BCS Screwed!

[ISiddiqui]

So... what do you think they'll do with it (because they have a contract with the BCS and they is no chance they'll junk it)?

[DeToxRox]

It won't matter.

We're not going to get a fair and just playoff system.

The only playoff I can see is a 4 team, and that is going to be as shoddy as the BCS.

[ISiddiqui]

A 4 team playoff would be promising though.... it would signal a slow and steady march to a larger playoff. Baby steps still are moving forward :D.

[The_herd]

Live with it until the contract is up, then sign a long term contract destroying any chance of a playoff system in my lifetime. And each season they will tweak the system in an attempt to please everyone, yet they actually only please the 2 teams playing in the championship game each year.

[ISiddiqui]

Well my question was also what tweaks do you think will happen? Twice now in the history of the BCS, a team which has not won their conference went to the championship game. Will they close that hole?

[Primal]

I like the idea of playing all the bowls then selecting the 2 teams for the Championship.

[JW]

Zulu is on AMC. A much better movie than what you will get to see watching the Orange Bowl.

[DanGarion]

Plain and simple.

USC TROJANS! NATIONAL CHAMPS.

[Subby]

The O.C. is for pussies.

[detroit_fan]

I think you mean, USC Co-Champs!

[The_herd]

Originally posted by ISiddiqui
Well my question was also what tweaks do you think will happen? Twice now in the history of the BCS, a team which has not won their conference went to the championship game. Will they close that hole?

If I have to live with the BCS, I would be happy with that simple change. IMO, if you can't win your conference outright, you have no logical argument for playing in the National Championship game. Obviously someone in your conference was at least as good as you. Other than that, I really hope they don't change anything else (maybe junk the NY Times poll, its a complete joke).

[ISiddiqui]

maybe junk the NY Times poll

No maybe about it :D. The NY Times poll is the biggest joke in the world! Then again I think many of the other computer ones are as well :D.

[Huckleberry]

The exclusion of non-conference champions will only be fair once all conferences or no conferences have a championship game.

[ISiddiqui]

Well that was THEIR call to have a championship game (for money). Every conference can have their own procedures to determine their champion, it is not our place to question why.

[judicial clerk]

I think they will tweak it to have the two BCS teams with the highest TV ratings thrioughout the regular season play for the national championship. If a non-BCS team happens to get the highest TV ratings in the regular season, then they go. This should keep the non BCS schools happy.

[SteelerFan448]

It isn't screwed. They aren't going to a playoff and whatever will make them the most money after the contract expires, that is what they'll go to. A four team playoff would not be cheap. Tell me that any team out of the top 4 is more deserving than anyone of those teams. They aren't. Also, everyone makes it sound like OU is some crap team since they got crushed. Well before that loss people were saying "greatest team of all time." We'll see how OU bounces back against LSU.

[ISiddiqui]

It isn't screwed.

Of course it is. There are TWO national champions. That is what the BCS was created to prevent. It failed in its essential purpose.

[The_herd]

Originally posted by SteelerFan448
We'll see how OU bounces back against LSU.

Personally, I don't care how they bounce back, they lost in their conference championship game. So K-State has as much of an arguement to be in the title game as Oklahoma. Even if they end up beating LSU they aren't even a great team in my book. Great teams don't pull off the massive choke job that this team managed to pull off. A team that flat out doesn't show up in the biggest game of their season doesn't deserve to be called National Champion.

[sooner333]

Originally posted by The_herd
Personally, I don't care how they bounce back, they lost in their conference championship game. So K-State has as much of an arguement to be in the title game as Oklahoma. Even if they end up beating LSU they aren't even a great team in my book. Great teams don't pull off the massive choke job that this team managed to pull off. A team that flat out doesn't show up in the biggest game of their season doesn't deserve to be called National Champion.

