National Title Game: 1.USC vs. 2.Oklahoma

[Bomber]

Originally Posted by mgadfly

I don't remember an East coast team beating Gonzaga when "it counts." Unless Reno has relocated to New Jersey.

Are you going to deny that Stanford and Gonzaga were the worst 1 and 2 seeds in recent memory? The Pac-10 is stronger this year, but still lacks an elite team. Sorry, but Arizona is not elite, and UW is going to get beat by teams who can handle their pressure and have decent big men.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by VPI97

Old system would have been:
Rose - USC v Michigan
Sugar - Auburn v Virginia Tech
Orange - Oklahoma v Pitt
Fiesta - Cal v Texas

I could certainly see the attractiveness of having this setup. In the BCS, there's only one game really worth watching (Orange Bowl this year). In this system, three bowls would have had championship implications and you could make the argument that the Cal-Texas could even matter in the final champ poll if Michigan, Pitt and VT won.

I am not big on or against the BCS and I do see the allure if there are just two top teams that are better than everyone else. Still, from a college football fan perspective, I think the "Old system" four games would have been more enjoyable to watch than three meaningless games and one big champ game that excluded two undefeateds (Auburn, Utah). Of course, this system would have screwed Utah even more as they would have been stuck in the Liberty Bowl or some other 2nd/3rd tier bowl because of their conference.

If I was running college football, I would add a fifth bowl to the BCS and setup a four team playoff. Under that scenerio, here's how the BCS could have been:

Fiesta: Pitt vs. Utah
New Bowl: VT vs. Michigan
Sugar: Auburn vs. OK
Rose: USC vs. Texas

Orange: Winners of the Sugar and Rose

This seems to atleast give the top 4 a chance at the title and only involves one extra game. Plus, three games would now matter (instead of just one). I would also love to remove conference mandates on the BCS, but I am also a realist and know that has less of a chance than having a 4-team playoff.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I don't believe there's a chance in hell that AP would have agreed to such a contractual stipulation under any circumstance

Probably not, but that is a strike in saying the BCS is the only way to determine the national champion, when the AP has been doing it for much, much longer.

[JW]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Probably not, but that is a strike in saying the BCS is the only way to determine the national champion, when the AP has been doing it for much, much longer.

The AP has been determining A champion, not THE champion. In the past there were two major polls and sometimes split championships. And in reality the AP never determines a champion. It simply determines the #1 team at the end of the year.

[JW]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Um... no they didn't. They didn't decide that the BCS was going to be the end all to decide a national championship and it would be the only recognized one. The BCS's ONLY purpose is to pit #1 vs. #2. I don't think anyone signed on thinking that the AP poll is now irrelevent except as part of the formula.

If they REALLY wanted the BCS Championship as the only recognized college football championship they would have put the AP poll as contractually obligated to vote for the BCS winner as they did with the Coaches poll. They didn't so it isn't.

Simple as that.

Not that simple at all. The case is not closed. The clamor was to determine an on-field national champion without a playoff system. That is what the 1A schools set out to do. And, yes, they really wanted it to be the recognized championship. That was the purpose -- besides making a whole bunch of money for everyone concerned, lol.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JW

The AP has been determining A champion, not THE champion.

That's because there is NO 'THE' champion, big guy. When the NCAA endorses a champion, then there is THE champion. Before that, it's just A champion, no matter who runs it.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JW

they really wanted it to be the recognized championship

To paraphrase you from before. They wanted it to be A recognized championship. They only locked up one of the two major polls.

[mgadfly]

Originally Posted by Bomber

Are you going to deny that Stanford and Gonzaga were the worst 1 and 2 seeds in recent memory? The Pac-10 is stronger this year, but still lacks an elite team. Sorry, but Arizona is not elite, and UW is going to get beat by teams who can handle their pressure and have decent big men.

Well, it depends on how recent of memory we are talking about? Think real hard and maybe you can remember 2003 when two East coast #2 seeds stunk it up. Wake Forest beating #15 seed E. Tenn. by three before getting sent packing by #10 seed Auburn OR #2 Florida surviving a first round scare to get bounced in the second round by MSU.

Gonzaga has an 8-3 record against non-West coast teams in the tournament over the past six seasons. They have a 1-3 record against West coast teams during that same time. Their problem hasn't been dominant East coast squads. Sorry, you're just wrong.

[mgadfly]

Originally Posted by Bomber

Are you going to deny that Stanford and Gonzaga were the worst 1 and 2 seeds in recent memory? The Pac-10 is stronger this year, but still lacks an elite team. Sorry, but Arizona is not elite, and UW is going to get beat by teams who can handle their pressure and have decent big men.

And as for #1 seeds, I didn't even think that Stanford was the worst #1 seed last year, that dubious honor was at least shared by Kentucky, which as of the last time I checked an atlas, wasn't a West coast school.

