"No complaints" about the BCS title game

[Skip]

Are there really "no complaints"?

As the BCS gurus uncrossed their lucky fingers and toes, sports page headlines blare that there can be 'no complaints' about this year's BCS title game.
That struck me about as well as if they'd just proclaimed that the Colts and Seahawks were to play a title game on Jan. 4.

Suppose, for a moment, that the strongest conferences were the SEC, Big 10+, and the ACC, and that the weakest conferences were the Big 12 and Pac 10. (I live in SEC land, but grew up in Big 8 country [Nebraska] -- and the now-Big 12 north was just pitiful, with the South basically dominated by Texas, and lingering doubts about how good even Oklahoma and Texas Tech really are.)
And note that most of the losses of the top teams in the SEC, Big 10+, and the ACC were to their own conference foes. For example, look a the SEC -- with the exception of Auburn, who lost their first game to an ACC team, all losses of the top 4 ranked teams in the conference -- Auburn, Georgia, LSU, Alabama -- came to conference teams; and mostly to each other head-to-head!

Lacking a playoff, there will be one "Championship" game, arguably between the best-of-the-weakest-conferences.
That doesn't really pique my interest much.
(And how many of you are really excited about that Wednesday night, Jan. 4 scheduling?)

Oh well.
At least neither Notre Dame nor Penn State got into the title game -- but then again, that leaves me no one to root against, either.
It leaves me just plain apathetic about the BCS title game, wondering what cool matchups could've been in a playoff...
My "complaint", if any, is the process -- I'm still waiting for a system that establishes a champion on the field, instead of based on opinions and computer models.

[Bon Voyage]

I have complaints.  Texas barely beat Ohio State, but they ran roughshod over their own conference.  In a good conference, aren't your rivals supposed to play you better than most non-conference games?

The national title still won't be legitimate.

[OkiMar]

I don't love the BCS, but I do think it is better than the system that we had just a few years ago.  At least we have the AP & Coaches #1 and #2 teams playing each other.  That wouldn't have happened under the old system; instead we quite possibly would have an undefeated USC winning the Rose and an undefeated TX winning the Cotton & all of America asking, "Why can't we have a Championship game with USC playing TX?"

[Lost Highway]

I don't love the BCS, but I do think it is better than the system that we had just a few years ago.  At least we have the AP & Coaches #1 and #2 teams playing each other.  That wouldn't have happened under the old system; instead we quite possibly would have an undefeated USC winning the Rose and an undefeated TX winning the Cotton & all of America asking, "Why can't we have a Championship game with USC playing TX?"

Half a manure sandwich is still a manure sandwich?

[boringoldguy]

instead we quite possibly would have an undefeated USC winning the Rose and an undefeated TX winning the Cotton & all of America asking, "Why can't we have a Championship game with USC playing TX?"

I liked it better that way.  I liked the conferences having bowl affiliations and your conference championship really meaning something.

But anyway,  I guess we'll check out those lingering doubts about Texas Tech here in a few weeks.    I pretty much expected the OSU loss.   No matter how bad OSU is,  they almost always have one big upset in them every season.

[spurly]

In my opinion it worked out pretty good this year, but I would love to see Jo Paterno get a chance at a championship.  If the top three teams were in different bowls, it could have happened.

[rick6886]

Are there really "no complaints"?

As the BCS gurus uncrossed their lucky fingers and toes, sports page headlines blare that there can be 'no complaints' about this year's BCS title game.
That struck me about as well as if they'd just proclaimed that the Colts and Seahawks were to play a title game on Jan. 4.

Suppose, for a moment, that the strongest conferences were the SEC, Big 10+, and the ACC, and that the weakest conferences were the Big 12 and Pac 10. (I live in SEC land, but grew up in Big 8 country [Nebraska] -- and the now-Big 12 north was just pitiful, with the South basically dominated by Texas, and lingering doubts about how good even Oklahoma and Texas Tech really are.)
And note that most of the losses of the top teams in the SEC, Big 10+, and the ACC were to their own conference foes. For example, look a the SEC -- with the exception of Auburn, who lost their first game to an ACC team, all losses of the top 4 ranked teams in the conference -- Auburn, Georgia, LSU, Alabama -- came to conference teams; and mostly to each other head-to-head!

Lacking a playoff, there will be one "Championship" game, arguably between the best-of-the-weakest-conferences.
That doesn't really pique my interest much.
(And how many of you are really excited about that Wednesday night, Jan. 4 scheduling?)

Oh well.
At least neither Notre Dame nor Penn State got into the title game -- but then again, that leaves me no one to root against, either.
It leaves me just plain apathetic about the BCS title game, wondering what cool matchups could've been in a playoff...
My "complaint", if any, is the process -- I'm still waiting for a system that establishes a champion on the field, instead of based on opinions and computer models.

Skip,

I have to disagree, lets look at the champions of the ACC, Big 10 and SEC.

Georgia -  a very good team, but they would be clearly overmatched against Texas or USC. They do not have enough fire power on offense to get into a track meet, and their defense could contain USC or Texas for a half before things got out of hand int he 2nd half.

