If the AP poll has any decency...

[ABQCOWBOY]

The heads of the conferences came up with and agreed to the current system. As for a playoff never is a long time, while the BCS is far from perfect it is better than it was before the BCS series came into being. I think one day they will implement a playoff system

Not all the conferences Dooms. Only the ones who were invited to the show.

I do hope your right about playoff but I don't think we'll see it anytime soon. As I said earlier, I don't think this is about answering the question of who is the best team in the land. I think it's about which match ups are the most attractive and there by, the most lucrative.

 

[Doomsday101]

Not all the conferences Dooms. Only the ones who were invited to the show.

I do hope your right about playoff but I don't think we'll see it anytime soon. As I said earlier, I don't think this is about answering the question of who is the best team in the land. I think it's about witch match ups are the most attractive and there by, the most lucrative.

You are right not all are as I said I agree it is not perfect it is better than before the BCS came about and the matchup for the most part have pitted the top teams be it the USC vs Texas Championship which was hard to say those 2 teams were not the best that year yet in the past USC and Texas would never have faced each other so while the BCS is far from perfect it is better than it was before.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

You are right not all are as I said I agree it is not perfect it is better than before the BCS came about and the matchup for the most part have pitted the top teams be it the USC vs Texas Championship which was hard to say those 2 teams were not the best that year yet in the past USC and Texas would never have faced each other so while the BCS is far from perfect it is better than it was before.

I don't know if it's better or worse. I mean, they both have there flaws but I guess it's always going to be that way without a playoff.

 

[Doomsday101]

I don't know if it's better or worse. I mean, they both have there flaws but I guess it's always going to be that way without a playoff.

We do agree that it will always be less than perfect without a playoff game. I think the BCS at least has done a better job of getting the #1 and #2 teams facing off than prior to the BCS existence

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

We do agree that it will always be less than perfect without a playoff game. I think the BCS at least has done a better job of getting the #1 and #2 teams facing off than prior to the BCS existence

I agree with that. I just don't agree with how they come to the decisions of who is #1 and who is #2.

 

[Doomsday101]

I agree with that. I just don't agree with how they come to the decisions of who is #1 and who is #2.

Right but they have been doing that before the BCS ever game into play. Normally I can't argue with the top 5 teams listed, I may disagree where they are slotted but by and large I agree with the overall top 5 teams in the polling. As a Texas fan all I can say is we had a couple of real shots to close out Texas Tech and win but failed to do so had they done that then we would be watching Texas vs Florida.

 

[Route 66]

Untrue.

I never said this. In fact, I identified the most deserving team: Utah, with which I have no affiliation.

The rules are fallacious; therefore, it doesn't matter that every team is subject to them.

A Sooner national championship will be absolutely laughable if it occurs.

You don't get it do you? The rules were set in place before the season started. Nowhere does it state that if you lose during the season to any certain team, that team is automatically ranked higher than you for the rest of the year. If it did, I would abide by it. I don't think Utah played a tough schedule but if the rules state that a team with zero losses overrides any strength of schedule, then I'd say they deserve it. It's pretty simple. Call it laughable or whatever and the next time Texas is in the same situation OU is, Ill be sure to call your hard-earned effort to play in the NCS just a joke because Im sure some other team was screwed in the process.

 

[Route 66]

Utah is a perfect 13-0. OU isn't.

Zero losses doesn't outrank other factors.

 

[Route 66]

Utah played 2 quality opponents and beat them. They are undefeated, so they get a top 3 vote. They do not get 1 or 2, cause of the weak schedule.

Texas played 5 quality opponents, beating 4 and losing in the final seconds at the 5th. They also won in the Fiesta Bowl, a place where the Big 12 usually goes to die. They get a top 2 vote.

OU played 6 quality opponents, beating 5 badly, and losing by 10 on a neutral field

** played several quality opponents and beat the #1 team in the nation, but their loss was at home to an unranked team. That unranked team did beat down TT in the Cotton Bowl though.

USC has throttled some teams, squeaked by a few others, and lost to an unranked OSU. I wouldn't give them a top 3 vote.

Post of the day.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

You don't get it do you? The rules were set in place before the season started. Nowhere does it state that if you lose during the season to any certain team, that team is automatically ranked higher than you for the rest of the year. If it did, I would abide by it. I don't think Utah played a tough schedule but if the rules state that a team with zero losses overrides any strength of schedule, then I'd say they deserve it. It's pretty simple. Call it laughable or whatever and the next time Texas is in the same situation OU is, Ill be sure to call your hard-earned effort to play in the NCS just a joke because Im sure some other team was screwed in the process.

Zero losses doesn't outrank other factors.

Utah is a perfect 13-0, and just won a major bowl game by dominating an Alabama team that was ranked number one for a substantial portion of the season. Yet, according to you, Utah's accomplishments "don't outrank other factors."

And I'm the one who "doesn't get it?"


Geez. With logic such as yours, it's no small mystery why college football has the reputation it does and virtually everyone is clamoring for a playoff system.

You appeal incessantly to the rules while remaining totally oblivious to the central argument here: The rules are flawed. Any rule that would exclude the only undefeated team from contending for the national championship after said team had knocked off a strong opponent in a major bowl game is hopelessly flawed. This should be obvious to any fan of competitive sports.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Right but they have been doing that before the BCS ever game into play. Normally I can't argue with the top 5 teams listed, I may disagree where they are slotted but by and large I agree with the overall top 5 teams in the polling. As a Texas fan all I can say is we had a couple of real shots to close out Texas Tech and win but failed to do so had they done that then we would be watching Texas vs Florida.

