Comments on: THE BCS WORKS http://markhasty.com/archives/2004/11/27/the-bcs-works/ E AHO LA'ULA Fri, 25 Jul 2008 12:40:59 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.2 by: Dave http://markhasty.com/archives/2004/11/27/the-bcs-works/#comment-1487 Wed, 01 Dec 2004 21:24:00 +0000 http://markhasty.com/archives/2004/11/27/the-bcs-works/#comment-1487 How much says exactly one of OU or Auburn loses, thus "fixing" the problem? Fate, somehow, tends to play out that way. How much says exactly one of OU or Auburn loses, thus “fixing” the problem? Fate, somehow, tends to play out that way.

]]> by: Kenny http://markhasty.com/archives/2004/11/27/the-bcs-works/#comment-1463 Wed, 01 Dec 2004 02:52:10 +0000 http://markhasty.com/archives/2004/11/27/the-bcs-works/#comment-1463 This won't happen of course, but the statisticians would ensure it shows up as at least a probablity: Colorado beats Oklahoma. Tennessee beats Auburn. Then Pitt, Colorado and UT are all in the BCS. Utah State, Louisville, Boise State, all still out. That, friends, is how the BCS most decidely does not work. This won’t happen of course, but the statisticians would ensure it shows up as at least a probablity:

Colorado beats Oklahoma.
Tennessee beats Auburn.

Then Pitt, Colorado and UT are all in the BCS. Utah State, Louisville, Boise State, all still out.

That, friends, is how the BCS most decidely does not work.

]]> by: Steven Taylor http://markhasty.com/archives/2004/11/27/the-bcs-works/#comment-1457 Mon, 29 Nov 2004 17:11:00 +0000 http://markhasty.com/archives/2004/11/27/the-bcs-works/#comment-1457 I am not arguing that Texas has a shot at the title. I am arguing that the BCS system has created an upper-tier of bowls that teams fight to get into. I would prefer that the BCS Bowls feature the 8 best teams in the country. I think that would be more interesting than what we currently get. I am not arguing that Texas has a shot at the title. I am arguing that the BCS system has created an upper-tier of bowls that teams fight to get into. I would prefer that the BCS Bowls feature the 8 best teams in the country. I think that would be more interesting than what we currently get.

]]> by: Dave http://markhasty.com/archives/2004/11/27/the-bcs-works/#comment-1456 Mon, 29 Nov 2004 08:32:52 +0000 http://markhasty.com/archives/2004/11/27/the-bcs-works/#comment-1456 With the BCS, we've gone from a 1-team playoff to a 2-team playoff. There's nothing wrong with that - if you exclude last year, in the history of the BCS, the team that won the whole deal was clearly the #1 team. In other words, the best team in football was one of the two selected - which is good enough for me. Last year, it didn't work. This year, we'll have to wait and see. If there is a problem, it would be hard to justify expanding the playoff to more than four teams. After all, with the top four BCS-ranked teams in the championship race, can you really argue that #5 might actually be the best team in the country? With the BCS, we’ve gone from a 1-team playoff to a 2-team playoff. There’s nothing wrong with that - if you exclude last year, in the history of the BCS, the team that won the whole deal was clearly the #1 team. In other words, the best team in football was one of the two selected - which is good enough for me.

Last year, it didn’t work. This year, we’ll have to wait and see. If there is a problem, it would be hard to justify expanding the playoff to more than four teams. After all, with the top four BCS-ranked teams in the championship race, can you really argue that #5 might actually be the best team in the country?

]]> by: Steven Taylor http://markhasty.com/archives/2004/11/27/the-bcs-works/#comment-1454 Sun, 28 Nov 2004 16:12:58 +0000 http://markhasty.com/archives/2004/11/27/the-bcs-works/#comment-1454 And one mroe thing: where's OSU now? And one mroe thing: where’s OSU now?

]]> by: Steven Taylor http://markhasty.com/archives/2004/11/27/the-bcs-works/#comment-1453 Sun, 28 Nov 2004 15:31:03 +0000 http://markhasty.com/archives/2004/11/27/the-bcs-works/#comment-1453 And another thing...:) I don't buy the fire Mack Brown argument. I don't see starting from scratch because of 5 losses to OU for a coach who has only loss 6 other games over 6 years. And another thing…:)

I don’t buy the fire Mack Brown argument. I don’t see starting from scratch because of 5 losses to OU for a coach who has only loss 6 other games over 6 years.