There was also Cincy that lost to a crappy Pac-10 school in 2002. The same year that #2 seed Alabama was beat by Kent St. in the second round. Upsets happen but to believe that every time a West coast school loses reveals how overrated they were, while every time an East coast school loses is a fluke is impossible to argue with because it isn't based on logic.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Arles

I could certainly see the attractiveness of having this setup. In the BCS, there's only one game really worth watching (Orange Bowl this year).

Just an interesting aside here, purely anecdotal -- I watched far more of the games early in bowl season than in the final few days, had greater interest in them really (except for the Tennessee game).

Believing strongly that a "championship game" without Auburn was not a "championship game", I had little more than passing interest in the Orange & didn't actually see a minute of it, instead I just kept up with it online (here & ESPN) on & off through the night, mostly out of passing curiosity.

And before somebody figures "well, he's just not a big college football fan", I'm a guy who watched an awful lot of "minor bowl games", so surely I would qualify in there somewhere.

[MylesKnight]

Originally Posted by Senator

blowout (posted at 8:44pm est, after OU scored to take a 7-0 lead early in the 1st Quarter)

Why yes it was..

[SunDancer]

If you go to NCAA Football site, they have both LSU and USC listed as the 2003-2004 champions.

As for Utah, don't be fooled by the margain of the victory. They would run up the scores with the starters in the whole game.

As for the system Arles purposed, how is that any better then what we have? If you wanted to do that, you would have Auburn, Utah, Oklahoma and USC all playing each other in the first two games, and the winners going to the title game. Not spread out in three games.

As for the bowl games, did anyone watch the Rose Bowl? Granted, I wasn't thrilled about Texas being in, but it was a hell of a game.

[Capital]

All Arles was saying is that there would be 3 games that matter...the 2 semis and the National Title game. The current system really only has one and ABC certainly promoted it as such. The 4 team system is something I would endorse as opposed to the 3 glorified exhibition games. For me, college football essentially ends at the regular season finale. Everything else is a train wreck.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Boise State too? Why not Cal or Louisville or Texas? Even with a playoffs, you will likely not get a matchup between two undefeated teams - which sounds like your criteria. Sheesh, I'm sitting here totally at a lost for words at where you are coming from? You blame BCS? Like they knew it was going to be like this?? Personally, I would prefer UCS play Michigan in the Rose Bowl. Nothing wrong with that. Let a poll at the end of the year determine who's the best team.

No, my critera is letting a season finish with a true champion, not arguements on who people THINK is a champion. I blame the B(c)S because it stands in the way of what should be.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

No, my critera is letting a season finish with a true champion, not arguements on who people THINK is a champion. I blame the B(c)S because it stands in the way of what should be.

Even with a playoff, someone will always complain about getting the shaft. Undefeated Boise probably wouldn't get in an 8 game playoff--some pundit would be waxing poetic about a could-have-been BSU run to the national championship...

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

Even with a playoff, someone will always complain about getting the shaft. Undefeated Boise probably wouldn't get in an 8 game playoff--some pundit would be waxing poetic about a could-have-been BSU run to the national championship...

But I favor a 16 team playoff, which would have definitely caught BSU. And then if someone claims number 17 should have gotten in, so? Do you think that would carry the weight of number 2 getting left out?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Capital

The current system really only has one and ABC certainly promoted it as such.

Ain't that the truth! ABC basically seemed to say those other bowls don't matter, the Orange Bowl is the only important one! Another way the BCS has ruined things .

[JonInMiddleGA]

Umm ... did this thread really just take into consideration what a network promo had to say about anything?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Umm ... did this thread really just take into consideration what a network promo had to say about anything?

It's still important in how people see the Big Four BCS games. I'm sure plenty saw the promos and decided the Orange Bowl was the only one that really mattered.

[VPI97]

The only one that mattered to me was the Sugar Bowl

[ISiddiqui]

Yeah, but you are an informed sports fan . Well, maybe .

[JW]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

That's because there is NO 'THE' champion, big guy. When the NCAA endorses a champion, then there is THE champion. Before that, it's just A champion, no matter who runs it.

I disagree, big guy. The 1A schools are endorsing the BCS champion as the champ, unless you're USC and aren't the BCS winner.

BTW, hope that didn't mean you're mad. I could care less and am not irritated at you. If you're irritated, chill.

[heybrad]

Originally Posted by JW

I disagree, big guy. The 1A schools are endorsing the BCS champion as the champ, unless you're USC and aren't the BCS winner.

Auburn begged for AP voters to vote for them to give them a share of the title. Did you bash them for it? No.
An Auburn player called the BSC "crap". Did you bash them for it? No.
If Auburn and 2 other teams goes undefeated next year and Auburn gets in the title game which leaves a 3rd undefeated out of the title game do you expect them to say, "Well, we're in this year, but we wont accept it because the system sucks." No. Will you bash them? Probably not.

