True or False: If BYU had gone 12-0 this year

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by jay santos

BCS is very clear on two items.

1. It wants to determine a national champion in the most fair way possible.

2. The other BCS games are done to maximize interest and revenues, especially for BCS conferrences.

I think the BCS does a reasonable job at achieving those two goals. That's why there was no concern in getting Utah a good matchup. I think if a non-BCS team is really one of the best two teams in the country, there's a very reasonable chance they could end up playing in the BCS title game.

If the BCS were concerned about determining a NC in the most fair way possible, how could it possibly justify leaving SC out of the NC game when it was #1 in the AP and the Coaches poll before final BCS rankings were released? How is that fair?

Also, after SC destroys Michigan in the Rose Bowl and the AP declares SC the #1 team, the BCS reminds the Coaches that they are obligated to vote the NC game winner as the #1 team in the country.

Hardly fair. Main motivation....money.

We can also talk about the Miami/Nebraska NC game matchup, too. That one was awesome.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

If the BCS were concerned about determining a NC in the most fair way possible, how could it possibly justify leaving SC out of the NC game when it was #1 in the AP and the Coaches poll before final BCS rankings were released? How is that fair?

Also, after SC destroys Michigan in the Rose Bowl and the AP declares SC the #1 team, the BCS reminds the Coaches that they are obligated to vote the NC game winner as the #1 team in the country.

Hardly fair. Main motivation....money.

We can also talk about the Miami/Nebraska NC game matchup, too. That one was awesome.

So now the BCS was invented to screw USC?

The BCS tweaks its formula every year, with the motivation to fix any of these injustices.

What about the current formula for BCS title game makes you think its more about money than fairness?

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by jay santos

So now the BCS was invented to screw USC?

The BCS tweaks its formula every year, with the motivation to fix any of these injustices.

What about the current formula for BCS title game makes you think its more about money than fairness?

No, the BCS was actually around just prior to SC's resurgence.

If the BCS were about fairness, it would invite the team that both polls has as #1 to play for the NC.

Tweaking the formula is basically prima facie evidence that the system IS unfair and needs fixing.

What about the current formula....that is an easy one. The two best teams in the country played yesterday, but not for the NC game. Their season is now over. They didnt even get to play each other because, contractually, Georgia was selected by the Sugar (for the money draw) instead of being matched with the next best team--SC (in an effort to make the game more exciting). Keep in mind, GA was selected by the Sugar BEFORE the Rose chose Illinois, so it isnt a case of the Rose simply wanting to preserve a B10/P10 matchup. The Rose was left with undesireables (since OK is locked to the Fiesta), so they went with tradition.

The NC game is being played, for the first time, by a team with 2 losses. Also, both participants in the BCS championship game have gone 1-1 in their 2 most recent games. Hardly a fair system.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

No, the BCS was actually around just prior to SC's resurgence.

If the BCS were about fairness, it would invite the team that both polls has as #1 to play for the NC.

Tweaking the formula is basically prima facie evidence that the system IS unfair and needs fixing.

What about the current formula....that is an easy one. The two best teams in the country played yesterday, but not for the NC game. Their season is now over. They didnt even get to play each other because, contractually, Georgia was selected by the Sugar (for the money draw) instead of being matched with the next best team--SC (in an effort to make the game more exciting). Keep in mind, GA was selected by the Sugar BEFORE the Rose chose Illinois, so it isnt a case of the Rose simply wanting to preserve a B10/P10 matchup. The Rose was left with undesireables (since OK is locked to the Fiesta), so they went with tradition.

The NC game is being played, for the first time, by a team with 2 losses. Also, both participants in the BCS championship game have gone 1-1 in their 2 most recent games. Hardly a fair system.

Most anti-BCS sentiment is irrational and should be aimed at the bowls not the BCS.

You think it's unfair USC's not in the title game. Georgia thinks they should be in. But at least a bowl isn't making that decision and at least it's not a subjective decision. There's a formula where polls are used to select the two teams. Are you really saying there's something unfair about the BCS title game formula?

Outside the title game, the BCS makes no pretense that there is any fairness about the matchups. The bowls have a tie-in and they get to choose. Blame the Rose Bowl or the Sugar Bowl for crappy matchups not the BCS.

[il Padrino Ute]

If the BCS was about finding a football champion, it would go away and those that run it would push for a playoff.

The BCS is about doing what will make the most money for the BCS. It has never done anything to prove otherwise.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Most anti-BCS sentiment is irrational and should be aimed at the bowls not the BCS.

You think it's unfair USC's not in the title game. Georgia thinks they should be in. But at least a bowl isn't making that decision and at least it's not a subjective decision. There's a formula where polls are used to select the two teams. Are you really saying there's something unfair about the BCS title game formula?

Outside the title game, the BCS makes no pretense that there is any fairness about the matchups. The bowls have a tie-in and they get to choose. Blame the Rose Bowl or the Sugar Bowl for crappy matchups not the BCS.

To clarify, I am not talking about SC this year. I am talking about the year they split with LSU.

As for this year's title game....like I said...a potential NC with 2 losses. And both participants lost 1 of the final 2 games they played. NOT a sweet formula. And NOT very fair.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

If the BCS was about finding a football champion, it would go away and those that run it would push for a playoff.

The BCS is about doing what will make the most money for the BCS. It has never done anything to prove otherwise.

This is correct. The BCS is about fairness......but only secondary to the money.

A playoff could still use the 4 BCS bowls as host venues. Why doesnt the BCS push for that?

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

This is correct. The BCS is about fairness......but only secondary to the money.

A playoff could still use the 4 BCS bowls as host venues. Why doesnt the BCS push for that?

I'm all for that.

Short of that with the current system, BCS does best and most fair job possible selecting the top two teams.

I know you were talking about the year USC didn't make title game when they were AP #1. There was already a formula in place. It's less fair to change the formula mid-stream because someone's favorite team didn't make it.

You keep mentioning two losses like it means something. If you think crowning a two loss team as champion is unfair, then what fair method do you have this year? Everybody has two losses.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Because some have the delusion that BYU is 100 times more respected than Hawaii.

That plus the fact that BYU's SOS this year was better than Hawaii's.