So did the BCS work?

by 54b on Jan 9, 2007 8:51 AM CST Comment 10 comments

It's hard to argue against Florida being named National Champions. They had a great year, played a ridiculously tough schedule, and slain the media's omnipotent dragon.

But how good was the dragon? If you think about it, a lot of tOSU's mystique and #1 ranking was predicated upon preseason hype and wins over UT and Michigan (two teams that perhaps weren't as good as previously thought given some hard-to-explain late season losses).

Don't get me wrong, I think the Buckeyes are an excellent team and perhaps they just had an off night (I think the 51-day layoff was deadly), but when the BCS system is so dependent on perception polls and it's been proven over and over again that our perceptions can be very deceiving, don't you have to have a playoff?

Not so fast...now that tOSU has been knocked off their perch (and Michigan was dismantled at the Rose Bowl), what other team can legitimately lay claim to the title? Boise State? Maybe.

When a team with a loss is awarded the title, I think it's easy to say the BCS didn't work because there will inevitably be a lot of questions left unanswered. But if you consider the entire college football season (including the title game) as one big playoff, maybe it did work.

In thinking about it another way, I liken tOSU to one of those AFC teams like the Broncos from the late 80's. Every year they'd steamroll an overall weaker AFC and look like a team to be reckoned with, but when they got to the Super Bowl and played a battle tested team from a stronger overall NFC, they were beaten soundly.

So did the BCS work...I'm actually inclined to say it did (with some exception to Boise State).

Thoughts?

All comments, FanPosts, and FanShots are the views of the reader-authors who create them.

0 recs | Comment 10 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I think it did.

The wait for the NC game was way too long though, January 4th would have been a perfect day for it.

Hey Boise State fans, no pictures of crying OU kids on your fanblog ok?

by bendj on Jan 9, 2007 9:22 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

I agree

But what are you gonna do? 100% of the population is accustomed to a football game on Monday night. The tv schedule is set up such that new shows go on hiatus during bowl season, and reemerge after. On Monday, there is literally NOTHING else to watch, so they figure they'll snag a few million more sets of eyeballs for it.

As far as the BCS "working", it's doing EXACTLY what the designers wanted it to do, creating a second Superbowl. As far as the marketing vermin are concerned, it's working perfectly.

by Hornbud on Jan 9, 2007 9:38 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes and no

I think Florida was the best team last night (master of obvious) -- and they've proven under the current system that they deserve to be MNC.
However, this is all in hindsight. There was no way for anybody to know that the Gators would come out and shelack OSU the way they did.
Who's to say that USC, Wiscy or Lville couldn't give them a game or beat OSU themselves?
There is no way to truly know who would survive a multiple team playoff without it actually happening.

In a playoff system OSU and Mich could have been knocked out in the first round and the real teams would advance to make more interesting games.

Overall I just think it was a weak season in college football. Every team seems to look incomplete.

Cats and dogs sleeping together.

by EYESofBEVO on Jan 9, 2007 9:37 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

agree

Plus, if every game is a playoff, then what do you tell teams like Boise St, Auburn (03), USC (04)?

It cant always come down to strength of schedule, which is where we're at right now. Just because your conference is down (or sucks) doesnt mean you might not have the best football team.

Also, with a playoff system, you wont have a team that goes 7 weeks without playing a game before they play the biggest game of the season.

by the other Andrew on Jan 9, 2007 9:48 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Good Points

I don't think you necessarily needed a playoff system this year, but what happened to Auburn '03 and USC '04, demand one.

I also think this year was terribly mediocre overall.

by 54b on Jan 9, 2007 10:01 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

that's the thing

do you want the national champion to be the team that has the best season overall or the one that is playing the best at the end of the season?

I tend to want the best team over the course of the entire season to be the national champion (I rank based on resume, at least towards the end of the season), which leads me to view the regular season as a type of playoff.

Those that want LSU and USC ranked ahead of OSU don't think (one would assume) that the entire season matters to ranking teams at the end. They want to rank teams based on "how good they are." These are the types of people who are in favor of a playoff.

by billyzane on Jan 9, 2007 11:07 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

To my mind

the BCS has worked every single year other than 2004 (you guys switched the years up there - the split national championship was in 2003 and the Auburn year was 2004). My personal opinion is that if you lose a game, you're guaranteed nothing with regards to the national championship and you have nothing to complain about except the fact that you lost that game.

Now, if we're being honest, Auburn wasn't going to beat USC in 2004. No one was. But of course we have no objective way of knowing that. So there are two ways of thinking about that problem: 1) there needs to be a playoff to get the two best teams in the national championship game, or 2) the whole problem here is that we're trying to force the whole season into one single "national championship" game. It's bigger than that. The bowl system allowed teams to play an extra OOC game and we could rank the teams based on that.

I struggle between these two extremes.

by billyzane on Jan 9, 2007 11:15 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Nobody was

going to beat USC that year??? That is what they said about UT in '06. EVERYONE was annointing the Trojans. They did a month long special about where that USC team ranked in History!! And all of them ranked it above '04. So don't give me that crap.

the BCS didn't "work". It doesn't "Work" It can never "work". A playoff system will not necessarily put the 2 best teams in the title game (see College basketball) every year. But you do have to play your way into it. Under the BCS you have to "Rank" your way into it. With a playoff, the arguments that we have every year get settled on the field where they should. Thats it. Thats the bottom line.

"A lot of people look for the easy way to do anything, in swimming there is no easy way." - Eddie Reese

by SwimTexas on Jan 9, 2007 11:32 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

look at the results at the END of the season

in 2005, people may have been saying that about USC before the season ended, but no one was saying it afterward (obviously). In 2004, USC had the same offense as in 2005, but a defense that was ridiculously better than in 2005. And they concluded the season with a blowout win (bigger than Florida's win over OSU last night) over a previously unbeated Oklahoma team that was thought to be their equal going in.

And realize, I'm saying that the BCS did not work that year. The point I'm trying to make is that it usually does (are you telling me that the BCS didn't work last year? it worked PERFECTLY last year).

You claim that a playoff wouldn't necessarily ensure the 2 best teams in the championship game (a point I agree with), but that it's still inherently better than the BCS championship game because you have to "play your way into it." Last time I checked, entrance into the BCS title game is based on the results of a 12-game regular season plus (for some teams) a conference championship game. That seems to be predicate entirely on "playing your way into it."

by billyzane on Jan 9, 2007 11:47 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Conflicted

I like the idea that the regular season is just one big playoff, but the strength of schedules are so disparate that it's really hard to tell who is most deserving. Plus, the fact that some teams have to play a conference championship and some don't is truly a disadvantage though you can argue Florida wouldn't have been in the title this year without it.

A radio jock opined that tOSU would have had at least two losses if they played in the SEC. A lot of people have said the same of Boise State if not more losses. Of course that's all conjecture, but it begs the questions of whether tOSU was in the title because of their schedule or becasuse of their prowess.

In the 80s, in the NFL, the 49ers were almost assured of making the playoffs every year because they played in the notoriously weak NFC West. But they always had to prove how good they were once playoff time came around.

I'm still not a card carrying member of the playoff party, but at least it would be settled on the field and not in the press.

by 54b on Jan 9, 2007 12:12 PM CST reply actions 0 recs