So...the National Champion should be renamed "The best team in the nation who won their conference championship". In fact in 1971, OU and Colorado will be stripped of being the second and third best team in the nation because they didn't win the Big 8. Something MUST have been wrong because other conference champions were voted higher (and if they had the BCS back then, Nebraska would have played OU again in a rematch of the Game of the Century). No, you don't always have to be the conference champion to be considered the top two teams in the country.

OU played awful against Kansas State, but give me a break...it's not like LSU and USC didn't lose games, if they didn't, there would be no argument. USC lost to Cal...granted early in the season, but they still lost. I'm NOT going to sit here and say USC isn't deserving of the AP title, but I DO think a split title is fair in this case with two teams (USC and either LSU or OU) worthy of the title. But, I think with the system set up the way it is (and there are reasons that the polls alone don't dictate who goes, otherwise it would have been that way), OU and LSU were better deserving to be in the Sugar Bowl.

[sooner333]

Originally posted by ISiddiqui
Of course it is. There are TWO national champions. That is what the BCS was created to prevent. It failed in its essential purpose.

There are more than TWO national champions. The Football Writers Association of America comes out with a champion, as do many other organizations, including computer ratings and such. I could name a national champion if I wanted to and it would be as official as the AP. The BCS is the closest to the legitimate national champion. The AP can vote USC National Champs, and I have no problem with that because the Trojans are a great footall team, but I still feel they had the least claim to the Sugar of the three teams and I will maintain that position whatever the score may be on Sunday.

[ISiddiqui]

So...the National Champion should be renamed "The best team in the nation who won their conference championship".

Of course. You don't see the team that lost in the AFC Championship Game being the NFL Champion, do you?

[ISiddiqui]

I still feel they had the least claim to the Sugar of the three teams and I will maintain that position whatever the score may be on Sunday.

Couldn't be because of team bias, could it? :p

[sooner333]

Originally posted by ISiddiqui
Of course. You don't see the team that lost in the AFC Championship Game being the NFL Champion, do you?

I'm sorry, since when were USC, LSU, and OU in the NFL. And since when did the NFL use a Bowl system instead of a playoff. And while we are on that topic, I notice that some Super Bowl champions couldn't even win their DIVISION. I guess we ought to strip them of their title.

And it's not team bias. I looked at objective facts (not subjective polls) and saw that all teams had one loss, but USC's wins were not nearly as impressive, and their loss was to a far worse team than LSU and OU's loss. Anyway, I'll make this promise, in a similar circumstance, if OU or Northwestern (ha!) is #3 in the BCS despite being higher ranked in the polls because their schedule was not as good, I will not bitch and moan about it. I'll probably be sad or whatever happens in that situation, but I will accept it and move on. And hey, maybe we'd be AP#1 Champions too.

Check out Jason Whitlock's article in the KC Star...I think it's a good read no matter what team you are a fan of. http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansa...rts/7615069.htm

[Cringer]

Originally posted by sooner333
There are more than TWO national champions. The Football Writers Association of America comes out with a champion, as do many other organizations, including computer ratings and such. I could name a national champion if I wanted to and it would be as official as the AP. The BCS is the closest to the legitimate national champion. The AP can vote USC National Champs, and I have no problem with that because the Trojans are a great footall team, but I still feel they had the least claim to the Sugar of the three teams and I will maintain that position whatever the score may be on Sunday.


Homer:rolleyes:

[The_herd]

So...the National Champion should be renamed "The best team in the nation who won their conference championship".

I wouldn't go as far as renaming it, but yes. You can't say you are the best team in the country if you weren't the best in your conference.

In fact in 1971, OU and Colorado will be stripped of being the second and third best team in the nation because they didn't win the Big 8.

If the best team in the country was from thier conference, then they could make a legit argument that they were 2nd and 3rd. That really isn't the point though, the discussion was about being #1 and not winning your conference.

Something MUST have been wrong because other conference champions were voted higher (and if they had the BCS back then, Nebraska would have played OU again in a rematch of the Game of the Century).

Something was wrong with the system then, and now we have the BCS because of it.

OU played awful against Kansas State, but give me a break...it's not like LSU and USC didn't lose games, if they didn't, there would be no argument.

