Is the BCS format cheating?

[CJHawkeyes]

Let me have it.:D

[Blue Hen]

It certainly cheats all CF fans , players and coaches of something this great game deserves........a legitimate championship...like all other college team sports have.

I know, not the type response you're expecting.

[Jim]

Let me have it.:D

Missouri, even in losing the Big 12 championship and by being ranked #1 going into the game, ought to have received the BCS bid to the Orange Bowl or to have played opposite USC in the Rose Bowl. Of course, this would leave just once-beaten Kansas out of the big party. The Jayhawks didn't win their division much less compete in the Big 12 title game. Sorry Kansas.

Illinois' only claim to fame is in having beaten Ohio State. But they did do it in Columbus which is very hard to do (for anybody). A 9-3 Illinois team shouldn't have received a bid over a 11-2 Missouri or an 11-1 Kansas. They call it tradition". I call it lets get as close to a guaranteed win as we can get for our "Boys from Troy". Rose Bowl is arrogant. When the Pac Ten and Big Ten were separate from the old CFA ten years ago, they showed their disregard for the rest of NCAA football. But when they could be included in the cycle as the bowl championship wormed itself back towards LA, they were all for it. The locals didn't fill the seats for Nebraska-Miami or Oklahoma-Washington State.

Since LSU wants a home game as does USC then do a playoff with the final four all arriving at a single site for two games on one Saturday and the title game the following Saturday. Reduce the current bowl system by about half and send also-rans (those not in the playoff) to those bowl games.

Hell, I don;t know what I'm talking about as I'm shooting from the hip while I correct as many typos as catch my eye.

[EvilVodka]

Missouri, even in losing the Big 12 championship and by being ranked #1 going into the game, ought to have received the BCS bid to the Orange Bowl or to have played opposite USC in the Rose Bowl. Of course, this would leave just once-beaten Kansas out of the big party. The Jayhawks didn't win their division much less compete in the Big 12 title game. Sorry Kansas.


Is this problem solely a BCS problem? How would this problem be solved in a 16 team playoff? Would Kansas and Missouri both get in as At-Large teams?

How does this problem get solved without giving points to conference and division winners...?

[ZOOMBAG]

Yes, in a playoff there is no limit on the number of teams a single conference get in. At-large bids would/should be base solely on an objective ranking. I know the Big 12 and the SEC both got three teams in my 12 team scenario.

[GatorGrad]

Yes, in a playoff there is no limit on the number of teams a single conference get in. At-large bids would/should be base solely on an objective ranking. I know the Big 12 and the SEC both got three teams in my 12 team scenario.

I wouldn't be so sure that any playoff in the future would include at large bids based on an objective ranking system. Basketball uses a committee - that's not objective. My guess is in a football playoff, they would either use the BCS or a committee for at large bids. Not saying it is right, but we don't know how at large bids would be determined. While I think they should be determined by an objective system, I wouldn't mind a committee as long as all conference champs got a shot. If all conference champs are not included (all teams do not control their own destiny) then an objective ranking system is needed even more IMO (in a 2, 4, 6, or 8 team playoff.)

[CJHawkeyes]

I wouldn't be so sure that any playoff in the future would include at large bids based on an objective ranking system. Basketball uses a committee - that's not objective. My guess is in a football playoff, they would either use the BCS or a committee for at large bids. Not saying it is right, but we don't know how at large bids would be determined. While I think they should be determined by an objective system, I wouldn't mind a committee as long as all conference champs got a shot. If all conference champs are not included (all teams do not control their own destiny) then an objective ranking system is needed even more IMO (in a 2, 4, 6, or 8 team playoff.)

I'm afraid that a selection committee would be used if there ever is a larger playoff. If so, it would be due to ignorance about the need and purpose of objective rules and/or the ability to openly cheat. When the BB committee chairman comes on after the field is announced and all he can say to questions about those in and out is, "well, another committee might have chosen differently", it should self-evident that employing subjective means inexcusable.

[GatorGrad]

I agree CJ...but at least if every team controls their own destiny by conference standings and objective rules, I could live with a committee deciding the other at large bids. Don't want to have your fate determined by a committee? Win your conference! The problem I have is when teams do NOT control their own destiny AND their fate is decided by non-objective measures which is what we have now. I think objective rankings are a MUST for any system where conference champs do not get auto bids...I think objective rankings are preferred, but not a "must have" in any system where conference champs DO get auto bids because at least all teams control their own destiny.

[HellYeahHokie]

I'm afraid that a selection committee would be used if there ever is a larger playoff. If so, it would be due to ignorance about the need and purpose of objective rules and/or the ability to openly cheat. When the BB committee chairman comes on after the field is announced and all he can say to questions about those in and out is, "well, another committee might have chosen differently", it should self-evident that employing subjective means inexcusable.

So, what's your point?

[CJHawkeyes]

So, what's your point?

Using subjective means to determine seeds and qualifiers is inexcusable?:D