Blog Entry

Why the BCS is the best thing in the world

Posted on: July 23, 2009 10:55 am
 
Not really but, hey, I got you to open this file so you might as well read on.

A friend here at the SEC media days dropped this stat on me...

Think about this the next time someone says college football is the only sport that doesn't decide things on the field. Since 2002 there have been 30 championship games or series among the four major pro sports -- MLB, NHL, NBA, NFL. In that span, only once have the teams with the two best records in those leagues met. That would be the 2008 NBA finals between the Celtics and Lakers.

We're talking about a Cardinals team that got to the World Series in 2006 with 83 victories. The Steelers won a Super Bowl as a No. 6 seed.

At least the BCS tries to line up a 1-2 game. So be careful what you wish for when talking about a playoff. Are you sure you can stomach Boise State as a national champion? 
Category: NCAAF
Tags: BCS
 
Comments

Since: Oct 8, 2008
Posted on: July 30, 2009 11:40 am
 

Why the BCS is the best thing in the world

This is proof of what I have said (BCS has hurt non-bcs schools):
When facing teams ranked in the Top 25: "Pre-1998, BYU was 19-17-1. Post 1998, BYU is 3-18. Why is 1998 an important milepost year? It's the first year of the Bowl Championship Series."


It is amazing how 1998 really did kill the true competitiveness of many of the great non-bcs teams.

Air Force is a great example - were sporatically excellent (finished in top-25 3X's in 90's) up until 1998, the creation of the BCS.

And this article further elaborates the point:


The BCS has essentially created a "super league" where all out-siders will struggle to squeze every penny and bring in what left-over recruits they can while the bcs-teams use their millions to plunder the cfb market: winning games, fanbase and recruits.

With the BCS, it is only a matter of time before teams like Boise, Utah, TCU, BYU et al cannot compete on any serious level with BCS schools.



Since: Aug 25, 2006
Posted on: July 28, 2009 3:31 pm
 

Why the BCS is the best thing in the world

The teams with the two best records and the two best teams are very different.  If your suggestion that "the teams with the two best records in those leagues met" you would have had Utah-Boise State in the title game last year.  Unless you are taking non-BCS teams completely out of the discussion???

Also, I could stomach Boise State as a National Champion if they won an 8-team or 16-team playoff...I could stomach anyone as the National Champion who could make it through that.



Since: Oct 8, 2008
Posted on: July 24, 2009 1:52 pm
 

Why the BCS is the best thing in the world

And they defeated Alabama more handily than the "national champion".




Since: Oct 8, 2008
Posted on: July 24, 2009 1:51 pm
 

Why the BCS is NOT the best thing in the world

Flawed logic... Last year, the team with the best record (12-0) did NOT make the national championship.



Since: Nov 28, 2006
Posted on: July 23, 2009 6:04 pm
 

Why the BCS is the best thing in the world

Unfortunately, you can't judge a team by its record.  Why do you think we always hear of conference title games in pro sports as the "real championship game"? You either have to beat the best teams, or the teams that beat them.



Since: Mar 2, 2009
Posted on: July 23, 2009 2:49 pm
 

Why the BCS is the best thing in the world

hey, i would rather have Boise State as the national champion than a two loss LSU team.



Since: Aug 21, 2006
Posted on: July 23, 2009 12:17 pm
 

Why the BCS is the best thing in the world

Of course we can, Dodd. If the Broncos can prove they're the best team, crown them champions! Yes, in the NFL, you occasionally get a team that quits and undeservedly reaches the Super Bowl (2008 Cardinals, I'm looking in your direction) because it played in a terrible division. But that is rare, and only in football, as the other three sports play too many games to allow a team that quits during the season any shot to play for the title.

Were the Cardinals in 2006 the best team? Yes. They beat the best the NL had to offer in the Mets, then manhandled the Tigers. That they won 83 games was a fault of injuries. Were the Steelers the best team in 2006? No, but not because they were a No. 6 seed. They weren't the best team because any unbiased football fan knows that the Seahawks should have won that game. But the Steelers were the best team in the AFC. That the officials gave them the Super Bowl at the expense of the Seahawks doesn't take away from the fact that the Steelers earned their spot in Detroit

Your defense of the BCS, that at least it tries to line up 1-2, is one of its big flaws. All too often, the two best regular season teams are not the two best teams. I'll use three examples here. First, in the 2005-06 NBA playoffs, the Dallas Mavericks were the best regular season team in the Western Conference. But the Golden State Warriors were perfect against them in the regular season. Some call this a great upset, but I was barely following the NBA at the time and told anyone who wanted to talk basketball that the Mavericks had no chance against the Warriors. The only thing I was wrong about was that it took the Warriors a game longer than I thought to dispose of Dallas. The records said Dallas was better by a wide margin, but clearly, Golden State was the better team.

The second example comes from the 2006 college football season. After the Ohio State-Michigan game, several writers, including you, Dodd, said that the teams had proven that they should have a rematch for the title, as they were clearly the two best teams in college football. But the voters put Florida in instead, and the Gators exposed the Buckeyes for the frauds they truly were. Plus, USC whipped Michigan in the Rose Bowl. Clearly, Ohio State was not the best team, as the Buckeyes proved they did not belong on the same field as Boise State, let alone Florida.

2007 was another one where the BCS "tried to match 1-2" and didn't come close. LSU-Ohio State was 1 vs. about 7 or 8. I would have put any other BCS team except Illinois and Hawaii up against LSU before the Buckeyes. Once again, Ohio State proved it didn't belong.

What we want, Dodd, is not a system that tells us who it thinks the two best teams are and has them play for the title. Most often, they are not the two best teams. What we want is a system that lets the teams prove they are the two best by beating three other opponents to reach the title game. What we want is a playoff.





Since: Nov 13, 2008
Posted on: July 23, 2009 12:16 pm
 

Why the BCS is the best thing in the world

I think this is a very good point. It's nice to have the best two teams (at least on paper) play everytime at the end of the year.



Since: Aug 19, 2006
Posted on: July 23, 2009 11:32 am
 

Why the BCS is the best thing in the world

That's exactly the point Dodd.  A team with the same or better record than those of a supposedly superior conference gets a chance to prove their mettle on the field and possibly win a NC.  This type of crap only comes from an SEC enthusiast like yourself, the rest of America wants a playoff; but we both know how hard it is to take money out of the pocket of southerners; you almost have to have a war or something.


The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com