Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment, Culture, and Sports › BCS Championship 2004
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

BCS Championship 2004

post #1 of 23
Thread Starter 
Personally, I think it should be Auburn and Oklahoma, but I am prejudice because I believe the SEC is the best, sorry, and if any team goes undefeated in the SEC, they should be playing for the Championship. Auburn will have beaten Georgia #5, LSU #4, and Tennessee #8, #15? (2 times), all of which were top ranked teams when they played....USC on the otherhand has played only Cal #7, and won by 6....Oklahoma, beat Texas #5, OSU #20, and Texas A&M #22...if Auburn had started the season higher than #18, they would be #2 at worst, voice your opinion.
post #2 of 23
Thread Starter 
helllloooo...no opinions?
post #3 of 23
Until they get a proper play-off system, it's all just stupid. Naming a "national champion" based on a poll means nothing. The BCS doesn't decide a national champion, it just names the winner of a popularity contest. Even in women's figure skating the contestants actually compete against each other. The BCS national chamionship is a joke.
post #4 of 23
Kai's right. The BCS is all about maximizing the amount of money going to the big conferences. It has nothing to do with determining the best football team in the nation. The only way that you can determine which two of Oklahoma, Auburn, and USC deserve to play for the national championship is a playoff.
post #5 of 23
I voted for USC-Oklahoma, just because those two teams have more marquis players than Auburn, but I'm really in favor of any scenario that involves an unbeaten team being left out of the BCS championship game.  Only that scenario will provide any impetus for change.  I propose a playoff with the top six teams from the BCS rankings seeded #1 through #6.  (If you're not ranked in the top 6 at the end of the season, chances are you're not the best team in the country.)  The first week, the #3 seed plays the #6 seed and the #4 seed plays the #5 seed.  After the games, the teams are re-seeded and the #1 seed plays the new #4 seed and the #2 seed plays the new #3 seed the following week.  Those two games can be labeled with the names of BCS bowls.  The week after that, the two winners play in the BCS championship game.  Thus, you preserve the bowl system while instituting a playoff.  It's way too simple and logical to be implemented, however.
post #6 of 23
there has never been a true national champion because the system is not made to create one. i think any kind of play off system would have to include all the unbeaten teams regardless of their ranking. rankings are made by people who are influenced by hype. no one watches every game every week. i say have a tourny at the end of the year that includes every unbeaten team. if you want to be champ, you have to prove it on the field, not in the polls.
post #7 of 23
Imagine NCAA basketball without a tourney....then you see the ridiculousness of NOT having a tourney for the football teams. koji
post #8 of 23
And my feeling is that if Auburn runs the table (the SEC is murder) they will have earned the right to meet either Oklahoma (I haven't been very impressed with them this year) or USC (probably has the most talent from top to bottom of any team). So I would vote for USC/Auburn, even though the Sooners certainly deserve their shot. koji
post #9 of 23
Quote:
i say have a tourny at the end of the year that includes every unbeaten team. if you want to be champ, you have to prove it on the field, not in the polls.
So you would include Harvard (10-0 this season) in the year-end tournament?
post #10 of 23
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by matadorpoeta,30 Nov. 2004, 11:23
i say have a tourny at the end of the year that includes every unbeaten team. if you want to be champ, you have to prove it on the field, not in the polls.
So you would include Harvard (10-0 this season) in the year-end tournament?
absolutely. if usc, oklahoma, or auburn are the best team, they shouldn't mind having to play harvard to advance to the final. as an athlete myself, i understand how important it is to prove it on the field. who won the olympic basketball tournament? how many #1 or #2 seeds have lost to small teams in the ncaa basketball tournament? this summer, greece won the european soccer championship. if there had been a rankings system without any tournament, greece wouldn't have been in the top 20. yet, they went to the tourney and beat a few of the favorites to win the cup.
post #11 of 23
Putting every undefeated team in the tourny would punish teams in competitive conferences for having tough schedules. I agree that the current ranking formula is flawed but you should have to take in to account difficulty of schedule.
post #12 of 23
calling anyone's schedule tough is subjective, and we are trying to take as much of the subjectivity out of the system as possible. if alabama goes 10-1 and harvard goes 11-0, one can argue that alabama is probably the better team, but one can only argue that on paper, and football ain't played on paper. example: professional soccer teams in europe have far more money than those in south america. more money means better players: on paper. so the best teams and leagues are supposedly in europe. however, when european and south american teams play competitive matches against each other, the s. american team wins over half the time. when pete sampras was #1 in the world and dominated the sport, he would lose once in a while to guys no one has ever heard of. why? because those guys are good too, and on any given day anybody can beat anybody else (i'm exagerating.)
post #13 of 23
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Putting every undefeated team in the tourny would punish  teams in competitive conferences for having tough schedules. I agree that the current ranking formula is flawed but you should have to take in to account difficulty of schedule.
My point exactly, SEC....need I say more....I don't think so.
post #14 of 23
The SEC wasn't as dominant as it usually is, so I don't think you can claim that Auburn deserves it just because it won the SEC. The Pac 10 wasn't a strong conference from top to bottom, but USC had to beat Cal which was one of the most dominating teams this year.
post #15 of 23
I'd agree that it's subjective. But only to a certain extent Harvard has slim to no chance of beating any major team. I can't remember any situation where a team of that caliber surprisingly won the championship.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment, Culture, and Sports › BCS Championship 2004