LOL: The BCS is screwed up in the game also

[TJdaSportsGuy]

Quote: Originally Posted by bucknut7

First off, that is EXACTLY what happened to Texas last year Secondly, they arent second in the conference, they are tied for first. In real life you guys would be co-champs, both earning trophies, but Michigan would get the right to go to the Rose Bowl. That is all the head to head determines, who takes the bid for the Rose Bowl.

Quote: Originally Posted by mmorg

Dude. You lost to Illinois the week after you beat Penn State. So that would have dropped you below them in the polls. Also like previous posters have said, Penn State isn't 2nd in the Big Ten, they are tied for 1st place with you since you guys share the same conference record, that's how it works in the Big Ten and that's how the polls work.

Sounds like pretty reasonable explanations right there. Here's a present for the OP:

[wulfman75]

Quote: Originally Posted by coogrfan

Because as bad as the current system may seem, prior to the BCS it was infinitely worse. In the days before the BCS each conference's champion was contractually tied to one specific bowl game. As a result the mythical national championship was almost never settled on the field. Instead #1 would play in one game, #2 would play in another, and the championship would come done who had the most "style points" at the end of the day. Case in point - 1994 Penn State. Unbeaten and untied, arguably the best team Joe Pa ever fielded with an unstoppable offense, they had lost their hold on the #1 ranking during the regular season to Nebraska. At that time the Big 10 and Pac 10 champs were tied to the Rose Bowl so #2 PSU was forced to face Oregon, whom they trounced 38-10. Nebraska subsequently went to the Orange Bowl and defeated a 1 loss Miami squad to secure Tom Osbourne's first MNC. The current system has it's flaws, but compared to the way cfb used to do things the BCS is a model of fairness.

...and before that you sometimes had 3 or 4 teams claiming to be the "National" Champions because sportswriters in each region would declare a team the NC, and we all know they don't always agree.

[foreverhorn]

Quote: Originally Posted by wulfman75

Well if you're going to use Harvard as your example I should point out that the IVY League officially abstains from the Football playoffs. Don't know why when they compete in March Madness. However I do agree with your point about the FCS doing a 16 team playoff.

I did not know that the IVY league doesn't do the playoff...that's stupid. I bet if any were good enough to be in it, they would change that little rule.

[moose1234]

I'm a Michigan fan and it makes sense to me
remember Notre Dame 1994..
beat #1 Florida State lost to unranked Boston College.
simple NCAA Football math..

[phillyfan43]

Quote: Originally Posted by bkfount

the game has been that way for awhile though. I remember playing as Army on NCAA 07 for the ps2, and having the freedom to set my independent schedule to go undefeated. I won like 2 national championships this way until I got bored, but one was a split NC. I also had numerous Heisman winners due to how many points I was putting up on horrible teams. Even though your team is far underpowered, you can probably still win if you're good at the game. Things like momentum don't even factor into the game as much as it used to. All they do is scramble the play and hide receiver icons when the crowd rattles your QB, but if you paid attention when you picked the play, it doesn't matter.

The problem is im pretty sure we WONT win. I try to make the sliders as close to sim as possible so that we can't roll over teams we shouldn't be rolling over. We barely beat NMSU, Hawaii, and, SJSU so obviously we are not overpowering teams.

I just think its garbage how when we can barely beat teams like that, the BCS "rewards" us with the chance to be known as the best team by playing in the BCS National Championship. At best we should have received an At Large bid but thanks to the C- schedule we probably should be lucky to get even that!

Oh well. Part of me hopes I win it all, the other half hopes we get our *butts* handed to us so that we can hopefully win it all in a later year when our team actually deserves it!

[fistofrage]

Quote: Originally Posted by coogrfan

Because as bad as the current system may seem, prior to the BCS it was infinitely worse. In the days before the BCS each conference's champion was contractually tied to one specific bowl game. As a result the mythical national championship was almost never settled on the field. Instead #1 would play in one game, #2 would play in another, and the championship would come done who had the most "style points" at the end of the day. Case in point - 1994 Penn State. Unbeaten and untied, arguably the best team Joe Pa ever fielded with an unstoppable offense, they had lost their hold on the #1 ranking during the regular season to Nebraska. At that time the Big 10 and Pac 10 champs were tied to the Rose Bowl so #2 PSU was forced to face Oregon, whom they trounced 38-10. Nebraska subsequently went to the Orange Bowl and defeated a 1 loss Miami squad to secure Tom Osbourne's first MNC. The current system has it's flaws, but compared to the way cfb used to do things the BCS is a model of fairness.

My point is, does it really matter? The NCAA doesn't recognize a national champion. Even if Nebraska and Penn State had played in 1994, there is no empirical evidence that they were the best 2 teams out there. Alabama finished 12-1 and Texas A& M 10-0-1.

For those who want the 2 best "perceived" teams to play at the end of the year, I guess the BCS is better. But until they decide a champion on the field via a tournament, there really isn't a point to claiming anything but conference titles.

[Bruin26]

Quote: Originally Posted by dickdalewood

Lol, sounds like the BCS is working perfectly in the game.

Agreed. From the original post it is working just fine. Meaning you never are going to have clear cut two best teams face each other.

And to me when they first started the BCS I thought we were going to see #1 play #2, #3 player #4 and so on, not what we see now where a team in the top 8 of the BCS may not even make a BCS game. I know there have been others and I always thought Kansas State played some really easy schedules back when they were in the top ten all the time, but one year they finished #3 in the BCS and weren't given a spot in the BCS games. That is a joke. Why have the system if bowls will just invite whoever they want anyway? I realize certain teams fans travel more than others, but it is a joke.

To me there are never college football champions except in the lower levels where they have playoffs. Give me the sports where there is an actual NCAA Chmapion, not something voted on by coaches, writers and computers.

[JMU_Devil_Dawg]

Quote: Originally Posted by Jumpman62114

EA should put in a 16 team tourney and let us duke it out. Clearly the BCS is flawed, everybody knows it, nobody does anything about it. So EA should take the initiative.

You mean like this NCAA championship event in 2008?

http://www.ncaa.com/brackets/2008/nc..._football.html