worked this year, you have to admit it.

All 4 games were exciting to watch and entertaining. Oregon didn't get in, and they lost to Oklahoma anyway.

I know people will still say there should be a playoff, but for what we currently have, it didn't do half bad.

1/5/2006 7:01:32 PM

the bcs people got lucky....

this was the first year in a while where an undefeated team wasn't left out of the N.C. no?

1/5/2006 8:06:52 PM

define "a while"...

there was one undefeated team left out last year...
there were no undefeated teams the year before...

those are actually the reasons the BCS exists, this year had nothing to do with the BCS... the BCS exists to make the hard decision between 3 seemingly equal teams...

1/5/2006 8:08:09 PM

Correct me if Im wrong, but USC and Texas were the only undefeateds in the country unlike last year I believe there were 5. USC, Oklahoma, Auburn, Utah, and Boise State were all undefeated going into the bowls.

1/5/2006 8:08:36 PM

oh, nm.

but wasn't there a dispute two years ago? like a "shared" national title? when was that?

1/5/2006 8:09:05 PM

was Boise undefeated?

either way, only Auburn was left out, Utah and Boise wouldn't have a reasonable chance at a national title game

^ all three teams had 1 loss... same situation, but not undefeated... either way, the "shared national title" stuff is bullshit, the only people that give the AP the right to declare their own champion are the people at the AP... they have as much right to declare a NCAA champion as i do, which means zero right...

[Edited on January 5, 2006 at 8:11 PM. Reason : .]

1/5/2006 8:09:44 PM

Im fairly sure Boise was undefeated but lost to Louisville in the bowl like 44-38 or something. It was one of the best games.

1/5/2006 8:15:10 PM

Quote :

"All 4 games were exciting to watch and entertaining."

its too bad thats not what the BCS is suppose to provide...

Quote :

"but for what we currently have, it didn't do half bad."

you are right. it didn't even do that well...

1/5/2006 10:05:21 PM

What would you have done differently?

I mean the main gripes are:

This year heading in:

ND over Oregon -- Oregon lost and ND played tOSU well
Big East retaining their bid -- WVU smacked around UGa, the SEC champion, and then held on

Overall:

Split Champions -- the 2 best teams (far and away) played and it was CLEAR they were the best

so.... what was the problem???

1/5/2006 10:08:21 PM

Quote :

"What would you have done differently?"

had a playoff.

1/5/2006 10:53:57 PM

Quote :

"had a playoff."

What two teams would have deserved the right to play USC or Texas for a shot at the Championship? It easier to pick the two best than it is to pick the 4 or 8 best that all deserve a shot to win it all. Texas and USC proved themselves already, no need for a playoff.

1/5/2006 10:58:08 PM

well both teams played in conferences with notoriously bad defenses...I actually think the big 12 D looked worse than the Pac10's from the games I watched, but I dont know if the stats will back that up.

It would be nice to see some teams from the tougher, more deep conferences get a chance to win it all though, and the only way to do that is a playoff. The way it is right now, a team from the ACC, Big 10+1, or SEC is not going to win the NC any time soon...unless nobody goes undefeated, and then someone from another conference will feel like they got screwed. Any way they do it is going to be unfair to someone, but the playoff is the best idea...even if the BCS worked THIS year.

1/5/2006 11:10:20 PM

Have you looked at SOS? Its not like Texas and USC had cakewalks. THe SEC was amazingly weak this year, its just their perceived superiority that keep them from being called out like the Pac10 and Big East. Its not like the rest of the BCS teams just abrely lost to premiere competition. They lost to teams they should have beaten. Every other team in the BCS has 2 or 3 losses, a far cry from undefeated.

1/5/2006 11:54:46 PM

a broken clock is right twice a day, even if it is flashing 12:00

1/6/2006 12:01:56 AM

Quote :

"It easier to pick the two best than it is to pick the 4 or 8 best that all deserve a shot to win it all. "

wrong. its easier to pick 4 than 2...

Quote :

"Texas and USC proved themselves already"

Why, because the computer says so? suuuuuuuuure...