As I said earlier, OU failed to show up at all in the biggest game of their season, and they were blasted. The teams look even when looking at them, they all lost 1 game, so you have to go with something that seperates the teams, and the simple fact is the other 2 teams won their conferences outright and didn't look as bad in there loss at OU did.

I could name a national champion if I wanted to and it would be as official as the AP.

Absurd. Would your vote be considered by the BCS in determining the "Legit Champion"?

And while we are on that topic, I notice that some Super Bowl champions couldn't even win their DIVISION. I guess we ought to strip them of their title.

Nope. Because as you said yourself, they use a playoff system to determine the champion.


In the current system, when you have 3 teams with the same record sitting at the top of the polls you need to look for something that seperates them. The only advantage OU had was they were on top of the polls before the loss. But LSU and USC are the best teams in the SEC and PAC-10 respectively, and managed to put up some sort of fight in their losses.

There aren't many people outside of Oklahoma defending OU's right to be in the BCS title game.

[The Afoci]

I think it is crazy that Oklahoma wouldn't be considered for the title game. They were clearly the best team in the country for all but one game. They may have had a let down against K-State, but USC lost to Cal. Cal is a bad team. LSU lost to Florida when Florida was a bad team as well. Oklahoma lost to a K-State team that was on a roll. Chances are if there was a tourney, K-State would win it based on the fact that they are hot at the right time. But since there is no playoff, you have to go on something.

So I ask you, since there is no playoff, do you pick who goes to the title game based on the whole season, the beginning, the middle or the end of the season. You seem to feel that the end of the season has the biggest portion of this.

[ISiddiqui]

I notice that some Super Bowl champions couldn't even win their DIVISION.

And yet those division winners get a chance to go for the Superbowl. It isn't like the Wild Card teams go and the division winners stay home... which is kind of the case in college football, where Oklahoma, which did not win its conference (which is basically like a division) gets to go for the national championship, but Kansas, which did win the conference, does not.

So I ask you, since there is no playoff, do you pick who goes to the title game based on the whole season, the beginning, the middle or the end of the season. You seem to feel that the end of the season has the biggest portion of this.

Only because the conference has made it that way with their conference championship game.

[The_herd]

I'm sorry, but if these conferences want to play a Title game then they need to realize that if they have the #1 team in the country playing in it and they lose, they had better hope the money they made from the game makes up for the potential lost chance at a National Title. Because being the best team in the nation, but not your own conference is beyond logic.

I didn't say that OU didn't deserve consideration. I just said when you look at all the factors OU has 2 glaring strikes against them. Not winning thier conference and losing as bad as they did.

LSU and USC both lost close games to bowl teams, so I wouldn't go as far as to say they are bad teams.

[rlfreeze]

I may be wrong here, but didn't USC miss out on the Sugar Bowl because one of the computer polls ranked Miami(OH) above them? It seems to me that we would not be having this discussion if that computer algorithm was in any way legitimate. I mean, how in the world does Miami(OH) get ranked higher than USC. For what it is worth, the PAC 10 is doing pretty well in their bowl games. And I am a Michigan fan.

[The Afoci]

Originally posted by The_herd
LSU and USC both lost close games to bowl teams, so I wouldn't go as far as to say they are bad teams.

If you field 11 players, you get a bowl game.

I don't think being the best team in the nation but not winning your conference is beyond logic. Especially not with a one game playoff for a conference championship. Oklahoma didn't lose during the regular season, but K-State did. Oklahoma lost a one game playoff that K-State won, so they get the championship.

Is Oklahoma a better team than K-State. I say yes. Was K-State better than Oklahoma that game, obviously, but Oklahoma was better throughout the season. I hate the way teams are rewarded in college football for having early season letdowns against teams that "national title teams" should win and then having those teams pointing at other teams that lose late to good competition and saying, "national title teams" don't lose those games. In college football, the regular season is very meaningful and everygame is very important. Had LSU, USC or Oklahoma shown up for everygame and played there best everygame of the season like a "national title team" does, then we wouldn't be in this mess. OU is no worse than LSU or USC for having one slip up in the season.

