OT: Wow (BCS Championship)

[Nevadaref]

The WAC went 3-1 with the only loss by 1 point.

People need to start changing their thinking. The so-called "power conferences" are disappearing with the NCAA reduction in D1 scholarships. The talent pool is getting spread out to more schools. The rise of the WAC in football and the Missouri Valley in basketball are good examples of this.

People need to stop assuming one team is better than another or that one conference is superior simply because of the name and tenure.
The #1 place that this unfair bias shows up is in preseason polls. Teams should have to play four or five games before they are eligible to be ranked.

[Camron Rust]

The particilar record of a conference in bowls doesn't mean a whole lot. For example, Tennessee had the 5th best record in the SEC...not one of their better teams. Hardly worthy of basing much on.

So what if the WAC goes 3-1....aside from Boise St, they didn't really accomplish much....their 2nd place team played the 6th team in the PAC which is usually only 2-3 strong (not exactly earth shattering). And their 3rd place team playing the 5th place Mountain West team...(a pretty weak conference).

Except for Boise St., the other WAC teams would be at/near the bottom if they competed in the big conferences....they wouldn't have enough wins to even go to a bowl game.

Also, does anyone have any delusion that Boise St. could have made a game against Florida? Maybe better than Ohio St. did...(never mind that the popular argument was that BSU should have been in the game rather than Florida). BSU's schedule wasn't half the schedule Fla. played. No way they'd have been undefeated if they played in the SEC or Big Ten.

[Nevadaref]

And no way George Mason makes it to the Final Four either, huh?

When given the chance these smaller programs continue to rise to the occasion despite the constant nay-sayers.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Except for Boise St., the other WAC teams would be at/near the bottom if they competed in the big conferences....they wouldn't have enough wins to even go to a bowl game.

This kind of thinking constantly baffles me. If Boise St. were part of one of the "big conferences," do you really think they'd remain exactly as they are today? Of course they wouldn't. They'd be able to recruit better players, because they're part of a "big conference." They'd be consistently playing better opponents, which would make them a better team, just like it does for teams in one of those "big conferences." The notion that teams from a non-big conference couldn't possibly compete in a big conference, especially if they were part of that conference, is complete codswallop. BYU was just one team to demonstrate that this year.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

... is complete codswallop....

Hey, watch your phrase-ology, there kiddo! You're rising above your station a little, eh?

[Adam]

There's no reason they can't do a playoff of 4 or 8 teams. They could have had a 4 team playoff on New Year's Day, and followed it with the Championship game a week later. Oh, wait, that's kind of late in the year for a college football game; never mind.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

There's no reason they can't do a playoff of 4 or 8 teams. They could have had a 4 team playoff on New Year's Day, and followed it with the Championship game a week later. Oh, wait, that's kind of late in the year for a college football game; never mind.

They could have a 4 team play-off on the 2nd Saturday in December. BCS 4 @ BCS 1 and BCS 3 @ BCS 2.

Winners play each other in the BCS championship, losers go to their regularly scheduled bowls.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

There's no reason they can't do a playoff of 4 or 8 teams. They could have had a 4 team playoff on New Year's Day, and followed it with the Championship game a week later. Oh, wait, that's kind of late in the year for a college football game; never mind.

And what will that create....the number 5 team complaining that they should have been in!

Boise St. still wouldn't have been in a 4 team playoff or probably even an 8 team playoff.

Unless you go so deep that the first one not in knows they couldn't have possibly won it, you'll always have a what-if. How deep is that....16 at a minimum, 32 might be justifiable, 64 to be certain. Maybe each conference gets to send one?? The question then becomes, is that what the schools really want? Except for 1 or two, all of them are pretty happy with the bowl system. They get more money, half of them end their seasons with a bowl victory against what is usually a somewhat comparabe opponent.

I think a playoff would lead to some freak upsets and teams that no one really thinks are the best will end up winning championships. The best teams would sometimes get beat by a longshot who then goes down big in the next game. It's not like basketball. In football, 1 or 2 key plays burries a team in a big hole where in basketball, each possession starts out more-or-less the same....even if you get behind 3-4 scores.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

And what will that create....the number 5 team complaining that they should have been in!

Boise St. still wouldn't have been in a 4 team playoff or probably even an 8 team playoff.

I do not know if that last statement is correct. Boise St. had to be in the top 8 to reach a BCS game. They did not play in a BCS game without being ranked pretty high.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Unless you go so deep that the first one not in knows they couldn't have possibly won it, you'll always have a what-if. How deep is that....16 at a minimum, 32 might be justifiable, 64 to be certain. Maybe each conference gets to send one?? The question then becomes, is that what the schools really want? Except for 1 or two, all of them are pretty happy with the bowl system. They get more money, half of them end their seasons with a bowl victory against what is usually a somewhat comparabe opponent.

