people who hate on the mid-majors will make up more excuses.

They won't win.

 

[kptvol]

Anyone? No. The average college football fan? Even then, I'm sure that they can tell you more than just that one if they actually watch college football.

I notice you didn't bother to mention another win. What other victory is there to recall? A couple of wins over Oregon and one over Oregon State?

 

[tvolsfan]

The only downside to Alabama losing last year is that it is more reason for the mid majors to complain about respect.

 

[tidwell]

I notice you didn't bother to mention another win. What other victory is there to recall? A couple of wins over Oregon and one over Oregon State?

Hey, hey. They're 2-4 in bowl games not played in their home freaking stadium in the last 10 years. That's big time.

 

[CornPoke]

The only downside to Alabama losing last year is that it is more reason for the mid majors to complain about respect.

While I like the respect, I'd still rather it ALL be decided on the FIELD!!

If Utah was better than Florida I would have liked to seen it. Is that too much to ask as a fan?

 

[tvolsfan]

I don't mind deciding it on the field, but if that happens, it should be the top 4 teams and not the top 16 or something like that. I still think a plus 1 is great. Too bad the Big 10 and PAC 10 are against it.

 

[Vercingetorix]

good. cause in 2005 we really needed to see the virginia tech and miami teams with 2 and 3 losses - neither of which won their conference - playing in a BCS game.

Don't you get it? There weren't any "BCS games." There were just bowl games, a crapton of them, and as Jan 1 went on they got more and more prestigious and the teams got better and better. And then after it was over, they released some polls, and that was that. The new system is just as poll-driven and controversy-rife as the old way; it's just that now the polls that they take before the bowls are all-important, as opposed to the ones that they used to take afterwards.

With the one exception of the so-called title game, the matchups that the big bowls organically produced in the old system were more compelling than what you have now. Now you have one great, interesting game (played on about Jan 8, five weeks after the season ends), a handful of semi-interesting but clearly meaningless weeknight games, and a bunch of interchangeable ESPN-fodder other games. Under the old system, two or three of the major bowls were potentially Very Important, Must Watch Critical Games; now only one of them is. (And since they added the extra game, none of them are. The actual bowl game that precedes the "title game" doesn't mean anything either.)

....and you cant have a yes/no switch with some conferences

I really don't know what you mean by this, but back in the old days, not every "BCS conference" had an automatic tie-in to a major bowl. Cincinnati and Louisville and Wake Forest and the rest wouldn't have been in any of the big games. Maybe you think that's some big blow for egalitarianism in college football, but until we have a system where we settle it on the field like men, then nobody wants to see these crap also-ran programs in the big games. Everybody in the country knows they're on a different level than the Floridas and the Texases and the USCs and the other programs that perennially recruit the best players. I want to see the little guys in the process too, but only once we get a playoff system where they get a chance to prove their worth.

and that year instead of that Texas USC rose bowl national championship that we got, the old system would have had USC play ohio state, texas playing Bama or LSU or the at large notre dame

At least USC's game against OSU and Texas's game against whoever would have both mattered. Last year USC had every bit as good a claim on the championship game as either Florida or Oklahoma, but their evisceration of Penn State was basically just a glorified exhibition because it wasn't the One True Championship Game. You make one game mean everything, but at the expense of making the other games mean nothing. I'm not sure that that's progress.

 

[cotton]

With the one exception of the so-called title game, the matchups that the big bowls organically produced in the old system were more compelling than what you have now. Now you have one great, interesting game (played on about Jan 8, five weeks after the season ends), a handful of semi-interesting but clearly meaningless weeknight games, and a bunch of interchangeable ESPN-fodder other games. Under the old system, two or three of the major bowls were potentially Very Important, Must Watch Critical Games; now only one of them is. (And since they added the extra game, none of them are. The actual bowl game that precedes the "title game" doesn't mean anything either.)

Well said. I have always thought that, while trying to pit 1 vs. 2 is a noble goal, the rest of the BCS system is pointless. If I were king, I would go back to the old system of the conferences hosting the bowls and using whatever arcane system they chose with one exception--the consense (however defined) #2 must travel to the consensus #1's hosted bowl game.

At least that way you would limit the controversy about BCS selections to one game, and you probably wouldn't see half-empty Orange Bowls where Wake Forest takes on Louisville every other year.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Well said. I have always thought that, while trying to pit 1 vs. 2 is a noble goal, the rest of the BCS system is pointless. If I were king, I would go back to the old system of the conferences hosting the bowls and using whatever arcane system they chose with one exception--the consense (however defined) #2 must travel to the consensus #1's hosted bowl game.

At least that way you would limit the controversy about BCS selections to one game, and you probably wouldn't see half-empty Orange Bowls where Wake Forest takes on Louisville every other year.

It simply means that the NCAA gets some faux validity by having the beauty contest prior to the final game, rather than afterward. The decision is so far prior to the final game, that much of the rancor over the teams that got jobbed has died down. Doesn't change the fact that it is nothing but a beauty contest.

 

[volinbham]

My dream is that Boise St. meets Bammer in the NCS game and goes all "Utah" on them.

Oh what a delight that would be.

 

[BigPapaVol]

My dream is that Boise St. meets Bammer in the NCS game and goes all "Utah" on them.

Oh what a delight that would be.

how about they go all Utah on somebody that won't benefit from making the championship game?

 

[volinbham]

I think Bammer losing the NC to a mid-major would cause such a ripple in the "excuse-making" universe that any benefit to UA would be forever lost to endless joke opportunities.

The presser with Saban would be worth it alone.

 

[BigPapaVol]

I think Bammer losing the NC to a mid-major would cause such a ripple in the "excuse-making" universe that any benefit to UA would be forever lost to endless joke opportunities.

The presser with Saban would be worth it alone.

I'll concede, if you'll edit out the word presser. Deal?

 

[volinbham]

I felt wrong the moment I typed it.

 

[cotton]

It simply means that the NCAA gets some faux validity by having the beauty contest prior to the final game, rather than afterward.

It really is more faux than valid. I've never understood why a complicated scientific formula designed to identify the national champion should be applied to determine the 9th and 10th most deserving teams of a large payday.

I think Bammer losing the NC to a mid-major would cause such a ripple in the "excuse-making" universe that any benefit to UA would be forever lost to endless joke opportunities.

Here's another situation that might cause change: USC limps through the PAC-10 with only the one loss and squeaks by Florida in the NCG. 1-loss Bama, after dropping a tight SECC to the Gators, gets obliterated 63-7 by undefeated, 3rd ranked BSU in the Sugar.