I don't see logic in the time of loss defense. Lose early, no problem, lose late and you are out. Why even play games in September and October then? They are meaningless in that kind of system. We are trying to get the best team of the year, no the last 4 games.

[JW]

Originally posted by rlfreeze
I may be wrong here, but didn't USC miss out on the Sugar Bowl because one of the computer polls ranked Miami(OH) above them? It seems to me that we would not be having this discussion if that computer algorithm was in any way legitimate. I mean, how in the world does Miami(OH) get ranked higher than USC. For what it is worth, the PAC 10 is doing pretty well in their bowl games. And I am a Michigan fan.

Almost right. One computer poll did have Miami/Ohio rated higher than USC, but the BCS throws out the lowest computer ranking for each team, so it didn't hurt USC, nor did it help them. What the BCS purports to do by using a variety of computer and human polls, plus so-called quality wins, plus a strength of schedule ranking, is to take all these polls and systems, each with their own quirks, and take the average of them all, which makes the BCS ranking supposedly fairer than any one ranking, and I think it accomplishes that, though it is far from perfect. So the one computer poll did not doom USC. However, the Notre Dame loss to Syracuse and Hawaii loss to Boise on the final day of the season did boost LSU's strength of schedule over USC's. At the link is one private web site with a lot of BCS and poll information.

http://www.geocities.com/rtell/index.html

Let me repeat, btw, that LSU was the only team among LSU, USC, and OU to finish #1 or #2 in EVERY human and computer poll conducted for the BCS. LSU deserves to be in the Sugar based on every poll conducted. The argument should be between OU and USC.

If we used the old system, we would have both the major 'human' polls ranking USC and LSU #1 and #2, and the OU people would be feeling left out. If Notre Dame or Hawaii would have won, LSU would have ended up #3 in the BCS DESPITE likely still being ranked #2 in every poll and would have felt left out.

And one can also look at LSU losing a quality win point that it gained by beating Georgia early in the season, when LSU beat Georgia again in the SECCG, thus knocking Ga. out of the top ten. That doesn't make sense either.

There was simply no way to fit 3 deserving teams into one national championship game.

[Cuckoo]

Originally posted by JW
There was simply no way to fit 3 deserving teams into one national championship game.


This is exactly right and seems to be what everyone is missing. In my mind, admittedly as an OU fan, all three teams are excellent teams and deserved a shot at the title. Unfortunately, only two can play in the BCS system. So, we'll have a split national championship which is exactly what we should have. Unless USC and the winner of the Sugar Bowl are willing to play one more, which I think would be really cool, a split championship this year is the only right thing to do.

The only thing that annoys me about all of this is all of the announcers and writers and so-called experts who say that USC is the national champion regardless of what happens in the Sugar Bowl. How can you say that? USC played a heck of a game and had a great season, and they certainly deserve it. But, whoever wins the Sugar Bowl will deserve it too. Also, what would happen if either OU or LSU just blew the other team out of the water? Wouldn't that change things a bit? It would in my mind. If LSU destroyed OU in the Sugar Bowl, that would count more than a good win over Michigan in the Rose Bowl. I just think that people should wait until the end of the Sugar Bowl before declaring the whole thing over.

[mtolson]

Originally posted by ISiddiqui
Well that was THEIR call to have a championship game (for money). Every conference can have their own procedures to determine their champion, it is not our place to question why.

The NCAA prevents conferences with less than 12 members from having conference championship games.

[TLV]

Take away the overtime rule, and USC is an undefeated football team. I hate this system, but there is no question in my mind that USC deserves it more than either LSU or OU.

If they are going to tweak the system, then they should adjust it so an overtime loss is punished less than a loss in regulation - just as in hockey where a point is still awarded for an overtime loss.

[mckerney]

Originally posted by ISiddiqui
Of course. You don't see the team that lost in the AFC Championship Game being the NFL Champion, do you?

