BCS is BS

RMSHA109 · Dec 6, 2009

I cant believe what a bunch of crap the bcs is. They realy are afraid of the fact the Boise and TCU are better teams than any other team so they put them in the same game to save the emberrassment for teams like Texas and Alambama. It will make for a great game but come on!!!!!

Scott · Dec 6, 2009

Boise earned their shot. They should get it.

If anything they need to put Boise up against a better team to either shut them up and send them home....or eat crow. LOL

Blisteringsnorider · Dec 6, 2009

No doubt Boise is a good team..I'm a fan, but to get the respect, they need to play a little tougher schedule in the tail end of the season.That is the only way I think they will get a look for an automatic BCS bid. just my .02 :beer;

Billygoat · Dec 6, 2009

RMSHA109 said:
I cant believe what a bunch of crap the bcs is. They realy are afraid of the fact the Boise and TCU are better teams than any other team so they put them in the same game to save the emberrassment for teams like Texas and Alambama. It will make for a great game but come on!!!!!

Agree 100%

TCU and Boise State have both earned it. Both teams are undeafted high scoring teams. Texas barely won their last game.

Motley Doo · Dec 7, 2009

BSU and TCU really get screwed in there schedules.....to make it into a tougher bowl game, they need tougher schedules. On the other hand, there is no way they can get better if they don't play against better teams! If the BCS is scared that they will throw them into a tough bowl only to embarrass them, then it needs to happen to prove it! But so far, both BSU and Utah have wins against very potent BCS schools in 'Bama and the Sooners. If either BSU of TCU played a tougher schedule, even if they came in with loss, they would have a better chance of being in a major bowl...

sw Pub · Dec 7, 2009

I do get tired of the argument "they need tougher schedules."

When you're in a conference, you have to play those in your conference. Take a look at their non conference schedules. They play the best teams available who will play them. Unlike Florida and some of those elite conference teams (take a look at their non conference games).

It's all about the money. The BCS controls the money. The BCS conferences have equally weak teams on the bottom end of their conference ... only they have a lot more money in their football programs thanks to the BCS payouts.

TCU is the best team in Texas ... and likely the best team in the Nation. Boise State plays outstanding football and deserves a shot at winning out.

In my book, the Boise State/TCU game is for the national championship. If you don't have the balls to play these two teams, you don't merrit the title spot.

Gaz · Dec 7, 2009

sw Pub said:
In my book, the Boise State/TCU game is for the national championship. If you don't have the balls to play these two teams, you don't merrit the title spot.

Really???

The BSU schedule put them against ONE ranked team this year. So besides a non-conference -cough lucky cough- win against Oregon, BSU wasn't exactly going out on a limb with their games against Miami Ohio, Bowling Green, UC Davis, and Tulsa. I'll be the first to agree that even the SEC or Big 12 teams schedule wasn't hella-tough, but at least Texas and Alabama had to prove themselves (and win) against a tougher schedule in comparison. TCU probably should be playing in the Sugar Bowl against Florida but they definitely aren't deserving of a national championship game.

With all of the bi+&hing and complaining about Utah last year and now TCU this year, you'd think MWC stands for Mountain Whiners Conference.

Polar Express · Dec 7, 2009

In my opinion.... he he he...

College DI football needs to be decided by a tournament. Every other sport in every other division decides with a tournament.

Make the bowl games the tournament games, and even have some that are not in the tournament for various conference #'s 2,3,4, etc.

It needs to start with a 16-team playoff. that means each conference would produce a conference champ (let each conference decide how) by, say the first weekend in Dec., they are seeded on Sunday, and by Sunday night, they know who they will play. Sure, there will be some bickering about seeding, but the easy solution to that is "put up or shut up, if you deserve the championship, you should beat everyone else".

A 16-team playoff allows for each conference (there's 12, right?) gets one representative, and there is room for 4 wild-cards. The only gray area would be the wild cards, but you have no room to complain if you couldn't win your conference.

I think there are almost 60 bowl games by now, right? Fine, the top bidders get to put their names on the playoff bowls, and the others get to pick whoever they want. This is the only fair way to decide.

Just my opinion..

