No they aren't. How did they determine who was better between Boise and TCU?? They played. But the winner gains NOTHING. BSU should be advancing to play an Ohio State or Florida or something.
Nope, the chairmen of the BCS bowls, and probably the chairmen of each AQ conference. But nice try to dilute the waters....
What if there are two teams that are far and away better than all others (USC and UT in 2005) and nobody else really has a legit claim? Do you not have a playoff?
Really? Because that's what effectively happens to the 66th best team in the country now when they are excluded from the playoffs. They are not allowed to prove it on the field/court - it's basically unavoidable under any system.
Yep. But like I've said, three times now, just because it isn't perfect doesn't mean you should keep using something that is GOD AWFUL instead.
Never said that. But if it's so important to ya, then crap take 12 teams then. The instances where teams 9-12 advance to even the final 4 would be so small as to infer that those teams haven't much of a chance. How many of the 5-6 seeds in the NFL made it to the Super Bowl?? You could probably count them on one hand.
Then it will play out on the field that way. Heck, then you dont have players with superior bowl games, but superior play-offs.
You're basically playing semantics at this point. When we say playoff, we're implying 1) more than 2 teams and 2) that the winners advance, etc. If you have a problem with the name, fine, but no reason to act as if the word playoff is anything more than a placeholder name for what would be a fairer system.
I'm guessing this had to happen due to adding more teams to the league, etc. But I dunno jack about baseball.
Look, I'd be fine with a playoff if that's what happens. I don't think the BCS is the best system and UT was left out last year in a year when I think we could have had a chance. I'm just not under a delusion that it's the only legitimate way to crown a champion, especially because most sports leagues around the world do not use a playoff system.
We're pretty much in agreement then. My puny American sports brain only knows life in brackets though But the brackets have never left me feeling robbed...
That's not true. How did you determine that Boise was not as good as Texas, for example? It was determined by voters and computers. In a normal playoff "on the field" competition, going undefeated would let you continue to prove yourself - in college football, that's not the case. In MLB, all the teams had an opportunity to make the 2-team playoff. That's not the case here.
I guess if you only have 10 teams, but heck, now with 30 teams it's still tough to get in with only 1 WC and the DWs. In essense this is how baseball would work if it followed the BCS: No divisions, all 15 teams vieing for the top spot. Record helps, but there will also be a computer to judge strength of schedule and throw in some arbitrary numbers so that the bigger markets get advantage. Winner goes to the WS, the other 14 can bugger off til next year. Or play in meaningless exhibitions just for the money. That would be really exciting.
I like following European soccer for that reason - the regular season is the real title as it's a true round-robin, so every game matters, and the cup competition is a separate event. Unfortunately, other than basketball no American sports are really conducive to that format.
Well I think you can take any given year and come up with a good method to determine the champ based on what happened in the regular season. In 2005 the BCS was fine. In 2002 though, you had one team and a bunch of other teams who said they should get a shot: 6 or 8 teams since I think you have the 1 plus 4 others with a gripe. This year you had 5 unbeatens and Florida. Once again 6 or 8 teams. Last year, a 4 team tourney might have sufficed.
