NotAJerry wrote:Just so cjsweat can't conveniently ignore the answer to the years the BCS has had legitimate questions about whether or not the 2 most deserving teams got a chance at the title. You either acknowledge this post or you're nothing but a troll.
NotAJerry wrote:cjsweat wrote:
Outside of the year Auburn didn't get in (because I would agree with you on that one), provide one example of where the BCS didn't pair up 1 vs 2.
2001 -- One loss Florida State played undefeated Oklahoma in the BCS Championship game.
This, despite the fact that Florida State had been defeated by Miami (ranked #2 in both human polls AP and ESPN/USA Today) who also had only one loss and was the Big East Champion.
Miami's one loss was to one loss Pac-10 Champ Washington who also had the most legit claim to be in the BCS Championship Game. FSU went on to lose to Oklahoma while Miami and Washington handily won their bowl games.
2002 -- Nebraska picked for BCS Championship game despite losing to Big 12 Champ Colorado (who had 2 losses) in last game of regular season 62-36. One loss Oregon was consensus #2 in human polls; also left out. Nebraska lost to Miami 37-14; Oregon beat Colorado in Fiesta Bowl 38-16.
2004 -- Oklahoma, LSU and USC all finished the season with one loss. (There were no undefeated Div I-A teams). However, Oklahoma lost to Kansas State 35-7 in the Big 12 Championship game. Yet, Oklahoma was still picked for the BCS Championship game to face SEC Champ LSU. LSU won the game 21-14. USC was left out of the BCS Championship game despite having finished the season ranked #1 in both human polls. USC beat Michigan in the Rose Bowl and kept it–s #1 ranking in the AP. So, at the end of the season, there was a BCS Champ LSU and an AP #1 USC. So, effectively a split, undecided National Champion.
2005 -- It wasn't just Auburn getting screwed this time. 5 teams finished the season undefeated. Auburn, Utah, Boise State, USC and Oklahoma. USC and Oklahoma were picked for the BCS Championship Game. USC won and was named BCS Champ. However, Auburn and Utah also won their bowl games leaving us with 3 undefeated teams at the end of the season. Auburn, in particular, was screwed because it probably had the toughest schedule of the 5 undefeated teams. [The 2004-2005 fiasco led the BCS to increase the importance of strength of schedule in its selection process and rankings.]
2007 -- Florida and Michigan both finished the season with one loss. Florida was picked to play Ohio State in the BCS Championship Game – and won. Boise State went undefeated in the regular season and beat Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl in an amazing 43-42 overtime win. So, only Boise State finished the season undefeated; yet it didn–t even play for the National Championship.
2008 -- This was the craziest year of all and resulted in a 2 loss team (LSU) being selected for the BCS Championship Game. It turned out to be the right pick as LSU crushed Ohio State to win the National Championship. But, the point is, either Oklahoma or Virginia Tech could easily have been picked over LSU for that game. And, LSU never would have had its shot.
2009 -- Oklahoma picked for BCS Championship Game despite having one loss to Texas who also had only one loss (to Texas Tech). Florida beat Oklahoma in the BCS Championship game. Further controversy involved Utah going undefeated (including beating Alabama in the Sugar Bowl) and being left out of the BCS Championship game. Then there was Boise State which was ranked in the top 10 in the BCS standings, but was totally left out of any BCS bowl even though it undefeated in the regular season (lost to TCU in Poinsettia Bowl).
2010 -- Alabama and Texas both were undefeated conference champs and faced off in the BCS Championship Game with Alabama winning. So far, so good. Problem was that three other teams also went undefeated in the regular season and were shut out. Boise State, TCU and Cincinnati all had legit gripes. Cincy got crushed by Florida in the Sugar Bowl; so much for them. But, Boise and TCU ended up facing each other in the Fiesta Bowl; denying both of them a shot at a major conference champ. Boise won that game and ended up, along with Alabama, as the two undefeated major college football teams.
2011 -- TCU gets left out of the NC game despite being undefeated. They win the Rose Bowl and finish 13-0. Somehow, Auburn in the NC despite another undefeated team just sitting there staring everybody in the face without a chance to earn a NC on the field.
That's actually 9 legitimate instances where there is no way to claim that the top 2 teams played for the BCS "Championship." Adding in this year, where OSU is clearly the more deserving team for the NC game and that's as many as 10 times where the BCS was at least highly questionable.
