It is incredibly disruptive to the university environment. Any school that schedules these games is short-changing its students. One every now and then is acceptable, but no school should ever have more than one per season.
Yeah Boise's No3 but anyone notice how empty their stands were?
- Thread starter McDawg
- Start date
by the way how much would it suck to be a boise fan and NEVER have a home game worth a ****. its hard to be excited about the idaho, la tech, wyoming, etc... game. Boise should never ever get to play in the bcs nat'l championship b/c if they were in sec, big12, big 10, hell maybe even the pac 10 they would lose at least 3 a year
then by all means, please let them in. I'm sick of the BCS as it stands. I do agree that they are screwing themselves by continually scheduling teams like Wyoming and Toledo. One would think that by now they would have figured out that scheduling a maximum of 2 BCS schools is not a good way to look like a convincing top 2 team.
...but it cuts both ways. Human polls give credit to teams for wins that were impressive at the time but as the season plays out, those wins become less impressive. Boise is supposed to be a contender because they beat Virginia Tech? Who cares that they beat Virginia Tech? Tech's preseason ranking was obviously a joke.<div>
</div><div>People are impressed with Oregon now, but the computers aren't. Maybe the computers are seeing something that people are ignoring.<div>
</div><div>I just like the computer rankings because they don't care about school history, the uniforms, the alumni, the athletic budget. You could take the names away and the rankings wouldn't change. Unfortunately, the human polls are often affected by those things.</div><div>
</div><div>I totally see what you're saying though. It's two sides of the same coin. It's tough to decide who's better when everyone doesn't play everyone else.</div></div>
</div><div>People are impressed with Oregon now, but the computers aren't. Maybe the computers are seeing something that people are ignoring.<div>
</div><div>I just like the computer rankings because they don't care about school history, the uniforms, the alumni, the athletic budget. You could take the names away and the rankings wouldn't change. Unfortunately, the human polls are often affected by those things.</div><div>
</div><div>I totally see what you're saying though. It's two sides of the same coin. It's tough to decide who's better when everyone doesn't play everyone else.</div></div>
The Harris poll, I believe, delays its first release, but I think it would be better if the BCS would use polls that weren't voted on until after the entire season was complete.
It's not fair that the previous season comes into play as someone else said. The TCU-Boise bowl game last year played a factor in which one would have the inside track this year. Auburn's 8-5 disappointment in 2003 after being pre-season Top 5 is the reason they didn't have a chance to pass pre-season No. 1 and 2 USC and Oklahoma in 2004. Last year shouldn't affect this year, but it does.
Of course, even if you forced polls to wait until the end of the season to release for the first time, other polls would take their place, so that the media and fans would have some guide to use and something to discuss, and those polls would impact the voters on the polls used by the BCS.
As I said, it's flawed no matter how you do it, but I just feel that the eye test still plays better for a 12 game sample size than any computer poll can. That's why the 2 human polls are combined to account for 2 times the weight of the 5 or 6 computer polls. It's just a better gauge for this sample size.
The flaws you're pointing out with the human polls, and the flaws I've pointed out with computer polls are exactly the reason why a playoff is needed. You can't take such a small sample size and select only 2 teams out of 120 to have a shot at the end of the year. There is no fair or accurate way to do it.
It's not fair that the previous season comes into play as someone else said. The TCU-Boise bowl game last year played a factor in which one would have the inside track this year. Auburn's 8-5 disappointment in 2003 after being pre-season Top 5 is the reason they didn't have a chance to pass pre-season No. 1 and 2 USC and Oklahoma in 2004. Last year shouldn't affect this year, but it does.
Of course, even if you forced polls to wait until the end of the season to release for the first time, other polls would take their place, so that the media and fans would have some guide to use and something to discuss, and those polls would impact the voters on the polls used by the BCS.
As I said, it's flawed no matter how you do it, but I just feel that the eye test still plays better for a 12 game sample size than any computer poll can. That's why the 2 human polls are combined to account for 2 times the weight of the 5 or 6 computer polls. It's just a better gauge for this sample size.
The flaws you're pointing out with the human polls, and the flaws I've pointed out with computer polls are exactly the reason why a playoff is needed. You can't take such a small sample size and select only 2 teams out of 120 to have a shot at the end of the year. There is no fair or accurate way to do it.
I'm glad there's not a playoff.<div>
</div><div>The regular season of college football is so awesome. Every game is so important. It's like the NCAA tournament but for three months.</div><div>
</div><div>I love the fact that Auburn's game in Oxford this week is just as do-or-die as their game against LSU last week. I loved it when UCLA beat USC to knock them out of the national title game. I realize that sometimes teams can lose one (or in rare cases two) games and still make the title game, but I don't think that diminishes the imperative nature of each game.</div><div>
</div><div>I could see a plus one, but the bigger it gets the less the regular season matters. It's a slippery slope. The next thing you know, it could be like college basketball where the regular season means next to nothing. FBS football has the worst post-season of all sports, but it also has, hands down, the best regular season. It's a trade-off.</div><div>
</div><div>Even if there was a playoff, there would still be a TON of controversy over who got in and who didn't.</div>
</div><div>The regular season of college football is so awesome. Every game is so important. It's like the NCAA tournament but for three months.</div><div>
</div><div>I love the fact that Auburn's game in Oxford this week is just as do-or-die as their game against LSU last week. I loved it when UCLA beat USC to knock them out of the national title game. I realize that sometimes teams can lose one (or in rare cases two) games and still make the title game, but I don't think that diminishes the imperative nature of each game.</div><div>
</div><div>I could see a plus one, but the bigger it gets the less the regular season matters. It's a slippery slope. The next thing you know, it could be like college basketball where the regular season means next to nothing. FBS football has the worst post-season of all sports, but it also has, hands down, the best regular season. It's a trade-off.</div><div>
</div><div>Even if there was a playoff, there would still be a TON of controversy over who got in and who didn't.</div>
klerushund said:
It's a 2 team playoff. I do agree that there is a trade off between the size of your playoff/excitement of your playoff and the importance of the regular season. The larger your playoff, the less exciting and important the regular season.