You don't see the AFC playing a championship game and the NFC sending whatever team had the best record.

[sooner333]

Originally posted by TLV
Take away the overtime rule, and USC is an undefeated football team.


But wait...there is overtime. That is absurd, Cal, being the underdog may have played differently if they knew they had to win in regulation, like maybe going for two to get the win.


As for the argument that conferences should know that a CCG can take them out of the national championship game...right now there is no such prohibition of a loser of the game making it to the BCS game (obviously)...so that is something conferences have never had to consider. It's obviously not a "win/win" scenario as K-State lost in '98 and went from the Fiesta Bowl (the BCS game that year) to the Alamo Bowl. But LSU is only in the BCS game because it played in the SEC Championship Game. OU is in because of the schedule it played over the course of the season and overall performance over the season. Computer polls who are less "what have you done for me lately" had them higher of the equal-loss teams, while the "what have you done for me lately" human polls had OU #3 of the teams. Not saying either method of polling is right or wrong, I'm just saying its good that BOTH are measured.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to the so-called "Computer National Championship Game" (even though there are human elements involved in the BCS and humans determined the formula).

[TLV]

Originally posted by sooner333
But wait...there is overtime. That is absurd, Cal, being the underdog may have played differently if they knew they had to win in regulation, like maybe going for two to get the win.

You apparently did not see that game. Actually, it's a small miracle that I did living on the east coast and generally despising PAC-10 football. The game did not play out like your scenario above. Neither team scored a TD in the 4th quarter.

USC trailed 21-7 at the half, tied it in the third and both teams exchanged 4th qtr field goals - USC's coming with 16 seconds remaining.

Against K-State, Oklahoma trailed 21-7 at the half and completely folded up in the 2nd half.

Now, let's also consider that Cal (on the road) gave K-State a far better game than OU did.

I'm willing to grant your point that teams might behave differently if the overtime rule does not exist, however, it does not apply in this case. A few years ago, that game would've ended in a tie and USC would've finished the season undefeated.

I still believe an overtime loss should be punished less than a regulation loss, particularly a regulation blowout. By the same token, perhaps an overtime win should (for BCS purposes) count less than an regulation win - giving a team an incentive to win in regulation. They've taken margin of victory out of the equation, but maybe margin of loss should be considered.

All said, there is no question in my mind that a 3 point triple overtime loss on the road against Cal is less of a black mark than a double-digit home loss to Florida or a neutral-field blowout against K-State. The voters in both polls were able to see that. Unfortunately, the computers weren't programmed to do the same.

[sooner333]

Originally posted by TLV
All said, there is no question in my mind that a 3 point triple overtime loss on the road against Cal is less of a black mark than a double-digit home loss to Florida or a neutral-field blowout against K-State. The voters in both polls were able to see that. Unfortunately, the computers weren't programmed to do the same.

We disagree here (and other places too), but do you think that if Oklahoma had lost to Kansas State in September by 28, then proceeded to have their season and if USC lost to Cal in the season finale that USC would still be ranked ahead of OU in the voter polls? I don't think so. I don't think Cal was a better loss than either of those two, in fact, I would say that it was worse than both and that LSU's loss was easily the best of the three.

I also never thought that margin of victory should have been taken out of the computer polls, but in the computer polls that were in the BCS and are now out, OU still ranks ahead of USC in most...USC would just be higher due to going ahead of LSU.

[SackAttack]

Originally posted by sooner333
We disagree here (and other places too), but do you think that if Oklahoma had lost to Kansas State in September by 28, then proceeded to have their season and if USC lost to Cal in the season finale that USC would still be ranked ahead of OU in the voter polls?

I think you just proceeded to make his point for him. Who you lose to matters, but when you lose matters too. If USC had lost to Cal, it would have hurt them, and no, they wouldn't have been ranked ahead of OU. And that's as it should be.