Quote :

"a far cry from undefeated."

hey, if all you need is undefeated, then ND should just schedule the entire WAC and finish off with the lower teams in C-USA and they'll be national champions every year

1/6/2006 12:04:22 AM

^^bingo

[Edited on January 6, 2006 at 12:05 AM. Reason : ]

1/6/2006 12:04:36 AM

^^^ actually if i lose electricity my alarm clock goes to 12 and begins flashing but counts time from there so like 2 hours after it regained power it would say 2:00 while flashing so it would never be right.

[Edited on January 6, 2006 at 12:06 AM. Reason : -]

1/6/2006 12:06:23 AM

i need a link

1/6/2006 12:08:33 AM

The reason the BCS worked this year is because it's the only scenario that has no controversy happened this year: two A-class teams went undefeated and there were no more.

It's when the season ends in different ways that the BCS is exposed.

What are they in terms of having a universally recognized #1 and #2 in the title game, 2 years out of 9?

1/6/2006 7:20:09 AM

Quote :

"the BCS exists to make the hard decision between 3 seemingly equal teams..."

[no]

The BCS is there to ensure a #1 vs #2 matchup. Before, this was not always the case even when there were two clearly defined teams up there because of bowl conference tie ins.

i.e. Rose Bowl got #1 Big-10 and #1 Pac-10... USC probably would have played tOSU and we would have had a split championship

1/6/2006 8:32:05 AM

if that's the goal, then it's accomplished that goal and created a single national title, nobody can complain anymore...

and don't tell me about the split national title 2 years ago, nobody sohuld still recognize the AP's title since the NCAA gives one out

1/6/2006 9:01:16 AM

k, so both of us are right...

It has failed because making a decision between 3 teams that are seemingly equal will never be fair no matter the objectivity of a computer. The only way you can do it is to settle it on the field. Period.

1/6/2006 9:41:30 AM

Quote :

"wrong. its easier to pick 4 than 2..."

How? There is much more debate among the 2-10 spots of the poll than there is at the top. You usually have a slew of 1 and 2 loss teams all from power conferences in this range and there is no justifiable way to pick one over the other. THe majority of years there are clearly 2 best teams.

Quote :

"Why, because the computer says so? suuuuuuuuure..."

Oh, I dunno... maybe their undefeated record that no other serious contender could bring to the table?

Quote :

"hey, if all you need is undefeated, then ND should just schedule the entire WAC and finish off with the lower teams in C-USA and they'll be national champions every year "

What the fuck do you think is gonna happen if you have a playoff for the National Championship? Teams no longer need to be perfect. They will schedule easier schedules so they have the best chance of being undefeated and lock their seat in the playoff. Even if you wanted a playoff, which isn't necessary, you still need the BCS to rank your teams to see who gets into the playoff. Human polls suck ass.

Explain to me why Texas should have to play another game. They beat the best team in the country and remain the only undefeated team. Who else deserves a chance tobe called champ... there is nothing else to prove.

Quote :

"It has failed because making a decision between 3 teams that are seemingly equal will never be fair no matter the objectivity of a computer. The only way you can do it is to settle it on the field. Period."

What do you do when you have 5 undefaeted teams or two undefeated teams and three 1 loss teams from the ACC, SEC, and Big12? There are always going to be situations that arise where someone can feel left out. The only way any semblance of a playoff system could come about would require drastic conference overhauling and that just isn't going to happen any time soon.

1/6/2006 11:41:24 AM

Quote :

"and don't tell me about the split national title 2 years ago, nobody sohuld still recognize the AP's title since the NCAA gives one out"

right...that's why everyone was talking about USC maybe 3-peating

And the NCAA does not give out the title, the BCS - a conglomerate of six Division I-A conferences and Notre Dame - give out the title. There never has been an NCAA championship in I-A college football. The highest NCAA championship in football is in I-AA. And since the AP national championship has been around in the '40s and they don't change their formula every year, it has as much credibility as the BCS when there is a split decision.

[Edited on January 6, 2006 at 4:09 PM. Reason : .]

1/6/2006 4:05:46 PM

just because people shouldn't do something doesn't mean they aren't going to do it anyway...

people unfortunately follow what is said to them in the paper and on tv... well those people are sportswriters and guess what, sportswriters have an interest in keeping the ability to name their own national champion...

it's really not that hard to figure out

1/6/2006 4:34:13 PM