]]> by: Steven Taylor http://markhasty.com/archives/2004/11/27/the-bcs-works/#comment-1452 Sun, 28 Nov 2004 15:29:55 +0000 http://markhasty.com/archives/2004/11/27/the-bcs-works/#comment-1452 Oh, and Cal will get into a BCS Bowl, so Cal has less to gripe about. Oh, and Cal will get into a BCS Bowl, so Cal has less to gripe about.

]]> by: Steven Taylor http://markhasty.com/archives/2004/11/27/the-bcs-works/#comment-1451 Sun, 28 Nov 2004 15:29:08 +0000 http://markhasty.com/archives/2004/11/27/the-bcs-works/#comment-1451 Gtranted, as I said in an earlier post on this subject: if Texas would just beat OU, then Texas would have nothing to gripe about. Still, if we can't have a playoff, at a minimum it would nice if the Big Bad BCS Bowls at least featured the best teams in college. I understand that this is the way the BCS is set up, but really: the idea that 6-5 Syracuse is going to get to go to a BCS Bowl and a number of superior teams (inluding Texas) will be shut out. It is a poor system designed only to guarantee that #1 plays #2 and nothing more. Granted: that is an improvement over the old system, but it has also had the effect of increasing the significance of some bowls and diminishing the importance of others. Gtranted, as I said in an earlier post on this subject: if Texas would just beat OU, then Texas would have nothing to gripe about. Still, if we can’t have a playoff, at a minimum it would nice if the Big Bad BCS Bowls at least featured the best teams in college.

I understand that this is the way the BCS is set up, but really: the idea that 6-5 Syracuse is going to get to go to a BCS Bowl and a number of superior teams (inluding Texas) will be shut out.

It is a poor system designed only to guarantee that #1 plays #2 and nothing more. Granted: that is an improvement over the old system, but it has also had the effect of increasing the significance of some bowls and diminishing the importance of others.

]]> by: Scott http://markhasty.com/archives/2004/11/27/the-bcs-works/#comment-1450 Sun, 28 Nov 2004 05:49:00 +0000 http://markhasty.com/archives/2004/11/27/the-bcs-works/#comment-1450 I disagree with the idea that if Texas had beaten Oklahoma we would not have the discussion that Texas belongs in the BCS. We would still have the discussion only with the Sooners as the "aggrieved" party instead of the Longhorns (or USC instead of Cal, if Cal had beaten USC). Also, it shouldn't be overlooked that if Auburn beats TN, and USC beats UCLA and OK beats COLO., Auburn will have the biggest and most legitimate gripe of all. Esspecially if they win their bowl game which will most likely produce another split MNC. That being said, this Longhorn agrees with the gist of your argument. I still wish, and have for a long a time, that we could incorporate some sort of playoff system into the college football postseason. A sixteen team postseason incorporating the 11 conference champions and 5 at-large spots chosen from the highest ranked remaining teams seems about right. I disagree with the idea that if Texas had beaten Oklahoma we would not have the discussion that Texas belongs in the BCS. We would still have the discussion only with the Sooners as the “aggrieved” party instead of the Longhorns (or USC instead of Cal, if Cal had beaten USC). Also, it shouldn’t be overlooked that if Auburn beats TN, and USC beats UCLA and OK beats COLO., Auburn will have the biggest and most legitimate gripe of all. Esspecially if they win their bowl game which will most likely produce another split MNC.

That being said, this Longhorn agrees with the gist of your argument. I still wish, and have for a long a time, that we could incorporate some sort of playoff system into the college football postseason. A sixteen team postseason incorporating the 11 conference champions and 5 at-large spots chosen from the highest ranked remaining teams seems about right.

]]> by: Scott http://markhasty.com/archives/2004/11/27/the-bcs-works/#comment-1449 Sun, 28 Nov 2004 05:32:59 +0000 http://markhasty.com/archives/2004/11/27/the-bcs-works/#comment-1449 A good post, but I take exception to your opening statement. If Texas had beaten the Oklahoma, we would still have the discussion with the Sooners, instead of the Longhorns, complaining about how "unfair" the BCS is. Likewise, if Cal had beaten USC. Personally, I think that we need to go to a sixteen team playoff, with the conference champions from the 11 Div 1-A conferences and five at large spots chosen from the highest ranking, non-conference champion or independent teams. A good post, but I take exception to your opening statement. If Texas had beaten the Oklahoma, we would still have the discussion with the Sooners, instead of the Longhorns, complaining about how “unfair” the BCS is. Likewise, if Cal had beaten USC.

Personally, I think that we need to go to a sixteen team playoff, with the conference champions from the 11 Div 1-A conferences and five at large spots chosen from the highest ranking, non-conference champion or independent teams.

]]>