Absolutely, Shoeless!!! That deservers a bunch of .
FantasySportsMaven wrote:The BCS championship is a mishmash of coaching politics and rewarding poor sportsmanship by good teams trouncing bad ones.
Oklahoma played a much tougher out of conference schedule this year as opposed to Texas and was rewarded because of it.
Teams are rewarded heavily for playing tough out of conference games as opposed to patsies. That's why the computer polls are used in the formula.
FantasySportsMaven wrote:The ONLY real way to determine a true National Championship is via an on the field playoff, IMO.
If the NFL used the BCS, the current champion NY Giants wouldn't even have had the chance to play in the SuperBowl against the Patriots.
The BCS is designed to field the two best teams after the regular season. It is not designed to see which team is playing the best at the moment. College football rewards a great regular season and makes its regular season the most important regular season in all of sports.
I could care less about the UCLA/Texas basketball game last night or the Michigan St/UNC game a few days ago. But you bet your ass I cared about OSU-USC earlier this year in football.
FantasySportsMaven wrote:It is sad that even though PSU has a better record against common opponents, USC gets ranked above them.
Potentially even worse would be if OK loses and then the BCS inserts a team which didn't even win its' conference.
A PSU victory in the Rose bowl over USC would be just one more cry for an NCAA Playoff to decide who is best on the field and not in the PC.
It now seems like every year, the BCS system for determing a National Championship becomes more and more a joke and a tainted trophy for the awarded team?
I dont mean to call you out SportsMaven, but you epitomize how playoff proponents seem to have no problem contradicting themselves, and your argument is right in my wheelhouse.
--The NY Giants didn't win their divison. Dallas did.
--You want it decided on the field, huh? NY Giants lost to both Dallas TWICE and New England.
--Did beating Dallas on the THIRD try "prove" they were better than, Dallas? NOPE
--Did beating New England on the SECOND try prove they were the best team in the league that season? NOPE
--Did it prove that the NY Giants were the best playoff team? I would conced that.
**Why did NE have to win a playoff for us to be comfortable that they were the best team in the league last year? They beat the best the NFC and AFC had to offer and was 16-0. 16-0!!!!
But alas, due to NFL rules, 16 games isnt enough to give us a clear picture, so they had to play 3 more games, and finally, after going 18-0, they finally got picked off. Yep, they were truly second best, at best, last season.
##If last NFL season had been done the way its done in college, NE wouldve played GB for the title, and outside of a little bit of grumbling from Dallas, everyone wouldve been happy that the winner of that game would be crowned king.
++Outside of the season's where there have been split NCs or BYU's silly title, most fans I've talked to, at worst, and many times begrudingly, are satisfied that the most deserving team got crowned champion at the end of year. I dont know that you could say that for 2 out of the last 3 Super Bowls. (I havent researched all Super Bowls to determine if the "deserving" team based on the whole season won the Super Bowl.)
""What I wish is that most college playoff proponents would just admit that:
1. Above everything else, they want the entertainment value of the playoff. (Wow! Look these awesome matchups we get to see!)
2. It does devalue the "regular" season. (Nationally, FLA/'BAMA would only be about playoff seeding.)
3. It truly doesnt mean the most deserving team wins the playoff. (Supposedly, this is the reason a playoff is wanted.