I'm referring to the last 8 years of the BCS. Since the program was introduced in 1998, I think it would be fair to give it a few years to work out the kinks. I don't mind some inconsistency at the beginning of careers, products, programs...etc. I think you have to allow for some inconsistency to create a stable product. So, let's start from 8 years ago, the 2004 championship.
2004 - While many people will argue against this, I believe that the BCS did it's job. Oklahoma's SOS was ranked 11th and USC's was ranked 37th. Although Oklahoma had a bad loss in their conference title game, they had played better than USC (considering their schedule) for the rest of the year. When one team out peforms you for a whole season and then slips up one game, why should you be rewarded because of the timing of their loss? Based on the system alone, LSU was the lone champion. It was because of humans that USC shared part of the championship. Naturally, there is a lesson to be learned from all of this: Droids rule/ruled (once iPhones came out, Droids lost their credibility but until Apple creates a form of the BCS, we have to use droids).
2005 - Like I said, I would agree with anyone about this year because of Auburn. However, the Boise State and Utah arguments are laughable. Never should a team from a non-AQ conference get into or have a shot at a national championship. Even if we get a playoff system, non-major conference teams should never be rewarded an opportunity at the NC. Never in my life will I reward or support rewarding mediocrity. The argument for Boise State and Utah making the championship for this year could have been made for Appalachian State, GA Southern, JMU...etc in years past if you just put their respective conferences in FBS. The goal of the BCS is to make it so you almost have to go undefeated to win a national championship (if there are less than two undefeated teams, than one shot teams can have a chance). However, that does not mean that just because you go undefeated that you deserve to play in the NC.
Nice job skipping 2006.
2007 - Florida was better than Michigan and playing the obviously tougher SEC. Don't believe me? See the score of the championship game. Again, Boise State played no one that year. They went undefeated in the 2nd to worse conference in the country. Why should anyone reward that? Sure they beat Oklahoma in a BCS game. Oklahoma gets to play Texas, Ok St, Texas A&M, Kansas State, Nebraska at the time...etc. All of those teams are huge and have huge fanbases...why would those players be remotely excited about playing against some small school from Idaho? How many players from that BSU roster are playing in the pros today? How many from Oklahoma? Remember Adrian Peterson? Don't be stupid or pretend like BSU was actually a better team.
2008 - Look at what you're saying, "it turned out to be the right pick." I judge by results, not what could have been. Exactly why I'm in total support of Bama being selected ahead of Oklahoma State this year. A 2 loss SEC team in 2008 was better than any undefeated team from another conference.
2009 - You could argue that Oklahoma should have been repalced by Texas or TX Tech because of the tie. However, imagine if there would have been a playoff in this scenario. One school would have been screaming because they had to face Florida instead of one of the other Big 12 teams. Either way, no system would have avoided controversy during this year. As for the Utah and Boise State arguments....puhleaseee. Boise State only played one decent team the whole season. Everyone else was terrible and/or had a 15,000 seat stadium. Utah played TCU and BYU which is way better than BSU's schedule but honestly look at what Oklahoma, Texas and TX Tech had to deal with. Furthermore, Bama's situation was the same thing as Florida's in 2007. The players could have cared less about playing some small school from the middle of no where.
2010 - Same thing I've said about non-AQ teams all along. They shouldn't be allowed to play for national titles. I'm glad they got to play each other that year. We got to see which undefeated crappy conference football team was better. Should have named it the toilet bowl.
2011 - I'd agree that TCU actually had a legitament team this year. But again, when you play crappy teams all year long, I don't think you should be rewarded. The PAC-12 was down a little bit but it was still way tougher than the MWC and Oregon rolled through it. If you're actually advocating that Auburn shouldn't have been in the NC last year, I feel sorry for your intelligence level. Look at who they beat/destroyed compared to TCU.
Is the BCS perfect? No, and no system will ever be perfect. I'd argue that college basketball system is worse. If we go to a playoff, I'll bet that we still have just as heated arguments about who should and shouldn't get in. I'll aslo bet that same teams keep on winning while BSU, TCU and Utah keep on sucking. Look what happened to Utah once they entered a real conference, they went from 10-2 to 7-5. Furthermore, if you still are not convinced of your idiocity and you feel compelled to respond to this, I will not be responding until later in the week. I have finals through Wednesday.
- By LU Armchair coach
- By Touchdownmaker
- By flameshaw