Good post from GT message board about BCS

Lord MJ · Post by **Lord MJ** » 2004-01-05 04:44am

While flawed, because there is no provision for three teams with identical blemishes (in this case each with one loss), the BCS did what it is designed to do. It took the bias out of the National Championship determination. Without the BCS, USC would have played Michigan in the Rose Bowl and been declared the unamimous national champions by voters who would have voted their bias. Just as they did in 1960 when 8-2 Minnesota won over a 10-0-1 Ole Miss team. The undefeated Alabama team finished 3rd in 1966 (the only team in the nation w/o a blemish). Penn State was perfect one year and came in second. And the biggest farce of all - 1990. If only one coach had ranked the Jackets one spot lower, Georgia Tech would not have shared the NC with Colorado who lost one, tied one and won two on two of the most infamous calls in football history. But the great AP writers voted their bias.

LSU would not have shared the title had it not been for the BCS.
This would have rivaled the farce of 1990 had it not been for the BCS.

The answer? Some kind of playoff. We needed it in 1952 when a 12-0 Jacket team finished 2nd in the mighty AP poll to Michigan State. I've long since given up hope for a playoff, but even a 4 game playoff would solve the problem encountered in the aforementioned years.

USC deserves a share. But so does LSU. W/O the BCS only USC would have been crowned and that would have been a true shame.

Yes, it would be a shame that a team that lost to California being crowned undisputed national champion, and LSU getting nothing.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-01-05 04:55am

The BCS is not designed to remove bias, else it would be soley stats based instead of depending heavily on poll rankings.

It was designed to get rid of the shared championship, something which it has definately failed to do.

I'd also note that, had USC not lost, LSU would not have been in the Sugar Bowl. So the post's bit about the loss to Cal means nothing.

Lord MJ · Post by **Lord MJ** » 2004-01-05 09:24pm

Had USC not lost, USC would be the nations only undefeated team going into the Sugar Bowl.

The controversy would still exist regarding Oklahoma being in and LSU having to go to one of the other bowls. But there wouldn't be a split title since if USC beat oklahoma, there would be only one undefeated team, and if Oklahoma beat USC, it would've beated then nations only undefeated team.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-05 10:39pm

I also think something should be worked in preventing non-conference champions from playing in the NC game. If you aren't the best team in your conference you have no business claiming the national title, in my opinion.

Lord MJ · Post by **Lord MJ** » 2004-01-06 12:56am

I think the flaw of that is that, come conferences (SEC, Big 12, soon ACC) the conference champion has to win a winner take all championship game to claim the conference title.

While in other conferences, they merely need to win more conference games then all the other teams.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-06 01:00am

I would correct that flaw by making all conferences play a conference championship game (although there might be a antitrust issue there with Notre Fucking Dame).

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-01-06 01:06am

Oh, like that's an issue, Notre Dame being good

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-06 02:11am

Howedar wrote:Oh, like that's an issue, Notre Dame being good

True, but they're a bunch of assholes who steal other people's bowl games because they won't join a conference, and if they had a good enough season to qualify for a national championship game but were denied the game for not winning a conference championship game (if my plan were implemented, of couse), there would definitely be a lawsuit.

And that's what I love about the fact that Notre Dame exists; we can have our differences, but everyone outside of the sports media can all agree that Notre Dame sucks ass.