If that's the case, then so did Florida and OU. By rights, if you view it as such, then the NCS should have been Boise St. and Utah. Both of those teams were unbeaten by the time Bowl Season came round. I just don't buy it.

 

[Doomsday101]

If that's the case, then so did Florida and OU. By rights, if you view it as such, then the NCS should have been Boise St. and Utah. Both of those teams were unbeaten by the time Bowl Season came round. I just don't buy it.

I would advise those teams to schedule some top ranked teams in the non conference games. I don't know how else to say it until or unless there is a playoff system put into place these type of debates will happen pretty much yearly.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Utah is a perfect 13-0, and just won a major bowl game by dominating an Alabama team that was ranked number one for a substantial portion of the season. Yet, according to you, Utah's accomplishments "don't outrank other factors."

And I'm the one who "doesn't get it?"


Geez. With logic such as yours, it's no small mystery why college football has the reputation it does and virtually everyone is clamoring for a playoff system.

You appeal incessantly to the rules while remaining totally oblivious to the central argument here: The rules are flawed. Any rule that would exclude the only undefeated team from contending for the national championship after said team had knocked off a strong opponent in a major bowl game is hopelessly flawed. This should be obvious to any fan of competitive sports.

I agree. It's like the Spanish Inquisition. If a women were accused of being a witch, a trial by water was used to prove guilt or inocence. They would weight them down with rocks and wait for them to float. If they floated they were guilty, which would then require a burning at the stake. If they didn't, they were proven inocent. That two was the law of the land, at the time.

:laugh2:

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I would advise those teams to schedule some top ranked teams in the non conference games. I don't know how else to say it until or unless there is a playoff system put into place these type of debates will happen pretty much yearly.

Good advice, if your a big time program. If your Utah, well, lets just say you get the opportunity to leave a lot messages.

That dog don't hunt Dooms.

 

[Doomsday101]

Good advice, if your a big time program. If your Utah, well, lets just say you get the opportunity to leave a lot messages.

That dog don't hunt Dooms.

Playing weak teams do not cut it either, they want to claim the perfect record well great but given the fact they played very few ranked teams it is not overly impressive to team who are forced to play several ranked teams in a season.

 

[Route 66]

Utah is a perfect 13-0, and just won a major bowl game by dominating an Alabama team that was ranked number one for a substantial portion of the season. Yet, according to you, Utah's accomplishments "don't outrank other factors."

And I'm the one who "doesn't get it?"


Geez. With logic such as yours, it's no small mystery why college football has the reputation it does and virtually everyone is clamoring for a playoff system.

You appeal incessantly to the rules while remaining totally oblivious to the central argument here: The rules are flawed. Any rule that would exclude the only undefeated team from contending for the national championship after said team had knocked off a strong opponent in a major bowl game is hopelessly flawed. This should be obvious to any fan of competitive sports.

Yeah, I guess I don't get it as well as the BSC and every other team, coach and player who are willing to abide by the rules set forth.

 

[CATCH17]

OU blew out TCU......Utah scraped by

Utah Won. OU Won.

If Style Points won National titles OU wouldn't have lost to LSU and USC.

Or got beat by Boise State and West Virginia.

 

[CATCH17]

The biggest jokes in this whole BCS load of crap is that this is not about who is best. This is about money and who is the biggest and best matchup. If that were not the case, you wouldn't see the same teams in the bowls year after year, even when it's clear they may not be the best teams out there.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Playing weak teams do not cut it either, they want to claim the perfect record well great but given the fact they played very few ranked teams it is not overly impressive to team who are forced to play several ranked teams in a season.

It's interesting that you see it like this. Utah plays in the Mountain West Conference. How do you play ranked teams if all the teams in your conference are never in the Top 20?

Every year, BCS conference teams are stocked full in the top 25. Power Conference teams start out with the advantage of playing a "tougher schedule" because the teams they are playing are ranked as such. Doesn't mean they are playing better teams, per say.

All I'm saying is that a team like Utah or Boise St. can't just go out and play top 25 teams whenever they want. Most top ranked programs won't schedule teams like Utah. It's just the way it works. I think you might be surprised at how strong the MWC has been this year, when given the chance to play out of conference teams. Utah is a good team. It's not their fault that they can't play in the SEC or Big 12. It's just how it works but I don't think they should be penalized for it either. I think they would if they could.

 

[Doomsday101]

It's interesting that you see it like this. Utah plays in the Mountain West Conference. How do you play ranked teams if all the teams in your conference are never in the Top 20?

Every year, BCS conference teams are stocked full in the top 25. Power Conference teams start out with the advantage of playing a "tougher schedule" because the teams they are playing are ranked as such. Doesn't mean they are playing better teams, per say.

All I'm saying is that a team like Utah or Boise St. can't just go out and play top 25 teams whenever they want. Most top ranked programs won't schedule teams like Utah. It's just the way it works. I think you might be surprised at how strong the MWC has been this year, when given the chance to play out of conference teams. Utah is a good team. It's not their fault that they can't play in the SEC or Big 12. It's just how it works but I don't think they should be penalized for it either. I think they would if they could.

And I don't think teams facing 5 to 6 top ranked teams should lose out to teams who are playing 1 or 2 ranked teams. I agree a better way needs to take place. When you look at the stretch Texas went through over a 5 week period that is a lot of pressure and a pressure that some of these division are not having to face same can be said for other Big 12 and SEC teams. I'm not trying to take away from Utah but many of the Big 12 and SEC would consider that schedule a cake walk.