Who votes we take "C" out of BCS?

guyforGod · 10-16-2002, 05:22 PM

I can see just as much of an opportunity for controversy in that system as in the BCS. Just go back to the way it was. Let me have my Big Ten/Pac Ten showdown in the Rose Bowl every year..... things were better that way.

imclayinaz · 10-18-2002, 12:06 PM

I liked the BCS until last year, when freakin' NEBRASKA who lost to Colorado by 30 points got picked to go to the championship over Colorado, even though Colorado won the Big 12 championship and all of that.

I actually think it should have been Miami and Oregon, but the fact that Nebraska, who I hate with a passion, played in the championship game really irks me.

I believe that the next "evolution" in the BCS process that they're looking at (which would take place in 2005), would be to have a four team championship type series. So if you look at last year, it would have gone:

Miami plays Oregon (no. 1 vs. no. 4)
Nebraska plays Colorado (no. 2 vs. no. 3)

and then the winners play each other. At least that's what I've heard.

***Art*** · 10-18-2002, 11:59 PM

The way Oregon whooped on Colorado, and the way Miami whooped on Nebraska... Yeah, it surely should have been Miami, Oregon.

nestamanchris · 10-20-2002, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by imclayinaz
I believe that the next "evolution" in the BCS process that they're looking at (which would take place in 2005), would be to have a four team championship type series.

Where did you hear this? I'm just curious.

Personally, I've about given up on this debate. It's pointless for two reasons. Primarily, no matter what the system is everyone won't be pleased. It's basically a no-win situation.

Secondly, college football (like it or not) is BIG business. The bottom line is the $. As long as the BCS pours money into the major conferences' pockets, it'll stand. They'll tweak it until the end of time, but as long as it's financially advantageous for the conferences involved (and Notre Dame when they win 9 or more), BCS it is.

Another topic: I was wondering what ya'll thought about the minor bowls. Should they stay or should some be dropped? I have a problem deciding where I stand on this one. On the one hand, a team with a .500 record shouldn't be in a bowl. Believe me, it's going to happen several times this year. The A She She (probably the worst "major" football conference) has 6 bowl slots!!! That, my friends is a joke... On the other hand, college football is a passion for me and having a bowl game almost every day from Christmas to New Years keeps me thoroughly entertained. Ok, I'm done ranting now

.

Shanemasta15 · 10-21-2002, 04:31 PM

I love the minor bowl games! I do think it's going a little far when almost 1/2 of the 117 teams are going to bowls, but I love seing all the minor conference teams in the postseason. But honestly, y'all will probly disagree w/me, but I think the MAC needs a little more respect than what they're getting in the bowls. I mean they're a 12 team conference w/only 2 bids, and they've got some decent teams there (i.e. Marshall, Toledo, Bowling Green, and Northern Illinois.) How about takin 1 of those 6 ACC bids away and giving it to the MAC.

imclayinaz · 10-21-2002, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by nestamanchris
Where did you hear this? I'm just curious.

I believe it was on ESPN radio - if not it was a local station here in Phoenix.

SoccerAaron · 11-09-2002, 09:41 AM

The BCS sucks. Plain and simple.
Otherwisew how could Ohio St. be ranked second ahead of Miami?

guyforGod · 11-09-2002, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SoccerAaron
The BCS sucks. Plain and simple.
Otherwisew how could Ohio St. be ranked second ahead of Miami?

Simple, they have beaten tougher teams than Miami (example: Washington State.... Miami hasn't played a team that could even compete with them)