Get over your double standards.

[dawgfan]

JW's postion on this whole deal is awfully convenient for a Louisiana resident, don't you think?

There is no official NCAA Divison 1-A Football champion; unless and until such a time as there is an official champion, there will continue to be the 2 major standards for declaring a mythical national champion - the 2 major polls, one of which is contractually obligated to vote for the BCS champion.

LSU and USC split the championship last year, end of story. No amount of arguing about NCAA schools agreeing to participate in the BCS system changes that fact, or makes USC's share of the title any less legitimate.

[JW]

Originally Posted by heybrad

Auburn begged for AP voters to vote for them to give them a share of the title. Did you bash them for it? No.
An Auburn player called the BSC "crap". Did you bash them for it? No.
If Auburn and 2 other teams goes undefeated next year and Auburn gets in the title game which leaves a 3rd undefeated out of the title game do you expect them to say, "Well, we're in this year, but we wont accept it because the system sucks." No. Will you bash them? Probably not.

Get over your double standards.

No double standard. The standard of hypocrisy was established by USC. It was Leinart who wore the Fuck the BCS t-shirt last year. They are the hypocrits. You folks are defending that. Get over your double standard regarding USC and Auburn.

[heybrad]

So you think Auburn is a bunch of hypocrits as well. OK.

[JW]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

JW's postion on this whole deal is awfully convenient for a Louisiana resident, don't you think?

There is no official NCAA Divison 1-A Football champion; unless and until such a time as there is an official champion, there will continue to be the 2 major standards for declaring a mythical national champion - the 2 major polls, one of which is contractually obligated to vote for the BCS champion.

LSU and USC split the championship last year, end of story. No amount of arguing about NCAA schools agreeing to participate in the BCS system changes that fact, or makes USC's share of the title any less legitimate.

Not end of story. Let's look at what the BCS is, from their web site:

The Bowl Championship Series was established before the 1998 season to determine the national champion for college football while maintaining and enhancing the bowl system that's nearly 100 years old.

Gee, it doesn't say "a". It says "the". Are they wrong?

Link: http://www.bcsfootball.org/

Pete Carroll himself said, this year of course, that the BCS system is the system we play under and should be respected. So I guess he agrees with this.

There was only one BCS champion last year and this, THE champion. At least according to the system USC and the other IA schools signed up for.

[JW]

Originally Posted by heybrad

So you think Auburn is a bunch of hypocrits as well. OK.

If you will agree that USC is a bunch of hypocrits, then I will agree Auburn is. How about that? And if you track my posts, you will find that in this or another thread in the last couple of days I have expressed my distaste for Tuberville. He can go to hell for all I care.

[heybrad]

Originally Posted by JW

Pete Carroll himself said, this year of course, that the BCS system is the system we play under and should be respected. So I guess he agrees with this.

Tubberville stated that his team was National Champs and that if he had to take his own poll he would.

???

[heybrad]

Originally Posted by JW

If you will agree that USC is a bunch of hypocrits, then I will agree Auburn is. How about that? And if you track my posts, you will find that in this or another thread in the last couple of days I have expressed my distaste for Tuberville. He can go to hell for all I care.

I dont seem to have the same problem that you do with college kids being upset about not being fully recognized as a champion (USC or Auburn). Why you've decided to rail on USC only is what baffles me. I still want to hear about the school that would handle it differently.

[JW]

Originally Posted by heybrad

I dont seem to have the same problem that you do with college kids being upset about not being fully recognized as a champion (USC or Auburn). Why you've decided to rail on USC only is what baffles me. I'm still want to hear about the school that would handle it differently.

I can understand college kids being upset. I can understand USC thinking they had the best team in the country last year. And they may have had the best team. I said last year I thought USC was a better team than Oklahoma and really deserved to be playing in the Sugar Bowl against LSU, when most people were ranting that it should be USC and Oklahoma (LSU being the only team that was #2 in all the major compoenents of the BCS rankings before the Sugar Bowl last year.) But the BCS was the system.

But a person of responsibility like Carroll should not trash the BCS one year and then talk about how wonderful it is this year. That is hypocrisy. USC did all it could to take away from LSU's national championship last year by trashing the BCS. But they are quite willing to embrace the BCS this year.

As for Auburn, I see no problem with them saying they think they had the best team. I don't think they should call themselves champions though.

[heybrad]

Originally Posted by JW

As for Auburn, I see no problem with them saying they think they had the best team. I don't think they should call themselves champions though.

Well, they are calling themselves champions. And when they reach the BCS title game, I'll expect you right here stating what hypocrites they are.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JW

I disagree, big guy. The 1A schools are endorsing the BCS champion as the champ, unless you're USC and aren't the BCS winner.

