Should BCS Be Replaced By Playoffs? -- Guynemer's Proposal

[Drake Tungsten]

I can't believe that anyone would consider giving a share of the national title to an undefeated Nebraska team a "gift"...

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I can't believe that anyone would consider giving a share of the national title to an undefeated Nebraska team a "gift"...

Thats the whole point. Technically in '94 Nebraska ended up with both the AP and coaches poll Championships. They deserved neither IMHO.

PSU was left with a recognition from a minor polling (ESPN perhaps) but was not recognized in the majority of the country as the true champs (or even for that matter co-champs) as they again IMHO deserved. Certainly from a BCS ranking perspective they should have.

A head to head would have solved the problem and in my estimation in favor of PSU.

[DanS]

Amazing. 302 posts while continuing on-topic has to be a record or something.

And we're nearly at 29% of the vote!

[Drake Tungsten]

Thats the whole point. Technically in '94 Nebraska ended up with both the AP and coaches poll Championships. They deserved neither IMHO.

I thought PSU got the AP title, but I must be confused; I must have the 97 split title on the brain. Not that the AP title matters much. The coach's poll has the good trophy.

At any rate, Nebraska deserved the title. It's PSU's fault for playing in a conference that relegated them to the irrelevant Rose Bowl, not anyone else's.

Amazing. 302 posts while continuing on-topic has to be a record or something.

True dat.

[JohnT]

It's because certain posters (he says while thinking of Turkish headware) haven't bothered to visit this thread.

[Guynemer]

So should DanS get an award for starting the longest on-topic Off-Topic thread, or should I get an award because his starting post was a quote of me from another thread?

Or should we (gasp) split an award?

[Ming]

Don't blow it now guys

[Guynemer]

Still on-topic, Ming... sharing awards and whatnot.

Anyway, if we really want to get back on-topic:

Dan, even at 29%, this is still bigger butt-whoopin' than 2002 Election Day. Or, for that matter, 2001 Colorado-Nebraska.

[JohnT]

Or 2002 Notre Dame-Boston College.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

At any rate, Nebraska deserved the title. It's PSU's fault for playing in a conference that relegated them to the irrelevant Rose Bowl, not anyone else's.

I unfortunately can't argue this point as apparently a number of Nebraska syncophants agreed with your position in '94 and histroy is what history is. It is however interesting that the 'objective' BCS rating clearly shows PSU as the real champion that year based upon strength of schedule.

By the by the arguement "look at what Nebraska did in '95" doesn't hold for me. Two different teams and two different leagues (with the graduationof the '94 senior classes in the NCAA ranks). Even if you say the Nebraska team of '94 had the same make up as the team in '95 it would tend to figure that the '95 team would be a better team as they have more time to work as a team, take larger doses of steriods and allow Lawrence Phillips better girlfriend beating techniques.

Just doin my part to keep an On Topic thread going.

[Drake Tungsten]

By the by the arguement "look at what Nebraska did in '95" doesn't hold for me.

Don't look at '95. Look at '93. Nebraska outplayed Florida State in the national title game in 1993 and barely lost. Then they came back in 1994 and won the title. Then they came back again in 1995 and had one of the greatest seasons of all time. The title in '94 came right in the middle of one of the most dominating three-year periods ever put together by a college football team.

To claim that Nebraska didn't deserve the title in '94 is absurd. I've come to expect absurdity out of Big Ten fans, however. They have to ***** about past title games that they could've won if they hadn't been hiding out in the Rose Bowl. I don't believe it for a second. How many title games have the Big Ten been to since they joined the BCS?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Your going to use '93 as an example. Hah!

First off they lost pure and simple in '93. Second banana same as should have been in '94. If you don't think the Osborne sympathizer vote was in full effect and that allowed Nebraska to go into the post season bowl ranked #1 due largely to an impossibly easy schedule thats your opinion certainly not mine.

Secondly giving credence from one year to the next about the strength of a college team is a stretch at best as the core of the team should be changing by at least 30% every year. 30% senior class turnover. 30% juniors 25% sophmores the 15% remainder being freshmen. Over a two year period thats normally over half the team being different starters. (In Nebraska's case it could have been even more depending on ability to meet eligibility and staying out of jail.)

As for the Rose Bowl, if the Pac 10 was a real confrence there wouldn't be an issue would there. I hated the fact PSU ended up inthe Big 10. Matter of fact I predicted PSU would face just such a reality as the PAC10 has historically been as woeful as the Big 10 is in the last decade.

Finally, I simply stated the obvious. The so called 'objective' BCS historical ranking shows PSU as the #1 ranked team based upon strength of schedule. You seem to think it all boils down to one final bowl game. In a playoff system resulting in a head to head that would be correct. In the era of pre BCS and now BCS it doesn't

Again, the need exists for a playoff system.

[Drake Tungsten]

First off they lost pure and simple in '93.

Phantom clip...

If you don't think the Osborne sympathizer vote was in full effect and that allowed Nebraska to go into the post season bowl ranked #1

It wouldn't have mattered if the Huskers had gone into the Orange Bowl ranked #2. When you beat the #3 team in the country in your bowl, it looks a hell of a lot more impressive than beating whatever patsy the Pac 10 produces for the Rose Bowl. PSU being in the Big Ten is what screwed them, not some sort of pro-Osborne conspiracy. Once Nebraska beat Miami, there was no question that they should be #1.

In a playoff system resulting in a head to head that would be correct. In the era of pre BCS and now BCS it doesn't

The BCS doesn't pick the champion; it simply sets up the best possible title game. The BCS works perfectly as long as there aren't 3 or more quality unbeatens. JohnT's info shows how rare that is, so I'm pretty confident that we don't need a playoff.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
The BCS works perfectly as long as there aren't 3 or more quality unbeatens.

Uhhh... it doesn't work very well if there is only one quality unbeaten team either. Because there is still the simple matter of which of the Quality one loss teams gets to play. And heaven help us if no Quality team goes unbeaten

The currrent system sucks. Again, it was devised by a bunch of greedy old fart bowl committees to keep themselves in control of the money. It has NOTHING to do with the best interest of College Football

[Drake Tungsten]

Uhhh... it doesn't work very well if there is only one quality unbeaten team either.

Why? If you win all your games, you control your own destiny. If you lose one, then you leave yourself at the mercy of the polls. Seems like a pretty good system to me. It makes every game count.