USC is the best team in college football currently. They would destroy whoever they faced and I hate the Trojans.
Reportedly Delaney, BigT(elev)en commish. Both playoffs and BCS have their drawbacks, and neither will consistently produce a "true" 1 vs 2 (whatever your definition of "true" is). It's just harder to cry about it in a playoff system, unless you're Matt "I still think we were the better team that day" Leinart. Also, I'm not sure about asking 19 year olds to play NFL type seasons when you add playoff games + conference games + OOC. ... from a Penn State undergraduate, USC graduate student perspective.
I was just going to state what Major and tulexan posted. Plus, D-I is supposed to be that much better than the lower level guys so should they not be able to go through the rigors that those teams go through?
The current FCS playoff format has a 4 week, 16 team playoff. I mentioned this in another thread but I'll post it here. The FCS is currently considering whether or not to expand the playoff field to 18 teams (5 weeks). There would basically be 2 "play in" games similar to the 64/65 matchup in the NCAA basketball tournament. FBS says an 8 team, 3 week playoff adds too many games to the season for poor college athletes. Meanwhile, the lower divisions all do that and then some. An OSU will have 7 weeks off between games.
my pick for the title game: LSU vs Oklahoma Reasons: 1)Ohio State doesn't deserve a to play based on their weak overall schedule with their best win coming against Michigan which lost to freaking 1AA team. 2) LSU lost games to unranked opponents but that was in 3 overtimes. Now on the flip side, they stomped a VT who will end being ranked top 5 and play in a BCS bowl. 3) Oklahoma lost some games early in the season but they've won twice against Mizzou who was ranked the no 1 team in the country coming into the weekend and will likely remain in top 10. Other bowl games Rose Bowl: OSU vs USC Sugar: Georgia vs Kansas Orange: VT vs WVU Fiesta: Mizzou vs Arizona State
Kansas and Ohio State are the only two teams with just one loss. All of the other "BCS" conference schools have two losses. Even though Kansas didn't win their conference, it seems to be a good argument that they should get in over a team with two losses. This really is a gigantic mess.
Very good point; if they're going to do add the possibility of playing up to 2 extra games, the NCAA should find a way to give these exploited athlete-students a cut into the gained revenue. That or cut and cap coaches salaries. Of course there's going to be a greedy prick like Les Miles and others on TV saying they love college football and wouldn't mind adding more games if necessary. I still think the BCS is better than what preceded it...even though it sucks. As does the Rose Bowl Committee, West Virginia, and Kirk Herbstriet.
Unfortunately, I think the BCS doesn't give you any extra points for beating a team twice. It would have been better for Oklahoma if Kansas had beaten Mizzou. Then OU would have gotten credit for beating another Top 10 team.
Being a LSU fan - I hope that somehow they can leap frog the other teams and get in. The arguement the Tigers can use is that over half of their wins (6) were against ranked teams in the top 25 at the time they played the contest. It will be interesting to see how it out shakes out. Time for a playoff system.
What's ironic is that the BCS was originally formed to create a true "National Championship Game" where a No. 1 and No. 2 played to determine that year's consensus National Champion. This stemmed from Michigan and Nebraska sharing a national title in 1997. Now, 10 years later the BCS has failed to do its job, there will be too many teams on the outside looking in who have a legitimate argument for playing in the title game, and a true national champion will not exist. I would also argue that the BCS has not been without controversy (as far as who should play in the title game) except for 2005 when Texas played USC in the Rose Bowl (these two teams bailed the BCS out by being ranked 1 and 2 throughout the entire season). It's finally time to scrap the BCS and put in some kind of playoff system. 1. Games would not be devalued. This year you could lose a game and still play for the title. If Ohio State makes it to the title game their loss against Illinois meant absolutely nothing. Same goes for LSU if they make it. Those overtime losses to Arkansas and Kentucky don't mean jack. Let teams play their regular season and rank them after all the conference championship games have been played a la the NCAA basketball system. Set up a committee to review each teams resume and determine seeds/brackets based on the current criteria that the BCS uses. You won't have teams who don't even win their division (Kansas and Georgia) vying for a spot in the title game. You would have 8 or 16 teams who are seeded based on their regular season performances and conference standings/championships who would duke it out on the field to determine who is truly best in the nation. 2. Ask any player and they would rather play extra games than be left at home when they believe they are worthy of a national championship. If there had been a playoff system in 2004 Auburn would have had a shot at winning an outright national championship. Instead they had to watch USC destroy Oklahoma in the Orange Bowl wondering what kind of game they could have given USC. Seniors who give so much to a football program and their school, not to mention the revenue they bring in for their university and TV networks deserve the opportunity to determine who is the best in the FBS by the outcomes ON THE FIELD, not in the computers. 3. The BCS today already devalues other bowl games. No one cares about non-BCS bowl games really, unless your favorite school is playing in one, and it's getting to the point where unless 2 marquee programs are squaring off against one another in a BCS bowl, people don't really care about those either - just look at the low ratings for last years games (Louisville/Wake Forest Orange Bowl last year - seriously WTF?) Just time for the NCAA to make the leap to a playoff system, it probably won't be next year (I'm uncertain to how long the major conferences are contractually locked into the BCS system) but it won't be long. Give me a playoff system or give me death.
In 2006, the BCS contract was extended 4 years. It is currently set to expire after the 2010 season barring another extention.
As an LSU fan, I think the Tigers obviously haven't looked dominant the 2nd half of the season, but given a month to heal (esp. Dorsey) could be back into early season form when they thrashed VT 48-7. VT's gotten better, but that much better? Any way this pans out, a bunch of teams are gonna be mad. At the same time, all those teams screwed up their chances of being undisputedly in the national championship game so we needn't feel too badly for them. I would actually most like to see LSU vs OU, just like I felt at the beginning of the season when it seemed like they were both playing at another level.
One thing that I have seen time and again all over the internet on this argument is the statement that Kansas and Georgia should not play in the game because they did not win their conference. I wonder if these are the same people who want at large bids to any playoff system. I think that the two one loss teams, and even unbeaten Hawaii have legitimate arguments that they should be in the game.
Too bad Hawaii won't get a shot at the championship even though they had a perfect season including a win over last years Fiesta Bowl champs Boise State. For the love of god give us a playoff.
(oops, just meant to edit not quote myself) Did you hear Brent Musberger during the OU/Mizzou say, "all the columnist now will be clammoring for a playoff but let me tell you, it's never gonna happen". The six major conferences want to control the revenue from the big bowls and by collusion insure that all of them will get some of it. I can't envision a playoff scenario where they wouldn't anyway since every 8 team format proposes the conference champion from the Big 6 would be in the eight. But I could see how they might forsee their conference champion going one and done and the first round of the playoffs might not pay out 13 million.
I don't see why it has to be one and done. If you lose out in the first round, just go to a "consolation" bowl where the school/conference can make even more (overall).
