BCS Championship 2004

[nightowl6261a]

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.

And they played WHO? Maybe I am missing something, how many top 25 teams are on this list, I must not be able to count. They were dominat in a division that does not really play defense.

Sep 4 at Air Force W, 56-14  
Sep 11 vs New Mexico State W, 41-14  
Sep 16 at Southern Miss Postponed
Oct 2 at Oregon State W, 49-7  
Oct 9 at USC L, 23-17  
Oct 16 vs UCLA W, 45-28  
Oct 23 at Arizona W, 38-0  
Oct 30 vs Arizona State W, 27-0  
Nov 6 vs Oregon W, 28-27  
Nov 13 at Washington W, 42-12  
Nov 20 vs Stanford W, 41-6  
Dec 4 at Southern Miss 7:45 PM

 

[esquire.]

The problem with having a tournament with undeafeted teams is that everybody would schedule the easiest schedule possible.

The real change they should do is stop ranking teams in the pre-season. They should wait until a few games have been played.

CAL dominated almost all the games they won this year. Look at the margin of victory. You're mentioning that PAc-10 conference wasn't very good, but the SEC wasn't the most dominant conference either. The only game CAL lost was to the top ranked team in the country, on that team's field, and easily could have won that game too. CAL was ROBBED. They should be playing in the Rose bowl. They were ahead of Texas last week, and won their game while Texas did not play. CAL chose not to run up the score or plead for extra votes, and they got punished for that.

I don't think Auburn got robbed in the sense that it was no. 3 in both polls. Look at last year, where USC was no. 1 in both polls, and still wasn't in the championship game.

 

[drizzt3117]

Auburn may have been in the BCS if they didn't play DII teams or the Citadel... Both USC and Oklahoma had tougher games than Auburn did. Cal didn't have a very strong schedule, but then again, it was ranked ahead of Texas, won their game against a fairly strong opponent, and fell behind Texas. This doesn't make any sense. It's even worse, because it's a makeup game. If Cal had already won this game by the same margin, and neither Texas nor Cal played, it's likely that they would have been ranked the same, and it'd doubtful anyone would have changed their votes given that neither team would have played yesterday. Cal got screwed by the fact that they had to reschedule this game due to hurricanes.

 

[nightowl6261a]

The problem with having a tournament with undeafeted teams is that everybody would schedule the easiest schedule possible. The real change they should do is stop ranking teams in the pre-season. They should wait until a few games have been played. CAL dominated almost all the games they won this year. Look at the margin of victory. You're mentioning that PAc-10 conference wasn't very good, but the SEC wasn't the most dominant conference either. The only game CAL lost was to the top ranked team in the country, on that team's field, and easily could have won that game too. CAL was ROBBED. They should be playing in the Rose bowl. They were ahead of Texas last week, and won their game while Texas did not play. CAL chose not to run up the score or plead for extra votes, and they got punished for that. I don't think Auburn got robbed in the sense that it was no. 3 in both polls. Look at last year, where USC was no. 1 in both polls, and still wasn't in the championship game.

Let us just see the outcome in 4 weeks, then we can all decide if USC deserves to be there, if Oklahoma looses, then all was correct in the computers etc....but, if on the other hand Oklahoma beats them handily, then I believe the flaws in the system will reveal themselves. But really, did not the BCS promise the people the system would work to give the people the best match-ups in the major bowls, then you have a pact putting Pitt and Michigan in the bowls, if they can make a rule up to satisfy last years f**k up by placing Oklahoma in the game (if the team does not win their respective championship, they do not play for the BCS championship), then shouldn't they also protect the teams like Cal etc, and charge that if a team is not ranked in the Top-10, i.e. Michigan (13) and Pitt (21), then the spots should be validated to a higher ranked team to insure the integrity of the bowl system. I agree with the assesment of waiting and seeing, there should not be any preseason polls that carry any wait, until conference play opens, team rankings should be held in confidence, or not taken at all, and get the coaches poll out, it has a flawed system of favoritism...point in case, it has been very strongly considered that USC won a coaches poll fav because of sentiment towards last years screw up, and I think they should have been playing for the spot last year...there needs to be another system...aha...PLAYOFF...match 1-4 and 2-3, and the winners play, how much money in advertising would that make...then there also would be only one winner. ESPN Headline Cheers And Jeers The BCS once again provided fuel for its critics' fire, writes Ivan Maisel. Just ask angry Cal. USC and Oklahoma can cheer their Orange Bowl berths, but Auburn got shafted.Auburn Shafted

 

[drizzt3117]

I'm in favor of a 8 game playoff (at least) but the problem with that is that it makes regular season games less important, unlike now, where every game matters.

 

[retronotmetro]

OK, I'm a pissed-off Cal alum, but I think I still have some objective perspective left (?)

1)   The polls were criticized as having too little impact last year, and they had too much impact this year.  Cal lost ground in the polls to Texas in a week where Texas was idle and Cal blew out Stanford.  Stanford may have a crappy record this year, but they had a much better team than their record suggests, and they sure scared USC.  If they aren't going to drop the coaches' poll from the system (as some suggest) then they need to make the coaches disclose their votes every week.  They also need to redistribute the votes.

2)   Whatever else is wrong with the system, it is clear to me that guaranteed bowl bids for anything other than #1 or #2 is ridiculous.  Pitt?

3)  As a guy who grew up going to UCLA and USC home games, and going to the Rose Bowl whenever we could (regardless of who was playing), I say to the BCS--give us back the damn Rose Bowl.

4)  Put margin of victory back in the computers.  If poll voters are going to take it into account, the computers should also.   A lot of Cal fans were disappointed that Tedford chose to take a knee on the last series, rather than take a shot at another score.  He credited that decision to sportsmanship.  Well, sportsmanship is subjective.  As long as there are people like Stoops or Spurrier who are willing to pour it on in the 4th quarter, and poll voters who consciously or subconsciously approve of it, you are only shooting yourself in the foot by not doing it.  In fact, Tedford directly shot himself in the foot, as his contract had a $400K incentive for making a BCS bowl this year. That's not to say that I disagree with his choice, but if you make it clear that margin is a criterion, you make it crystal clear that you have to run it up, whatever your views on being a gentlemanly competitor.

 

[drizzt3117]

Well, I personally vote for a playoff system, where the top 8 teams play it off, with selection criteria done on a selective basis, like the NCAA tournament for b-ball, that way, every game still counts.

 

[nightowl6261a]

Any new ideas before the big game tonight?