The BCS worked

hawkfaninTX said:
I actually think that TCU will win, that is why i said HOPE :)

(I live about 10 minutes from campus down here, and trust me I have heard quite enough already)
Click to expand...

I think they'll win, too. But they don't really win anything but another game. Because it seems like no matter what these schools do, the status quo will not change. Which is why you see Utah and TCU leaving for BCS conferences (though TCU's move is lateral at best).
 
JonDMiller said:
But the rest of the BSC doesn't matter if there is a playoff.

How about this...how about last year, Iowa is the 10th seed in a playoff, going up against #7 Oregon at Oregon. You going? Play that game in two weeks from right now. Say Iowa loses that game.

No bowl, fewer practices meaning less development time, and many others things.

Sorry if I am not giddy about a playoff.
Click to expand...

It's also the best chance for Iowa to ever play it's way into a national title game. I don't see how any hawk fan could justify being against a playoff. Also, how many other sports can you play a perfect season and have basically nothing to show for it?? Ask the players from the last undefeated Auburn team how that worked out.
 
There is a playoff in every other division of NCAA football, in every other SPORT in the NCAA.

Funny how I don't seem to hear a lot of outcry from all of them demanding the nonsense that is the BCS for their sport.
 
I don't see what the point of playing the National Title Game is, Oregon will be champion. Doesn't matter if it's when the game is played on April 23rd or 5 years from now when *shocker* Auburn has to forfeit their wins from this season for using an ineligible player who shall go nameless ($cam Newton)
 
^^^^^This!!!!!!

And when people complained about the TCU-BSU matchup last year, the line was: "The BCS is only designed to pair up the top 2 teams."

So WHY, exactly, do the other four bowls have to select Big 6 champions, or teams ranked in the top 14? Why are the Rose, Fiesta, Sugar, and Orange Bowls involved at all? When the title game rotated among those 4, it made sense. Now that the title is separate, there's no reason for it.
 
TheBattman said:
I don't see what the point of playing the National Title Game is, Oregon will be champion. Doesn't matter if it's when the game is played on April 23rd or 5 years from now when *shocker* Auburn has to forfeit their wins from this season for using an ineligible player who shall go nameless ($cam Newton)
Click to expand...

The title will get vacated. There's a difference. Just like Bush's Heisman. It was vacated, not given to Young. If/when Newton/Auburn goes down, there won't be a champion for 2010 (if Auburn wins the game).
 
If you're anti-playoff, truly, you're missing quite a lot! There's so much more to the anti-BCS/pro-playoff argument than simply the top two teams playing because of two biased polls and an incomplete computer poll.

I've posted this before, and I'll post it again....read it! Be enlightened! The BCS will be dead...D-E-A-D by 2015. Decide it on the field!


Death-to-the-BCS-cover.png



1260176065.jpg



And yes, I go to Oregon. No different than me traveling this year to Minnesota and NW. And last year, traveling to MSU and OSU.

And traveling throughout the years to Indy, W. Lafayette, Tempe, Tucson, Orlando and Tampa three times.
 
Last edited:
TCU might argue that, but it's hard to argue that Auburn & Oregon aren't the two best teams in the country. What bothers me is that TCU won't even get their shot.

Other years the BCS has gotten it wrong. Like Oklahoma still playing in the national title game back in 2003 or whatever year that was they got smoked by KSU in the Big XII title game, or the year Nebraska backed into the title game even after getting destroyed by Colorado late in the season. I think 2003 was the year USC was #1 in the AP & Coaches poll yet somehow wasn't in the Top 2 in the BCS.

Sometimes the BCS gets it right, sometimes not.

Defenders of the BCS will point to this year and say "See? The BCS works."
Critics will point to the years someone gets hosed and say the system is a failure.

The BCS apologists and critics are both a little bit right, IMO.
 
even if stanford got the rose bowl birth this year, they are not the PAC-10 champ. meaning they are just as right to be there as TCU in this current system. You cant have it the old way and the current way. If its not the BIG-10 champ vs the PAC-10 champ (MSU/WISC/OSU* vs Oregon) its not a traditional rose bowl match up anyway

*not really sure who the conference would send here
 
1977Hawkeye said:
TCU might argue that, but it's hard to argue that Auburn & Oregon aren't the two best teams in the country. What bothers me is that TCU won't even get their shot.

Other years the BCS has gotten it wrong. Like Oklahoma still playing in the national title game back in 2003 or whatever year that was they got smoked by KSU in the Big XII title game, or the year Nebraska backed into the title game even after getting destroyed by Colorado late in the season. I think 2003 was the year USC was #1 in the AP & Coaches poll yet somehow wasn't in the Top 2 in the BCS.

Sometimes the BCS gets it right, sometimes not.

Defenders of the BCS will point to this year and say "See? The BCS works."
Critics will point to the years someone gets hosed and say the system is a failure.

The BCS apologists and critics are both a little bit right, IMO.
Click to expand...

And that is the crux of why the BCS needs to go. The major conference cartel suits have rigged the system with bias. It borders on anti-trust.

It's time we decide the national champion of the greatest game in the USA on the field.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top