BCS history

[Flystripper]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

The athletic side has no power or influence. None, except maybe at Kentucky or Florida.

The Athletic side has all the influence in the SEC unless your school is named Vanderbilt

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by creekster

A loss would abort the whole process, of course.

I think we could all agree that the major conferences need to adopt a more effective form of berth control.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

I think we could all agree that the major conferences need to adopt a more effective form of berth control.

Well, they're wimps, so abstinence is what they like.

[Travis Henry]

Originally Posted by Flystripper

USC might not win the Pac-10 this year....just an fyi. Oregon State holds the tie breaker and if you know anything about the beavers it is that they get better as the season progresses.

Yes, I realize that which is another reason why the Pac-10 shouldn't get an automatic bid. If the auto bids were reduced to only three, the SEC, Big 12 and Big 10 would be the likely recipients of the bids. If there were only 3 bids, then USC would still get in. Heck, if there were only 5 automatic bids, USC will still get in.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by Flystripper

Jay I completely agree that the BCS is better than what college football had prior to its creation. Obviously not as good as a playoff but it is better.

People are coming around slowly but surely to a playoff. Today on Cowherd's show Gary Danielson (the guy who does color for many of the SEC games on CBS) said there needs to be a playoff that includes non-bcs teams. Hell even Mac "I Trade Sexual Favors for Coaches Poll Votes" Brown said there should be a playoff when he was on the radio last week. The tide is slowly turning.

I liked the old way. The BCS is much worse.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by BlueK

I liked the old way. The BCS is much worse.

Seriously? Why?

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Seriously? Why?

Because despite what conference a team played in, it had a better chance to be voted the champion than it has to get into the BCS championship game.

Would BYU have won an NC in '84 with the current BCS system?

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Because despite what conference a team played in, it had a better chance to be voted the champion than it has to get into the BCS championship game.

Would BYU have won an NC in '84 with the current BCS system?

That's a reasonable argument. Although, I think we analyzed this before and said BYU probably would have made the championship game that year according to rules of BCS.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by jay santos

That's a reasonable argument. Although, I think we analyzed this before and said BYU probably would have made the championship game that year according to rules of BCS.

I don't recall discussing that BYU probably would have made it, but I'm so anti-BCS that I may have just discounted it.

I'm just against anything that determines a championship in which the automatic qualifiers are only from a select few and every other team has to fight for one or two spots. In truth, the non-BCS teams are pretty much only fighting for one spot, as the other at large berths will undoubtedly go to BCS teams.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

I don't recall discussing that BYU probably would have made it, but I'm so anti-BCS that I may have just discounted it.

I'm just against anything that determines a championship in which the automatic qualifiers are only from a select few and every other team has to fight for one or two spots. In truth, the non-BCS teams are pretty much only fighting for one spot, as the other at large berths will undoubtedly go to BCS teams.

Non-BCS fought for zero spots in the four biggest bowls pre-BCS.