Florida State - No chance against Texas or USC, this would be a colossal mismatch against either team. FSU got beat by Clemson and Florida on consecutive weekends by a combined score of 69-21, need I say more...

Penn State - Of the 3 teams the one that could give UT or USC fits because of their stifling defense, problem is their anemic offense. But...They faced 3 teams that know how to throw the ball (Michigan, Michigan State and Northwestern), in each of these games they gave up 22 or more points, which shows there might be some issues in the secondary. Not a problem you would want to have against UT or USC.

Of the 3 champions of the SEC, ACC and Big Ten, Penn State is the only one I can see keeping the game within 2 TD's of UT or USC, the other games would be laughers by the middle of the 3rd quarter.  

USC - Texas is the right matchup

my humble 2 cents

Rick

[Bon Voyage]

Ohio State, Big Ten's #2, came within a few plays of beating Texas, and Penn State beat them.  I think Penn State could beat Texas.

[OkiMar]

I don't love the BCS, but I do think it is better than the system that we had just a few years ago.  At least we have the AP & Coaches #1 and #2 teams playing each other.  That wouldn't have happened under the old system; instead we quite possibly would have an undefeated USC winning the Rose and an undefeated TX winning the Cotton & all of America asking, "Why can't we have a Championship game with USC playing TX?"

Half a manure sandwich is still a manure sandwich?[/color]

Which of the two would you rather eat?

[Lost Highway]

I don't love the BCS, but I do think it is better than the system that we had just a few years ago.  At least we have the AP & Coaches #1 and #2 teams playing each other.  That wouldn't have happened under the old system; instead we quite possibly would have an undefeated USC winning the Rose and an undefeated TX winning the Cotton & all of America asking, "Why can't we have a Championship game with USC playing TX?"

Half a manure sandwich is still a manure sandwich?

Which of the two would you rather eat?[/color]

Neither. That's my point. Even though some may say the BCS is better than the old system it's still a bad system. Only half a manure sandwich as opposed to a whole one.

[Skip]

...
Skip,

I have to disagree, lets look at the champions of the ACC, Big 10 and SEC.

Georgia -  a very good team, but they would be clearly overmatched against Texas or USC. They do not have enough fire power on offense to get into a track meet, and their defense could contain USC or Texas for a half before things got out of hand int he 2nd half.

Florida State - No chance against Texas or USC, this would be a colossal mismatch against either team. FSU got beat by Clemson and Florida on consecutive weekends by a combined score of 69-21, need I say more...

Penn State - Of the 3 teams the one that could give UT or USC fits because of their stifling defense, problem is their anemic offense. But...They faced 3 teams that know how to throw the ball (Michigan, Michigan State and Northwestern), in each of these games they gave up 22 or more points, which shows there might be some issues in the secondary. Not a problem you would want to have against UT or USC.

Of the 3 champions of the SEC, ACC and Big Ten, Penn State is the only one I can see keeping the game within 2 TD's of UT or USC, the other games would be laughers by the middle of the 3rd quarter.  

USC - Texas is the right matchup

my humble 2 cents

Rick

My point:

Not my opinions, or your opinions.

Just settle it on the field, like they do in football at every other level.

PS -- Just because the BCS got lucky this year is no reason to settle for half a manure sandwich.

PSS -- I really haven't paid much attention to the bowls since they carved them up and scattered them over several days.

[rick6886]

Ohio State, Big Ten's #2, came within a few plays of beating Texas, and Penn State beat them.  I think Penn State could beat Texas.

It is important to remember that was week 2 and that game was AT Ohio State. Texas is a much better football team since week 2, absolutely demolishing most of their opponents in the last 4 weeks. They put 70 up on Colorado, I am sorry but neither OSU or PSU would get more than 35 on Colorado.

Another point about Penn State, unlike Texas (and Ohio state for that matter) they put the likes of South Florida, Cincinnati and Central Michigan on their non conference schedule and all 3 of those games were in Happy Valley. They only had one tough road game all year and lost. Ohio State and Wisconsin were both at Happy Valley.

Texas took a monumentally tough road game at a Big Ten power in week 2 and won, neither OSU or PSU took any tough non-conference road games (in fact niether team played a non conference raod game they were all at home).

Sorry I think Texas blows PSU out of the water, they are undefeated and battle tested, unlike the Nittany Lions who certainly had an extremely favorable schedule and still did not go undefeated.

my humble 2 cents

Rick

[OkiMar]

I don't love the BCS, but I do think it is better than the system that we had just a few years ago.  At least we have the AP & Coaches #1 and #2 teams playing each other.  That wouldn't have happened under the old system; instead we quite possibly would have an undefeated USC winning the Rose and an undefeated TX winning the Cotton & all of America asking, "Why can't we have a Championship game with USC playing TX?"

Half a manure sandwich is still a manure sandwich?

Which of the two would you rather eat?

Neither. That's my point. Even though some may say the BCS is better than the old system it's still a bad system. Only half a manure sandwich as opposed to a whole one.[/color]

So...which of the two would you rather eat?  Do you prefer Pre-BCS or BCS?