PE

Motley Doo · Dec 7, 2009

I kinda agree with the playoffs...but to make it totally fair, you would have to have a losers bracket, and that would mean playing games until the freakin end of march! Problem with playoffs is that if you come in as the #1 seed, you have almost a free ride to the championship game based on the fact that you have home field advantage all the way through and that you always play the lowest seed teams through the tourny. Unfortunately, no system is perfect.

And as for the strength of schedule....Until BSU steps up and goes into the Pac-10 or TCU goes into the Big 12, they will always get screwed out of bowls. If Alabama did nothing but played Bowling Green and Marshall all year, they would be in the same situation! You can't get credited the same for beating Tulsa as beating Florida, it's just that simple! And it doesn't matter if you absolutely slaughter whatever crappy team your playing, you will always get looked over....

sildoc · Dec 7, 2009

Boise state has petitioned to play tougher teams, The problem is that no one wants to play them, rightfully so as they are in a lose lose situation. If the tougher team wins it is only against a small conference team, if they lose then they don't have a chance in getting in a BCS Bowl.
Boise has had a great team for the last few years and even though they have a flawless season they get screwed for not having tougher teams step up.

Scott · Dec 7, 2009

The FBS is the ONLY division that DOESNT use a playoff.

The other divisions are loser out...you lose you turn in your gear.
They could have sponsorships for the games each round and the cash cow could still be there for the NCAA.
The high paying the sponsor, the later in the bracket their game appears.

BTW, what's so special about Thanksgiving in Bozeman? Football gear turn-in. LOL

MPS · Dec 7, 2009

I thought the Obamanator was going to put pressure on the NCAA to create a national playoff system??? Maybe he needs to focus on that instead of the economy and health care.

.

Polar Express · Dec 7, 2009

In my proposal, the seeding would not determine what field they play on. In effect, there is no home-field. The sponsors get to choose which seed match (#1 vs. #16, or #7 vs. #8, etc.) in order of how much $ they put up. At that point, it's a bidding war between the bowl sponsors, so they can pick what game they want to host. And, you can do that on a conference call as late as the weekend the conf. champs are due, or as early as preseason.

What this does mean, is that the national champs will have played in 4 bowl games, with a total of 15 bowl games dedicated to the tournament. The rest of the bowl games can be either a losers bracket (I'd suggest no on this one) or what would be better, would be run the way they currently are, by invitation to the lesser (but still good) programs in the conferences that did NOT make the tournament.

With today's computers, it would be easy to develop and track a system of 'shares' to distribute the various bowl $ back to the schools. All the money from all the bowls goes into one pool, and is allocated to the schools based on the 'shares' they have earned. One way to get the academics to give a little more support to the athletic programs, would be to have lump sums from the main pool to go towards academic-only grant to the schools who produce conference champs, and national champs.

PE

HeadLever · Dec 7, 2009

Gaz said:
Really???

The BSU schedule put them against ONE ranked team this year. So besides a non-conference -cough lucky cough- win against Oregon, BSU wasn't exactly going out on a limb with their games against Miami Ohio, Bowling Green, UC Davis, and Tulsa. I'll be the first to agree that even the SEC or Big 12 teams schedule wasn't hella-tough, but at least Texas and Alabama had to prove themselves (and win) against a tougher schedule in comparison. TCU probably should be playing in the Sugar Bowl against Florida but they definitely aren't deserving of a national championship game.

With all of the bi+&hing and complaining about Utah last year and now TCU this year, you'd think MWC stands for Mountain Whiners Conference.

Ok, first of all, BSU also had Oregon State lined up to play this season but they pulled out. Boise had to fill in the gap with UC-Davis. Quite a swing for the ol' SOS counter. Also, Boise is having a hard time to find a team from a 'big confrence' that has the stones to play them. The paper reported a story wherby BSU offered an away game for the 2011 season and 10 teams from the AQ confrences all turned them down.

Secondly, Boise soundly thumped Oregon 19-8. Total yards - BSU 361, UO 151. You could make a case that maybe Oregon was not at their peak at that time, but to say the BSU got lucky is quite a ways off the mark.

