BCS. Why didn't they just do 1v4 and 2v3 and have a Final Championship game?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Sid59

Lifer
Sep 2, 2002
11,879
3
81
Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
Originally posted by: Sid59
16 team or 8 team playoff would be good but there isn't enough time. the team that wins the most and goes to the 'college bowl' is out of school for so long. These are college atheletes. it's not really fair for them to be out of class.

once more. THAT'S WHY I PROPOSED A 4 TEAM PLAYOFF. it IS a playoff, the controversy would not be anywhere NEAR as strong as it is now. and VERY little would have to change.

you would take 2 bowl games to play the finals on jan 1, 2 and then play the final game in another bowl game on jan 8 or so.

OK. UNWIND YOUR PANTIES. Im too lazy to quote the above posters. just thought i'd throw that out.

 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
Originally posted by: dullard
Originally posted by: Izzo
Teams are rewarded for losing early and penalized heavily for losing late.
That phrase always bothers me. It just simply isn't true. Case in point: 2003 - Oklahoma lost the last game of the year and is still #1 in the BCS. Example #2: Nebraska lost their last game of the year in 2001 and was #2 in the BCS. Both teams went to the national championship game. Losing late doesn't do any more harm than losing early.

well this year Oklahoma dropped to last of all teams with one loss, even though the team they lost too, Kansas State, was probably the best team to beat a one loss team.

Which tends to prove that losing late is a bad thing.

 

manly

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
11,189
2,270
136
Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
Originally posted by: dullard
Originally posted by: Izzo
Teams are rewarded for losing early and penalized heavily for losing late.
That phrase always bothers me. It just simply isn't true. Case in point: 2003 - Oklahoma lost the last game of the year and is still #1 in the BCS. Example #2: Nebraska lost their last game of the year in 2001 and was #2 in the BCS. Both teams went to the national championship game. Losing late doesn't do any more harm than losing early.

well this year Oklahoma dropped to last of all teams with one loss, even though the team they lost too, Kansas State, was probably the best team to beat a one loss team.

Which tends to prove that losing late is a bad thing.
True, but don't forget that OU got spanked, and Nebraska was mauled by Colorado in 2001. A lot of people simply don't think either team deserves to go to the BCS title game for being so thoroughly beaten in the Big-12 championship game.

I'm not a fan of USC, but it'd be interesting if they beat Michigan by two TDs and the BCS title game is a sloppy, close contest that neither team convincingly wins. Would enough coaches ignore the contractual mandate that they must vote the BCS title game winner #1 in the coaches' poll?
 

DT4K

Diamond Member
Jan 21, 2002
6,944
3
81
Originally posted by: amndouglas
When Michigan whoops the crap out of USC by taking out their deep ball with one of the best (and deepest) secondaries in the NCAA and gives them a good solid dose of Chris Perry, USC won't have any claim to #1 and this circus will all be over. Who did USC pay off to get to #1 in both polls anyway? USC lost to a barely over .500 team (7-6, 5-3 Cal) in the "weak" pac-10 conference, while LSU only lost to Florida (who beat Georgia and nearly beat Florida State.) Everyone's calling the BCS wrong, and I think it's the human polls that are f-ed up. The HOLLYWOOD HYPE MACHINE has too much power over the media. USC is mostly hollywood hype, and the Wolverines will prove it with Roses in Pasadena.

You are joking right?
Did you watch the Michigan loss to Oregon?
Michigan got their asses handed to them on a platter.
You say USC lost to a barely over .500 team.
Well, Michigan not only lost, but got totally and completely owned by an Oregon team that went on to lose miserably in their next three games. The score was misleading. If you watched the game, you would agree that Oregon gave Michigan a thorough ass-kicking.
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
I watched that Oregon vs Michigan game, it was one of the more unusual games I remember watching, especially the first half. Oregon had possession of the ball for almost the whole first half, they made 2 or 3 incredibly time consuming drives, more time consuming than any I've ever seen. It was almost surreal just watching it, it's hard to imagine what effect it must have had on the Michigan players.

 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Alkaline5
In the bowl selection show, Carroll challenged the Sugar Bowl winner to an unofficial matchup. So we may get a wierd delayed playoff later in 2004. It's true that USC had an easier schedule than som MAC teams. They're in a terrible conference, they can't really help that. But I don't think you can blame USC for scheduling crappy non-Conference teams. Their first opponent of the year, Auburn, was supposed to have a shot at the championship this year and look how they ended up. Notre Dame just isn't Notre Dame lately, either.

If Michigan beats USC then that proves they were just riding their weak SoS and the BCS still works.

It would be awesome if USC & LSU setup a game.

This system sucks. Congrats to USC & LSU as both well deserved Co-Champions in a system that wasn't supposed to have
Co-Champions ;)
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
I watched that Oregon vs Michigan game, it was one of the more unusual games I remember watching, especially the first half. Oregon had possession of the ball for almost the whole first half, they made 2 or 3 incredibly time consuming drives, more time consuming than any I've ever seen. It was almost surreal just watching it, it's hard to imagine what effect it must have had on the Michigan players.

The Ducks played a great game. I had never seen them pay before but I saw this game. Too bad they came up short on the score, they played better.

 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
I think it's a good idea(the OP). The odds are at least a couple of the top 4 teams really deserve to be there, and this way they could prove it.