It doesn't matter if it's a conference championship, a national championship, or even the chance to PLAY for the national championship - if you can't perform at the same level you did all season with stakes like those on the line, then you don't deserve to play for still greater stakes.

I think what you're missing here is that it was never about OU specifically. Many (most?) of us arguing that OU doesn't deserve to be in New Orleans on the basis of that loss would be saying the exact same thing if LSU had lost to Georgia in the SEC championship and had that be THEIR first loss. Or if USC had lost their season-ending game and not had a loss prior to that.

A loss is a loss, but if you're going to stake a claim to a national title as a one-loss team, I would much rather see you lose early and make adjustments as a result than get your collective asses royally embarrassed on national TV just days before the announcement of who is to play for that national title. Competitive juices. If you can't get them up for a chance to play for the title, what reason have I to believe you'd get them up for the title game itself?

[ISiddiqui]

The NCAA prevents conferences with less than 12 members from having conference championship games.

Exactly... and you can see with what the ACC did this year, those conferences WANT 12 members in order to get the game. They realize what it requires for the game... and they can easily get it. The Pac 10 wants to keep it at 10... wants every team to play every team. They will forgo adding two more teams for extra.

It's still their choice on how to decide the conference champion and they should have to deal with that.

[sooner333]

Well, I think that a combined system that has two areas, one of which favors recent results, and one of which factors in a whole season is the way to go. A team's accomplishments can't ride on one game this season. USC, LSU, and OU all lost football games this season. Why should it matter when the game was lost to determine who were the best two teams in college football this season. National Championships are won and lost over the course of Late August to Early December, not over the course of your last slipup to the current date.

[Tekneek]

Originally posted by ISiddiqui
They realize what it requires for the game... and they can easily get it.

From all accounts I have seen, the ACC adding those schools was not easy. It was pretty difficult, and did not go the way they originally wanted it to.

[Ryan S]

Originally posted by The_herd
I wouldn't go as far as renaming it, but yes. You can't say you are the best team in the country if you weren't the best in your conference.

This reminds me of a situation that I saw in TCY a while ago. Texas were totally dominant, and were 11-0 before the Big 12 title game. They had won every game by at least 15, and most by 30 points.

In the Big 12 title game they met the winners of the North, Missouri, who were 6-5 for the season. Missouri pulled off the upset and won the Big 12.

Since all the other major contenders had at least two losses, Texas was still the runaway #1, and there is no way anyone could have said they were not the best team in the conference.

Texas went on to win the National Championship game 55-13 against Florida.

I think that is the reason why conference losers should not be shut out of the title game
________________________________________

I wonder what will happen in the polls if Oklahoma destroy LSU on Sunday?

[ISiddiqui]

the ACC adding those schools was not easy. It was pretty difficult, and did not go the way they originally wanted it to.

That's because they went for the BIG time schools being all cloak&dagger. They easily could have raided C-USA and been open with their intention and gotten their 12 that way. If the Pac-10 wanted 2 more schools, all they'd have to do is say it and take 'em from the WAC.

It ain't that hard... and actually it wasn't that hard for the ACC either. The hardest part was internal conference conflict.

[JW]

Originally posted by sooner333
Well, I think that a combined system that has two areas, one of which favors recent results, and one of which factors in a whole season is the way to go. A team's accomplishments can't ride on one game this season. USC, LSU, and OU all lost football games this season. Why should it matter when the game was lost to determine who were the best two teams in college football this season. National Championships are won and lost over the course of Late August to Early December, not over the course of your last slipup to the current date.

Interestingly, the traditional human polls everyone is in love with this week have been highly dependent over the decades on WHEN a team lost. Many sportswriters in the AP poll will say that they will not drop a highly ranked team down a position until it loses. At least one writer was quoted yesterday that he would not drop USC from #1 no matter what happened in the Sugar Bowl, even if he believed USC was not the best team, because he would never drop a #1 team that won. And this year, time of loss is absolutely critical. USC lost first, followed by LSU, followed by OU, and of course you now see their poll position perfectly tracks WHEN they lost. Had LSU lost to ranked Florida before USC lost to unranked Cal, it is very likely LSU would have moved ahead of USC when USC lost and would be #1 right now because that is the way the AP poll usually works (with some admitted exceptions). Along with other biases in the human polls (the Notre Dame bias being longstanding in the AP poll), the time of loss bias has always been big. When you lose doesn't really matter in the computer polls, but it means everything in the human polls and always has.