I think a playoff would lead to some freak upsets and teams that no one really thinks are the best will end up winning championships. The best teams would sometimes get beat by a longshot who then goes down big in the next game. It's not like basketball. In football, 1 or 2 key plays burries a team in a big hole where in basketball, each possession starts out more-or-less the same....even if you get behind 3-4 scores.

The best team does not win any NC all the time. Was the Florida Basketball team the best before they played and won the NC last year? At least they got a chance to prove something on the field. You can still have a bowl system and a playoff system. A playoff system would only affect a small percentage of teams and programs.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

And what will that create....the number 5 team complaining that they should have been in!

Boise St. still wouldn't have been in a 4 team playoff or probably even an 8 team playoff.

Unless you go so deep that the first one not in knows they couldn't have possibly won it, you'll always have a what-if. How deep is that....16 at a minimum, 32 might be justifiable, 64 to be certain. Maybe each conference gets to send one?? The question then becomes, is that what the schools really want? Except for 1 or two, all of them are pretty happy with the bowl system. They get more money, half of them end their seasons with a bowl victory against what is usually a somewhat comparabe opponent.

I think a playoff would lead to some freak upsets and teams that no one really thinks are the best will end up winning championships. The best teams would sometimes get beat by a longshot who then goes down big in the next game. It's not like basketball. In football, 1 or 2 key plays burries a team in a big hole where in basketball, each possession starts out more-or-less the same....even if you get behind 3-4 scores.

So the SEC should get rid of it's post-season championship game and vote in its representative(s) to the BCS and Sugar Bowl?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

And what will that create....the number 5 team complaining that they should have been in!

Boise St. still wouldn't have been in a 4 team playoff or probably even an 8 team playoff.

Unless you go so deep that the first one not in knows they couldn't have possibly won it, you'll always have a what-if. How deep is that....16 at a minimum, 32 might be justifiable, 64 to be certain. Maybe each conference gets to send one?? The question then becomes, is that what the schools really want? Except for 1 or two, all of them are pretty happy with the bowl system. They get more money, half of them end their seasons with a bowl victory against what is usually a somewhat comparabe opponent.

I think a playoff would lead to some freak upsets and teams that no one really thinks are the best will end up winning championships. The best teams would sometimes get beat by a longshot who then goes down big in the next game. It's not like basketball. In football, 1 or 2 key plays burries a team in a big hole where in basketball, each possession starts out more-or-less the same....even if you get behind 3-4 scores.

OK, Camron, you're starting to sound Old School when it comes to this subject. Don't have a play-off b/c somebody might suffer a freak, upset loss?
Where's is the logic in that statement?

So doesn't it mean it's possible for there to be an upset in the SEC championship game? If that happens, should the upset be ignored and the better team still represent the SEC in the BCS?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I think a playoff would lead to some freak upsets and teams that no one really thinks are the best will end up winning championships. The best teams would sometimes get beat by a longshot who then goes down big in the next game.

You mean like...maybe...the NFL?

Playoffs works for them.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

This kind of thinking constantly baffles me. If Boise St. were part of one of the "big conferences," do you really think they'd remain exactly as they are today? Of course they wouldn't. They'd be able to recruit better players, because they're part of a "big conference." They'd be consistently playing better opponents, which would make them a better team, just like it does for teams in one of those "big conferences." The notion that teams from a non-big conference couldn't possibly compete in a big conference, especially if they were part of that conference, is complete codswallop. BYU was just one team to demonstrate that this year.

Agree. The salary cap is set much higher for the major conferences though.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

This kind of thinking constantly baffles me. If Boise St. were part of one of the "big conferences," do you really think they'd remain exactly as they are today? Of course they wouldn't. They'd be able to recruit better players, because they're part of a "big conference." They'd be consistently playing better opponents, which would make them a better team, just like it does for teams in one of those "big conferences." The notion that teams from a non-big conference couldn't possibly compete in a big conference, especially if they were part of that conference, is complete codswallop. BYU was just one team to demonstrate that this year.

I guess we'll be seeing Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Duke, or Stanford in a BCS game next year....they're in the stonger conferences! Sure, teams change when their situtuations change, but that doesn't happen overnight. Recruiting better players doesn't come automatically in a big conference...you still have to get some nice wins to get them to sign.

BYU has most always been a team that competes well out of it's conference and has often been talked about when PAC-10 expansions have been discussed. They always schedule some tougher out of conference opponents. They've earned the respect of the bigger conferences on the field, not just 1 year in the media.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I guess we'll be seeing Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Duke, or Stanford in a BCS game next year....they're in the stonger conferences!

I wouldnt bet against it. Wake Forest finished at the bottom of the ACC last season. Northwestern has done it before, too.