BTW, hope that didn't mean you're mad. I could care less and am not irritated at you. If you're irritated, chill.

No, the IA schools are not endorsing the BCS champion as sole champion. And I'm tired of banging my head against the wall. Everyone who counts lists USC as a split national champion last year. Only a few people who deny reality want to contest that and say only LSU was champion.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JW

Gee, it doesn't say "a". It says "the". Are they wrong?

Yep. The AP poll has been around far before any other. They are the more legitimate of national champion deciders, IMO. The BCS is simply a way to get one of the two major polls (the Coaches Poll) to go along with their title game. Why lock in the Coaches Poll if it was meant to be the end all? Why didn't the schools agree to not have the Coaches vote in a seperate poll anymore? Because the Polls are more important and established than this new fangled system.

[JW]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Yep. The AP poll has been around far before any other. They are the more legitimate of national champion deciders, IMO. The BCS is simply a way to get one of the two major polls (the Coaches Poll) to go along with their title game. Why lock in the Coaches Poll if it was meant to be the end all? Why didn't the schools agree to not have the Coaches vote in a seperate poll anymore? Because the Polls are more important and established than this new fangled system.

I'm not crazy about the BCS either. I actually prefered the old system with the two polls and everyone arguing, lol. However, the difference here is that the member institutions agreed to take part in and suppor the BCS. That is my beef with USC; they signed on to the BCS and should have supported it last year. So I think it is wrong to say the polls are more important than the BCS when the member institutions are behind the BCS, when it is THEIR system of determining a champion.

And about the AP poll, it is often biased and has its own quirks. They got it right this year in the end, but the writers were hellbent on putting USC in the championship game from the start. They usually have some darling and favor them over other schools. They often get their darling wrong though. So the AP poll is far from a perfect system, with regional and institutional bias and the people writing the news making the news.

[JW]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

No, the IA schools are not endorsing the BCS champion as sole champion. And I'm tired of banging my head against the wall. Everyone who counts lists USC as a split national champion last year. Only a few people who deny reality want to contest that and say only LSU was champion.

Nope, 'everyone' doesn't. There is only one BCS champion. That is the champion recognized by the IA football schools, by their own agreement. The BCS was developed by those member schools as a way of finding the champion on the field. The AP is a poll. They name a champion, but not the champion officially recognized by the member schools of the BCS. USC can say they were co-champs, but they were not. They finished first in a poll.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JW

There is only one BCS champion. That is the champion recognized by the IA football schools, by their own agreement.

Yeah, there is only one BCS Champion, but that ain't the only National Champion in College Football. If you don't believe me, check out the official NCAA website. They list as national champions those who finished #1 in the AP and Coaches Poll/BCS, and earlier the URI.

Yeah, "everyone" does. Every major sports site that lists national champions has USC as splitting the championship last year, as they did.

Do schools not accept the AP trophy? Doesn't that mean that they accept that as a National Championship trophy as well? Isn't that their way of saying they approve of the AP's decision making as well?

Even if the member institutions are behind the BCS, that still does not mean that the AP poll, which was in existance well before any other poll and declared the #1 team (ie, the National Champion) for decades before the BCS, is invalid to measure the national champion. Neither is officially sanctioned by the NCAA, so each are equally valid in measuring the national champion.

The BCS has no inherant validity in determining a sole champion unless the NCAA says it does. Obviously, on their website, they do not accept it as the only one and realize that it is simply another way of deciding #1.

[Franklinnoble]

blah blah blah BCS Sucks blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

[JW]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Yeah, there is only one BCS Champion, but that ain't the only National Champion in College Football. If you don't believe me, check out the official NCAA website. They list as national champions those who finished #1 in the AP and Coaches Poll/BCS, and earlier the URI.

Yeah, "everyone" does. Every major sports site that lists national champions has USC as splitting the championship last year, as they did.

Do schools not accept the AP trophy? Doesn't that mean that they accept that as a National Championship trophy as well? Isn't that their way of saying they approve of the AP's decision making as well?

Even if the member institutions are behind the BCS, that still does not mean that the AP poll, which was in existance well before any other poll and declared the #1 team (ie, the National Champion) for decades before the BCS, is invalid to measure the national champion. Neither is officially sanctioned by the NCAA, so each are equally valid in measuring the national champion.

The BCS has no inherant validity in determining a sole champion unless the NCAA says it does. Obviously, on their website, they do not accept it as the only one and realize that it is simply another way of deciding #1.

Hey, not a response to your points. Just wanted to say I have enjoyed the discussion and don't feel nearly as strongly about this as I may sound. That is just the nature of forum arguments. I don't fully agree w/you but there is no sense in continuing. Besides, this is getting kind of boring. I know this is not the cool way to end a forum discussion, but I'm not concerned w/that. I've enjoyed it.

[Huckleberry]

You da man, Noop.