Why the BCS Sucks
The BCS did a great job of ensuring that none of the top teams would face each other. It would be hard to argue that any other team was playing as well as Oklahoma, USC and Virginia Tech at the end of the season. LSU lost to Arkansas and barely sneaked by Tennessee. Ohio State lost to Illinois at home and both kind of backed into the championship game. A win by any of USC, Oklahoma or Virginia Tech is not going to be looked at as very impressive. West Virginia is a 2 loss team in a bad conference who lost at home to a pathetic Pitt squad. Kansas is decent team that doesn’t have a signature win the entire year. Honestly, I think their best win was against Central Michigan. They didn’t have to play OU or Texas, and lost to Missouri. Not sure how that qualifies them for a BCS bid. Illinois lost 3 games this year including a terrible Iowa team and a very below average Michigan team. If USC pounds them by 20, what does that really prove?
It is hard to argue that Va Tech should be in the Championship game over LSU since they were embarassed on National TV early in the season @ LSU, but they at least deserved a chance to play either Oklahoma or USC.
Outside of the LSU / Ohio State game, I am not excited about any of the other BCS games. In fact, I will be surprised if USC, OU, and Va Tech don’t win by a combined 50 points. And Georgia against Hawaii… really… If you couldn’t bet on that game, would you go out of your way to watch it?
The BCS Committee proved once again that nothing is done in the best interest of the fans.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:13 am
I have the benefit of hindsight, but OU and VaTech lost their games, giving these ‘undeserving’ teams their signature wins. I certainly believed in USC playing the best ball, but I thought that of OU as well. To be honest on Hawai’i, I did want to see them play, but after the first half, I was cured of that. Certainly putting 12-0 Hawai’i and 11-1 Kansas ’suspect’ teams in a game would have proven nothing. If anything, the BCS was validated a bit by having Georgia wipe the floor with the Warriors, er, Rainbows.
Never did I think that VaTech should have slipped up to 3 amongst a field losing every game down the stretch, it seemed. They got wiped by 41 points to a LSU team who lost to Florida, who lost to Michigan, who lost to App. St. In my mind, they should have maybe been ranked top 10 in I-AA.
Anywhoo, ’shtiny’ doesn’t get his pounders, which may have put him over .500 if he had won. That would not have been ‘all’s right in the world’ type of stuff.
January 6th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Yup… I too get a charity Pounder on the “Va Tech finishes in the top-5″ pronouncement from high atop a Milwaukee hilltop. Like you, I couldn’t understand how Va Tech even got as high as #3 - as impressive as a win over BC should be… it’s not *that* impressive.
Personally, I’d rather see an 8-game playoff. A 4-game playoff would be an improvement over the current system, but the #5 team *might* have a reason to whine in rare cases. However, with an 8-team playoff, *no* #9 team would ever reason to moan… sorry. If you’re not in the top-5 at the end of the season, you blew your chance to state your case for national championship consideration.
That said, all this whining about the BCS is pathetic. The system is what it is… deal with it. Everybody knows the rules going into the season, so… you know what? If USC doesn’t want to be shut out of the BCS championship… then don’t lose to freakin’ Stanford… at home! Stanford finished 4-8 (3-6 in the Pac-10). I can forgive a loss on the road to then-#5 Oregon. But when USC didn’t show up against Stanford, at home, they blew it themselves - spare me the righteous indignation about the need for a playoff.
And I don’t want to hear about the bad timing of injuries. It happenen to Oregon. It happened to West Virginia. It happened to a lot of top teams… “Man, we only lost cuz Top Player X got hurt.” It’s football. Guys get hurt. That’s why depth is so important. It’s unfortunate if a key injury seemed to cost a team a game - but so what… it happens. Championship teams should be able to overcome adversity.
Now, the one case where whining about the BCS is quite appropriate in my mind is a situation like 2004. USC, Oklahoma, and Auburn were all unbeaten heading into the bowls - but only USC and Oklahoma got to play for the national title. And no, I don’t count Utah’s unbeaten season in the mix. If there were a four-team playoff, then I’d have no problem including them in that mix - but they beat *zero* top-20 teams that year. Their bowl win was over Pittsburgh. How good was Pittsburgh? Well, they considered the subesequent hiring of Dave Wannstedt to be an “upgrade”. ‘Nuf said.
In 2004, Auburn beat *five* top-15 teams: #4 LSU, #5 Georgia, at #8 Tennessee, at #15 Tennessee, and #10 Virginia Tech. *That* is a team that is clearly deserving of a national title shot.
But if you have one or more losses on your resume (like every meaningful team did this year) - especially if one of those losses is a home loss to a conference also-ran… quit your freakin’ whining. You’ve got nothing.
On occasion, there are years to complain about the BCS. This is *not* one of those years.
January 6th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Good call on Illinois getting blown out, Danny. The other ones…not so much.