BCS- Unbeleivable

To date, Florida has played 2 high school teams and only 1 ranked team. In their 4 non high school games, they have won by 10 or less 3 times. Prior to the SEC championship game (if they make it that far) they will have played either 1 or 2 ranked teams- period. How is all this transferring to the #1 spot in the BCS? Doesn't strength of schedule mean anything at all?

http://msn.foxsports.com/cfb/poll?poll=BCS

 

When 2/3 of the BCS is based off the human polls, your beef should be with the voters.

 

True.

But still.... these SEC teams cry cry cry- and it's very effective.

 

It was based a lot more on the computer and strength of schedule but everyone threw a fit because they couldn't manipulate it.

 

I hope so.

To me, strength of schedule should be #1. Even if a team has one close loss to a top team, but 4 or 5 wins over other top teams, that can mean a #1 ranking. It should also matter is you win at home or the road. Florida's schedule is a joke. Again.

 

So lame, you have something good going like college football, then a bunch of money gets involved and all of a sudden you get some kind of BS control apparatus up top to prevent the best from playing the best. I'm surprised Stern doesn't have a write in for who is in the NBA finals.

 

There is no good system when 119 teams play 12 games and you have to determine the best 2. Granted this system probably isn't the best but it is better than we had 15 years ago.

 

The Ducks have been screwed over so many times by the BCS that I stopped caring.

 

Either go back to the old bowl system or a playoff. Both are far superior to the BCS.

 

that isn't even close to being true. the bcs absolutely is better than the old system.

you can argue that a playoff is better but there still has to be a way to determine who gets to play in it. and it appears likely that if there was a playoff now, the bcs is what would be used to determine those teams, so if the bcs sucks so bad, i assume you would be against that as well, right?

 

USC won a split of the national title without playing in the BCS title game.

 

and?

 

Oh, and my playoff system? Take the champs of the ACC, Big 10, Big 12, Big East, Pac 10, SEC, and then the top two teams that didn't win according to the BCS rankings. Also, same rule applies for non-BCS conference teams like Boise State. If they are ranked in the Top 12 and win their conference, they get in over a higher ranked team from a BCS conference. Also, seeds are determined by winning a conference, meaning that Alabama would be the #8 seed right now. If you can't win your conference, you can't cry about being left out of the playoff.

At this point, that would mean my playoff would look like this.

(8) Alabama @ (1) Florida
(7) Oregon @ (2) Texas
(6) Miami @ (3) Boise State
(5) Iowa @ (4) Cincy

Obviously, this will change, but I believe that this system gives the best opportunity to all FBS teams to compete for a title, and it doesn't exclude a very good team (Alabama? USC perhaps) who happens to not win their conference. It would make for even better OOC games as well, since SOS is a big part of the BCS computer rankings.

After the first games, bowls are used as neutral sites.

 

And it means that the system obviously has its flaws.

 

...he doesn't?!

 

I guess I don't understand. NCAA basketball has an extremely successful playoff system. Why can't NCAA football follow suit? I realize that football is a different sport, one which plays much fewer games, but somehow the NFL is able to have playoffs. If the NCAA can figure out a way to have a basketball tournament, I don't understand why they can't figure out something similar for football.

 

Baloney.

The BCS gets the top 2 teams, like, almost never. That right there makes it a sham. Period.

 

Quack! Go Ducks!

Carry on...