So why can teams lose in week three to a mid-level BCS conference team and still climb back to the top of the pile while Cincinnati or Pittsburgh can lose to a top ten team in the last week and miss everything completely?

 

Why is there no real punishment for losing one game in September, yet you miss out on all BCS bowls completely by losing one game in November/December?

 

Dead on. It's a fact that a loss in September doesn't hurt you near as bad as a loss in November, seems out of place under the "every game counts" umbrella...

 

Wonder how Pittsburgh feels about your view?

 

I believe they lost a game early that has kept them out of the talk for a top BCS ranking.

Yea UK's players don't care about being ranked #1 in the country, going undefeated, being the top overall 1 seed, being the first team to win 2,000 games, staying the team with the most wins in history, your right that game was irrelevant. And the 24,000 fans that came didn't care either, sometimes I wonder why we even play starters in games like that...

Fact is every game counts in every sport at least for those that play the game. There’s always something to play for.

 

All those things are great, except only one means anything come tournament time.

 

And that one thing is decided upon by similar means that the BCS decides it's top teams. And that one thing can mean a whole lot in that tournament.

First off the BCS could still be used to determine the top 8, so your hypothetical wouldn't be valid unless of course you admit the BCS system is flawed. Also lets say someone does get left out, it seems you would love that scenario because you can use the "every game counts" mantra to explain how they got left out, seems great for everyone if you ask me...

 

So, you leave either the #2 ranked team in the country or one of the two undefeated's out of a 8-team tournament and you are fine with that?

 

BTW, in your haste to be upset, you may have missed that I have said the BCS is NOT PERFECT but feel it is the best method we have.

Any system that allows only two teams to compete for the national championship in the post-season is fundamentally and deeply flawed.

A lot of bowl games lack motivation from some teams.

Any system that allows only two teams to compete for the national championship in the post-season is fundamentally and deeply flawed.

:thumb::thumb:

I absolutely refuse to watch college football because of the BCS system. What message does the NCAA send to those kids that play at TCU or Boise St if they run the table and go undefeated and are left out of the national championship picture? "Well son, you worked your tail off all season, never lost a game, met every challenge that came your way, but since you don't play in the SEC, Big 10, Pac-10, ect; You NEVER had a shot from the beginning!"

So, you leave either the #2 ranked team in the country or one of the two undefeated's out of a 8-team tournament and you are fine with that?

 

BTW, in your haste to be upset, you may have missed that I have said the BCS is NOT PERFECT but feel it is the best method we have.

 

I disagree. D-2 manages to hold a playoff to crown its champion. Taking a page out of the D-2 playbook would be the best method.

I disagree. D-2 manages to hold a playoff to crown its champion. Taking a page out of the D-2 playbook would be the best method.

 

And so does virtually every other D-1 sport. It's all about the bucks.

And so does virtually every other D-1 sport. It's all about the bucks.

 

Every sport at every level in the NCAA has a postseason tournament of some kind except for Division I football.

So, a team can lose in March Madness and still have a chance to win the championship?

 

Football is the only sport that the national champion is the BEST representative of which team was the BEST during the WHOLE SEASON!

 

March Madness only represents the team that was best over a weekend.

 

I remember UK plowing through Wake Forest and someone else over a weekend and they were unbelievable. Next weekened, they weren't on fire as much and lost in the first game.

 

While it is not perfect, it is BETTER than the other collegiate sports in determining a champion that is TRULY the best team of the WHOLE SEASON.

 

Or are you going to stick with the argument that George Mason was one of the 4 best teams in the nation, the year they made a run to the final 4?

 

If your goal is to vote on who had the best "overall" season, then I guess the BCS is pretty good.

 

If your goal is to find out who the "best" team is at the end, not so much...

 

All a matter of preference, I suppose.

So, you leave either the #2 ranked team in the country or one of the two undefeated's out of a 8-team tournament and you are fine with that?

 

BTW, in your haste to be upset, you may have missed that I have said the BCS is NOT PERFECT but feel it is the best method we have.

 

 

I'm not upset at all, I am however passionate about the BCS being a crock...

If your goal is to vote on who had the best "overall" season, then I guess the BCS is pretty good.

If your goal is to find out who the "best" team is at the end, not so much...

 

All a matter of preference, I suppose.

 

A playoff tournament does not even do the bolded. Unless you are of the opinion that George Mason was one of the four best teams in the nation.

 

It says who had the best matchups in the bracket that some humans put them in and that bracket was never decided on the field.

And March Madness is NOT to determine the best team for that season.

 

Neither will the BCS if more than one team goes undefeated. Who exactly has Texas beat beside Oklahoma and Oklahoma State who played without their Heisman candidates. TCU's wins are more impressive than Texas'.

And yet in March Madness, which it seems is held up as the standard bearer, you can have a national champion that could not even win their conference, a la, Villanova.

 

BCS is not perfect but it gives the BEST chance of naming the team that truly was the best team during the season.

 

When was the last Cinderella national champion in basketball? 1988? That's 22 seasons ago. One of the 3 or 4 best teams win the title basically every year.