Semi-OT? - Yet another example of why the BCS system sucks
The USA Today Coaches' Poll just came out...
Highest ranked ACC team: Virginia Tech at #17
Highest ranked Big East team: they're all unranked
Yet these two craptastic conferences each get 1 automatic BCS bid.
I know you all hate OSU and MSU, but please look at this by team merits, as a Big Ten vs. other crappier conferences thing, and as a "BCS sucks" thing... isn't it a travesty that TWO of Wisconsin, OSU, MSU, and Iowa will miss out on BCS bids to accomodate teams from those two awful conferences?
We desperately need a playoff system... no teams from those two conferences would make it to a playoff... and that's the way it should be!
November 7th, 2010 at 6:04 PM ^
Yeah, Oregon was scoring a ton last year too. They scored 8 against BSU. Everybody returned from that BSU team. It is not really that clear cut.
November 7th, 2010 at 6:14 PM ^
November 7th, 2010 at 6:51 PM ^
Some of that could be that they just hadn't hit their stride, or they could have suffered a letdown after losing to BSU and after losing their top RB after the first game. BSU also beat a quality Oregon team the year before too, in Eugene. BSU matches up well with Oregon, which is why I don't take it as given that Oregon would beat BSU this year.
November 7th, 2010 at 7:05 PM ^
November 7th, 2010 at 8:12 PM ^
BTW, I am not making a case for BSU over an undefeated Oregon, or an undefeated Auburn, etc. I am, however, taking issue with the people who would keep BSU and TCU at #3 even if there were no undefeated or 1-loss teams remaining. They are quality teams, and if there are no undefeated teams remaining, then they should get their shot over 1-loss teams.
November 7th, 2010 at 1:58 PM ^
I can't argue that MSU is better than Miami or FSU, much less Virginia Tech.
November 7th, 2010 at 2:21 PM ^
November 7th, 2010 at 2:55 PM ^
What an original thought, the BCS sucks. Yeah, I know that this isn't a popular opinion, but I think that the BCS is infinitely better than an 8 or 16 team tournament. Personally, I'm in favor of a plus-one, but the thought of a two or three loss team getting a shot at a title is really asinine.
November 7th, 2010 at 6:17 PM ^
NSFMF. I have a feeling that we will truly see "asinine" in this season's title game. Also, as long as there is no playoff with conference champions included, there is absolutely no incentive for teams to schedule tough non-conference matchups when they can cost a team a shot at a National Championship while a team with an easier schedule gets in.
The BCS richly deserves BSU vs TCU this year. Oregon has Cal, Arizona, and Oregon St left, while Auburn has UGA, Bama, and the SEC title game left. Both could go undefeated, but both could stub their toes, too. Meanwhile, TCU will be playing SDSU and NMU, while BSU will be playing Idaho, Fresno St, Nevada, and Utah St. Nevada is a threat, but they did lose to Hawaii.
So, as much as I would love to see Auburn get the chance that a USC team with an ineligible star player stole from them a few years ago, it would be a lot more fun to see everybody lose and the BCS get stuck with a dog of a game that almost nobody watches. Only when they start losing money will they start seriously thinking about doing it the right way. D-1 football has been the only NCAA sport without a true champion determined on the field long enough.
November 7th, 2010 at 7:04 PM ^
Like I said, a four team playoff would be the best. All the people clamoring for 8, 16, or more need to realize that a three loss team does not deserve a shot at the title. With four, there still is some selectivity, which I think is for the best. I don't think the voters will allow Boise or TCU to be part of the tourney, but hey, I could be wrong.
November 7th, 2010 at 3:23 PM ^
November 7th, 2010 at 6:14 PM ^
Sagarin's conference rankings stress the middle of a conference at the expense of the top and bottom of a conference. There are fair arguments in favor of this method, but it is utterly irrelevant when discussing who deserves an autobid because autobids should go to conferences that consistently produce teams that deserve them.
November 7th, 2010 at 7:09 PM ^
November 7th, 2010 at 11:30 PM ^
That said, I would argue that the top of the Big East has generally not been as good as the top of the other BCS conferences (except, perhaps, the ACC). I don't think that any program in the Big East that lacks the ability to compete as a midlevel team in the other BCS conferences, but I also don't that there's any program in the Big East that could compete for Big Ten, Big 12, Pac 10, or SEC titles on a yearly basis. And that's important when evaluating conference strength.
November 7th, 2010 at 5:45 PM ^
I think the autobid rules are there for antitrust purposes...