Gaz · Dec 7, 2009

HeadLever said:
Secondly, Boise soundly thumped Oregon 19-8. Total yards - BSU 361, UO 151. You could make a case that maybe Oregon was not at their peak at that time, but to say the BSU got lucky is quite a ways off the mark.

BSU was lucky they didn't face Oregon later in the season because the results would have been drastically different. I agree that something definitely needs to change.

Gaz · Dec 7, 2009

Here's something to think about: If they did playoffs and took the conference winner from each conf, and had 4 at large bids, with no more than 2 teams from one conference could get into the tourney, with the 4 at large bids based on the top 4 remaining BCS teams. Teams seated based on final BCS standings...you'd have:

Bama (1) v Arkansas State (16)
Ohio State (8) v Georgia Tech (9)
Florida (5) v Miami (FL) (9)
East Carolina (13) v TCU (4)
Cincy (3) v Central Michigan (14)
Boise State (6) v Virginia Tech (11)
Oregon (7) v Iowa (10)
Navy (15) v Texas (2)

Granted, you'd have to get rid of the conference championship game and maybe one non-conf game, but this would make a much better bowl series than what it is right now.

RMSHA109 · Dec 8, 2009

Really???

The BSU schedule put them against ONE ranked team this year. So besides a non-conference -cough lucky cough- win against Oregon, BSU wasn't exactly going out on a limb with their games against Miami Ohio, Bowling Green, UC Davis, and Tulsa. I'll be the first to agree that even the SEC or Big 12 teams schedule wasn't hella-tough, but at least Texas and Alabama had to prove themselves (and win) against a tougher schedule in comparison. TCU probably should be playing in the Sugar Bowl against Florida but they definitely aren't deserving of a national championship game.

Gaz you realy are a DA I guess you dont get it the SMALL Schools dont get the same chances because they dont bring in the $$$$$. I love fair game sports but this BCS thing is like I said BS. Go Broncs

mtn_extreme · Dec 8, 2009

Gaz said:
BSU was lucky they didn't face Oregon later in the season because the results would have been drastically different. I agree that something definitely needs to change.

I get so tired of the BS.......BSU beats a good team and suddenly they were some different team than they are now WTF?

And when BSU scheduled the likes of Tulsa and others, they were on top of their game. As stated previously, the big dog teams won't accept BSU's challenge so just how do you propose we strengthen our schedule Gaz?

HeadLever · Dec 8, 2009

Gaz said:
BSU was lucky they didn't face Oregon later in the season because the results would have been drastically different. I agree that something definitely needs to change.

Yes, Oregon got better as the year went on and so did Boise. Remember the field goals that Boise missed? The penalties? Also you had your best running back Blount in there for that game.

Saying that Oregon would have beat them later in the year is complete conjecture on your part.

HeadLever · Dec 8, 2009

RMSHA109 said:
Really???

The BSU schedule put them against ONE ranked team this year. So besides a non-conference -cough lucky cough- win against Oregon, BSU wasn't exactly going out on a limb with their games against Miami Ohio, Bowling Green, UC Davis, and Tulsa. I'll be the first to agree that even the SEC or Big 12 teams schedule wasn't hella-tough, but at least Texas and Alabama had to prove themselves (and win) against a tougher schedule in comparison. TCU probably should be playing in the Sugar Bowl against Florida but they definitely aren't deserving of a national championship game.

Gaz you realy are a DA I guess you dont get it the SMALL Schools dont get the same chances because they dont bring in the $$$$$. I love fair game sports but this BCS thing is like I said BS. Go Broncs

Click to expand...

Again, BSU also had Oregon State on the schedule, but they pulled out. Not BSU's fault. Boise did the best they could.

Also, you are ignoring the fact that scheduling is a two way street. Due to our recent sucess and butt whooping we gave to Oregon the last two years, the conversation now goes something like this:

BSU to BCS AQ Teams: Hey we have an opening in 2011 do you want us to schedule us? We will even schedule the game away with no need for a return visit to Boise.

BCS Teams to BSU: LOL, hell no. By the way, you have a weak schedule.

And props to teams like Oregon, Virgina Tech, Georgia, Washington, and Oregon State that have had the balls to schedule us.

BCS is BS

Scott Stiegler

Well-known member

Scott Stiegler

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads