Announcement

**JohnT** · November 13, 2002, 18:00

Drake, I believe Ming answered your "why" in the very next sentence of his post: because then you are still left with the problem of which 1-loss team to pick.

**Drake Tungsten** · November 13, 2002, 18:06

Why is that such a huge problem? If a team wasn't even good enough to win all of its games, I don't really have a problem with them being left out of the title game because of what the polls decided.

Look at last year. Neither Oregon or Nebraska really deserved to be in the title game. Neither of them had perfect seasons. They sacrificed the right to be in the title game by losing; Nebraska was just the one that the BCS decided should back into the title game so Miami could play someone.

If you lose, then you future is out of your hands. It's that simple, so you better be ready to play every week.

**Ming** · November 13, 2002, 18:40

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Nebraska was just the one that the BCS decided should back into the title game so Miami could play someone.

Yeah... it was "decided" by the BCS and not on the field.
What gives them the right to decide which of the one loss teams goes... Many other teams deserved the same chance Nebraska had... but didn't get it. If they are going to lose that chance, let them lose on the field.

A playoff system will give those teams the chance.

**Drake Tungsten** · November 13, 2002, 18:54

Many other teams deserved the same chance Nebraska had... but didn't get it.

That's bull****. Once you lose a game, you don't deserve anything. You don't want to worry about going to the national title game? Then don't lose any games. It's pretty damn simple.

If they are going to lose that chance, let them lose on the field.

They did lose that chance on the field, when they lost a game.

I don't see why so many people on this thread find the idea of a one loss team not getting a shot at the title to be such a travesty. They messed up, so why should they be guaranteed a second chance at the title? It makes the season less meaningful.

**JohnT** · November 13, 2002, 19:05

:sigh:

Drake: But why should any one-loss team deserve a chance over the others?

**Drake Tungsten** · November 13, 2002, 19:12

Drake: But why should any one-loss team deserve a chance over the others?

It's almost impossible to determine which one-loss team is the best team, especially since most of them don't play each other, but someone has to play the one undefeated team in the title game. It's a necessary evil. The BCS, though it has problems, is still the best way of deciding which one-loss team goes to the title game.

I'd prefer to have two undefeated teams in the title game every year, but it isn't going to happen. Hopefully Miami and Ohio State will both win out this year so we don't have to hear all the whining by one-loss teams about why they deserve a title shot.

**Ming** · November 13, 2002, 19:48

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I don't see why so many people on this thread find the idea of a one loss team not getting a shot at the title to be such a travesty. They messed up, so why should they be guaranteed a second chance at the title? It makes the season less meaningful.

I find it a travesty when ANOTHER one loss team DOES get the chance and the other similar deserving teams don't.

I find it a travesty when a computer system decides which two teams play for the championship when many deserving teams may be left out when a simple alternative of giving 4 or 8 of the best teams a shot at it would be far better. This would minimize the chances of leaving a deserving team out of the mix.

I find it a travesty that College Football has let a bunch of greedy bowl committees dictate to the them how their national champion will be detemined, all in the name of money.

I find it a travesty that the current system could leave a qualified and quality team out of the mix if three or more teams finish undefeated...

I consider the whole BCS system a travesty.

Does that answer your question Drake

**Drake Tungsten** · November 13, 2002, 20:00

I find it a travesty when a computer system decides which two teams play for the championship when many deserving teams may be left out when a simple alternative of giving 4 or 8 of the best teams a shot at it would be far better. This would minimize the chances of leaving a deserving team out of the mix.

If you give the top 4 or 8 teams a shot every year, then what is the point of going undefeated? Hell, you might be able to make the tourney with two losses! Why would a loss be important if you can make the playoffs anyway? The regular season would lose its meaning.

I find it a travesty when ANOTHER one loss team DOES get the chance and the other similar deserving teams don't.

Fine, have your playoff, but only for one-loss teams. They can fight it out so you can find out which team is the most "deserving". Then the winner of that tourney can play the undefeated team who actually earned their title shot. And if there are two undefeated teams, then too bad. No chance for the one-loss teams.

I find it a travesty that the current system could leave a qualified and quality team out of the mix if three or more teams finish undefeated...

This is the only thing we agree on. If three quality teams go undefeated, the BCS doesn't work. It's something that needs to be fixed, but a playoff isn't the only answer.

**Ming** · November 13, 2002, 20:06

But what if the only undefeated team this year was Bowling Green (yeah, I know they lost and Miami and OSU haven't yet.. it's just an example)... Then what?

You really can't say that they should be ignored, whether you like it or not, they are a 1A team. Yet the BCS system doesn't even consider teams like these

**DanS** · November 13, 2002, 20:12

"If you give the top 4 or 8 teams a shot every year, then what is the point of going undefeated? Hell, you might be able to make the tourney with two losses! Why would a loss be important if you can make the playoffs anyway? The regular season would lose its meaning."

Put another way, it is unfair to the team who went undefeated. The 2-loss teams are getting unfair shots at the national title.

**walruskkkch** · November 13, 2002, 20:12

A whole lotta teams ought to be out of Division 1-A football. At most there should be about 50 teams, at most that are viable for the NAtional Title. The rest should form a lower division with their own title game.

**Ming** · November 13, 2002, 20:27

A 4 to 8 team tournament doesn't have to include 2 loss teams, as suggested in earlier proposals...

And Walrus, you are probably right. But right now, there are 117 or so 1A teams, and the current system doesn't allow teams that aren't from the power conferences a chance a the title. (with the exception of ND)... If you are going to have a championship game for 1A... each team should have a shot at the start of the season.

If Bowling Green were to go undefeated, and not get a shot at the championship... that sucks. They proved it on the field, and would be aced out by a computer

**Drake Tungsten** · November 13, 2002, 20:28

A whole lotta teams ought to be out of Division 1-A football. At most there should be about 50 teams, at most that are viable for the NAtional Title. The rest should form a lower division with their own title game.

That the smartest thing that has been said on this thread in a long time.

**Drake Tungsten** · November 13, 2002, 20:32

If Bowling Green were to go undefeated, and not get a shot at the championship... that sucks. They proved it on the field, and would be aced out by a computer

They did not prove it on the field. Going undefeated is only half the equation; playing against a real schedule is the other. Is winning the 100 meters at the Special Olympics equal to winning the 100 at the real Olympics?

If you want to see how a minor conference team should go about getting into the big time, look at Fresno State last year. They played a tough non-conference schedule to make up for the weakness of the WAC. If they went undefeated, they would've deserved a title shot. Bowling Green and other teams who don't play a quality schedule don't.

**walruskkkch** · November 13, 2002, 20:32

It could be worse, it could be Canadian football.

Remple admits he was drunk at time of incident

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Press

WINNIPEG, Manitoba -- Admitting he had too much to drink and yielded to peer pressure, a CFL fan says he deserved his on-field beating after he attacked a player during a game.

Jody Remple, a 22-year-old construction worker, left the stands during a CFL West semifinal Sunday between the Winnipeg Blue Bombers and B.C. Lions.

With seven seconds left and Winnipeg ahead 30-3, Remple ran on the field and jumped on Lions cornerback Eric Carter. He was promptly kicked and beaten by players.

"I was looking to tackle him down, I guess,'' Remple said in the Winnipeg Free Press on Wednesday. "But I'm 5-foot-8, 175 pounds, what was I thinking?''

Remple was fined $180 for causing a disturbance. He understood why he was pummeled.

"I pretty much deserved everything I got there,'' he told the newspaper. "I feel like a goof. I look at it on TV and I just shake my head. I couldn't believe it. Nobody wants to get humiliated like that in front of millions of people.''

Remple said his actions were spurred by alcohol while friends and a rowdy crowd goaded him.

"At the time I thought it must be cool. I'll be a hero,'' Remple said. "But I'm pretty ashamed of myself now.''

Damn canadians can't even do hooliganism properly.

Announcement

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

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment