Because it lasts one month... If you want to compare average TV ratings between college football games and college basketball games, then be my guest.
That wasn't my point. My point was that people don't care about college basketball until March. Which makes up roughly 1/5th of the basketball season. College football, on the other hand, is followed hardcore for 4+ months. That's the same as the NFL and NBA. The reason is not controversy. It's that a football season consists of 10-16 games, while a basketball season consists of 35-82 games. Of course each game matters less in basketball. In an 8-team playoff, losing 2 games might knock you out of the playoffs. That makes every game just as important as now.
Me too. Also the season matters a whole lot more in college football because you have to have a good season to be eligible for the playoffs, but in basketball you only need a decent season.
Exactly. Also, if the NCAA b-ball tourney only had, say, 16 teams in it, the regular season would be considered a hell of a lot more important.
Me three. This season has been fun as hell already and it's only December. I don't get the "Playoff will make everything else more boring" argument. NBA regular season is fun, NHL regular season is fun, NFL regular season is fun, baseball just sucks.
So? You're not exactly helping your cause here, 37 is a hell of a lot closer to 11 and 29 than it is to 95. Their schedule was in the top third of the nation as far as SOS goes. They scheduled non conf games at ND, at Auburn, and played BYU and Hawaii, all four of whom had down years. Contrast that with LSU who scheduled Western Illinois, Louisiana Tech, Lousiana Monroe, and Arizona as nonconference games this year. Yes, the SEC was tougher, but not tough enough to give them anything more than a fractional SOS edge,thanks to their awful non-conf. schedule. Your TCU comparison holds no water.
If we reversed the sequence of games for all the teams in question, would we still say that the BCS screwed up?
If we reversed the sequence of games for all the teams in question, would we still say that the BCS screwed up? Now whether or not the BCS is the answer to the question is another question completely!
Getting back to the strength of schedule thing.... Everyone's bashing So Cal for having the 37th toughest schedule. A little analyis reveals that four teams on their schedule were preseason top 25: Auburn #6 Washington #17 Notre Dame #20 Arizona State #22 Obviously they play Wash and Zona St every year, but they did their part in scheduling Auburn and Notre Dame in an attempt to toughen the schedule. So Cal should be punished for Auburn and Notre Dame not living up to their preseason expectations??? I don't think so. Go playoffs!
Preseason Schmeseason. KState was what, #5 preseason? Texas was up there too, and OU won by 52. Since when did preseason rankings matter, anyway?
So Cal should be punished for Auburn and Notre Dame not living up to their preseason expectations??? I don't think so. No one's punishing anyone. To compare how the teams performed, you look at their actual schedule strength, not what they scheduled. Why should LSU or OU be penalized because USC had tried to play good teams but didn't? The reality is that LSU and OU were just as dominant against tougher actual competition.
Not that much tougher, 29th toughest schedule vs. 37th toughest? That's not exactly a huge margin. Also, LSU tried NOT to play good teams. Their nonconf schedule, UL-Monroe, La Tech, Ariz, and I-AA W. Illinois was arguably the single worst in the country. Now can we penalize them?
Not that much tougher, 29th toughest schedule vs. 37th toughest? That's why it was so close. Nevertheless, LSU played tougher competition, had the same record, and was just as dominant. What is the argument for USC? That's not exactly a huge margin. Also, LSU tried NOT to play good teams. Their nonconf schedule, UL-Monroe, La Tech, Ariz, and I-AA W. Illinois was arguably the single worst in the country. Of course they did ... because they knew they had a much tougher conference schedule. It's what a lot of B12 teams argue too - our conference schedule is so hard that they preseason focuses on easier teams. Now can we penalize them? For what, exactly? I thought we all wanted these things to be decided on the field as much as possible. Now we want to look at the schedule that teams intended to play instead of the one that they actually played?
Watching ABC last night on the BCS selection thingy (I was bored), I thought John Saunders brought up a good point. Keep the BCS system intact, but have a panel of experts decide the final outcome if there s controversy. I personally think that's a good idea because these experts shouldn't be basing their decisions off of media hype or hotness; they'll be judging on who the 2 best teams are. It was an interesting proposition. Anyway, bowl games are probably not going to die simply because of the monetary issue.
We did, just didn't want the Carrier Dome to be the field in question. This is a bogus argument. The ND-SU game determined the relative rankings and schedule strengths no more than 1000 other matchups throughout the season. It just happened to be on the last day of the season, so everyone acted like that was the deciding game.
this is a basketball board. but this is also texas. so im thinking at least in college sports there is going to be more interest in football then basketball. i also think there might be a bit more interest if lebron james was playing and DOMINATING college competition then in the nba right now.
It's real easy. Just let AP #1 play Coach's poll #1 for the Championship game, or #1 vs #2 if both polls agree. Or, add a championship game after the bowls, winner of the BCS bowl games who tops the charts will be in .
All these SOS and computer stuff isn't really necessary. Humans have the ability to factor into things that hard-to-write-program-into like late season defeat, and able to make subtle asjustments. And SoS factor is already in the polls. Why else TCU is ranked so low?