[TLV]

Originally posted by sooner333
I don't think Cal was a better loss than either of those two, in fact, I would say that it was worse than both and that LSU's loss was easily the best of the three.

My problem with that statement is that in their losses, neither LSU or Oklahoma scored after the first quarter. LSU didn't even score an offensive TD against Florida.

There is no question that Florida and K-State are better teams than Cal. In fact, K-State beat Cal by 14. I do feel, however, that how you lose has to be considered along with who you lose to.

I don't feel that when you lose should be a factor honestly. If OU loses to K-State by 3 in triple overtime, I leave them number 1, but instead of fighting back into the game and forcing overtime like USC did, they packed it in and got their asses handed to them.

I never liked the margin of victory component, but like I said before, maybe a margin of loss component should be considered rather than treating every loss equally.

If I was the college football overlord, however, I would organize all of Division 1-A into 8 conferences and the conference champs would decide things on the field in a playoff. Until the human factors and computer factors are removed, these debates will always continue.

[Airhog]

heres a good question, for those of you that feel that if you dont win your conference you shouldnt play for the title. Hypothetically, every good team in every conference that has a title game is upset by 6-6 and 7-5 teams. in the other conferences that dont have championship games there are no good teams. Who gets to play for the title? 2 7-5 teams? Are the 4 teams that went 11-1 not a better team and more deserving?

[mtolson]

Originally posted by Airhog
heres a good question, for those of you that feel that if you dont win your conference you shouldnt play for the title. Hypothetically, every good team in every conference that has a title game is upset by 6-6 and 7-5 teams. in the other conferences that dont have championship games there are no good teams. Who gets to play for the title? 2 7-5 teams? Are the 4 teams that went 11-1 not a better team and more deserving?

Your "test" case is no different than a 2-12 AFC beating a 12-2 NFC team. The AFC will not make the playoffs and the 12-2 will. They are not in the same conference so it is just another game. My problem is that the conference HAS a title game yet the winner of the conference had no shot at playing for the national title. If you can't win your conference, how can you play of the national title. If you look and see, probably every other BCS title game was involved either a team the won the conference via a title game or out-right won the conference because of the best in conference record.

The way it worked this year, one team (LSU) was rewarded for winning it conference title while the other (Okla.) did not suffer at all for losing its. It's like USC was penalized because they didn't have a chance to play in a title game. Had they played in one agained Washington State (and won), we would have probably been looking at LSU vs USC in the national title game.

[SackAttack]

Nope. Nebraska was in the Big XII title game a few years ago without even having won the Big XII North, let alone the Big XII itself.

[mtolson]

Originally posted by SackAttack
Nope. Nebraska was in the Big XII title game a few years ago without even having won the Big XII North, let alone the Big XII itself.

Your correct, sort of.

I believe you are referring to 2001 when Nebraska played in the BCS title while Colorado defeated Texas for the Big 12 title. Again, this shows flaws in the BCS.

Nebraska was 11-0 when it played Colorado during the last week of the season and got creamed, which allowed Colorado to play in the Big 12 title game vs. Texas, who was 10-1 at the time. Colorado won, knocking Texas from the chance at the BCS bowl which pushed Nebraska back to the #2 BCS position.

Now that I remember, this caused a lot of stir-up regarding the BCS back then. The computers pushed Nebraska ahead of Colorado in the BCS ranking as Nebraska was not in the top 3 of either of the human polls, yet they beat out Colorado (#2) and Oregon (#3) at a chance for the BCS title. The BCS got it wrong then because of the computers.

Nebraska eventually lost to Miami, as will Oklahoma to LSU.