And yes there will always be controversy over the last few slots in a playoff. MSU fans felt like they should've been in the NCAA tourney last year, but ultimately you didn't have a legit shot at the national title. You're arguing over a banner at that point. I'd rather have teams arguing over a banner moreso than having teams left out who have a real argument that they are the best team in the country. I'd rather it be an argument over who is No. 4, 8, or 16 than No. 2.
I agree with pretty much everyone on this thread. Plus, the broncos'strength of schedule is a joke.Lower thanus and the ole miss rebears. They should just quit playing cupcake teams...maybe then they'd be taken seriously. Maybe I'm bitter because I hate blue unis ona blue field. It's camouflage.</p>
Y
yagsigwadirruzza
Guest
There were only 8 teams in the playoff and 6/7 of them went to autobids for conference champions. Then every game matters, because you're trying to win your conference. You can't hope for the 8th at-large slot, because you're probably not going to get it. And that's fine, because you should win your conference.klerushund said:
The Nebraska game was a 2-for-1 series starting in 2015, and Nebraska was only going to pay then a standard non-AQ fee. <div>That's BS. Boise State deserves a home-and-home, or at least a very large buy.</div><div>drunkernhelldawg said:
</div><div>Actually, Boise State did offer to play a one-off game (at a reasonable high price) against any AQ team. Almost every team was smart enough to turn them down, though the Black Bears weren't (they're playing Boise in 2011).</div><div>
Boise desperately wants to play a tough schedule. They would join the Pac-10 in a split second if the dicks at Stanford would let them. No good conference will let them in. Few good teams will agree to play them on fair terms. They are not to blame for their weak schedule.</div>
There's an inverse relationship between the size of a playoff and the importance of the regular season. There's no way around that. Bottom line, 1 game at the end of the year is not enough to settle who's the best. Just moving to a plus-one will make a huge difference and I feel like the BCS started the move to that scenario when they took the NC game out of the traditional bowls.</p>
They just don't have the quality games to get into the Championship. Take the past six BCS championships. You have hadtwo of them played with at lest one team with one lose and two of them with both teams with lose then one where one team had two loses. The year LSU had two loses BSU only had one. Two of those other years BSU had 0 lost and could not get in. Every poll has a human element to it, even the computer is using data from human beings and that makes it very subjective and yes the computer don't take intoaccount games not played but the humans putting that data in might. Boise is not going to the National Championship nor do they deserve to.I said it once in this thread and I'll say it again, it's going to take every Big 10, Big12 and SEC team in the top ten to have two loses in order for them to get in. Call it a conspiracy or what ever but they don't deserve to get in.
They're getting more love from the polls than they ever have (not that they necessarily deserve it). It's really too bad that Utah and BYU left the MWC because with those teams, TCU, Air Force, and Boise starting next year, that conference could have been a BCS conference and you'd eliminate any outsiders from having even a semi-ligitimate complaint. And with those teams, the schedules would have been tough enough to legitimately compete for a title.
games and they are still not in position to play for the national championship. What makes you think that they are going to move up in the polls after beating a few more ****** teams while everyone else is playing "real" teams in their respected conference championship games? Boise has close to no chance of making the championship game. During the VaTech game, the announcers said that it was "do or die" game. They had to have a victory against a top tier team to even have a remote chance at a championship. Tech ended up being much weaker than people thought and it has crushed Boise's chances to make the title game, period.
Do you think Alabama would sit starters from the Iron Bowl even if they had the SEC West locked up?<div>Plus, if you let the first round be played at home sites, seeding would be really important and keep teams playing hard.1984Dawg said:
</div>
I've had a hard time understanding why a lot of people think that an NCAA playoff for football is so hard to figure out. It could work with a 16 team playoff especially considering that there are 11 total conferences. Every conference champion has an automatic bid to the playoffs and the top 5 rated teams that didn't win their conference or are independents get a bid as well (the 2007 Georgia team would probably have really benefited from this.) Eventually, it should weed out independents, like basketball, and force every team to be apart of a conference of some sort.<div>
</div><div>Since rankings would still be important when deciding seedings, then I don't see how the regular season would lose any of it's luster. To me, the regular season is hampered when teams that have a legitimate shot mess up and lose one game. You might as well say that their season is over with for the most part outside of the past couple of years during the SEC dominance. It's more impressive to me seeing a team that may falter just once or twice even and still finds a way to prove themselves when the situation calls for it. Besides, don't people play and follow sports just to see who really is the best? The BCS definitely does not prove that and I a plus one only alleviates some doubt, but not all.</div>
</div><div>Since rankings would still be important when deciding seedings, then I don't see how the regular season would lose any of it's luster. To me, the regular season is hampered when teams that have a legitimate shot mess up and lose one game. You might as well say that their season is over with for the most part outside of the past couple of years during the SEC dominance. It's more impressive to me seeing a team that may falter just once or twice even and still finds a way to prove themselves when the situation calls for it. Besides, don't people play and follow sports just to see who really is the best? The BCS definitely does not prove that and I a plus one only alleviates some doubt, but not all.</div>