Boycott the BCS title game ?
How much traction can a move to Boycott a LSU/Bama rematch get if LSU loses their title game ? Can we get it a boycott anyway. The BCS needs to either add a rule or add a full 1 point deduction if a team can't win it's own conference.
Tweet, Like, Send, 1-Up and Follow
| Tweet |
|
|
Follow @AlJeff |
Comments
I agree.. #
I usually defend the BCS but this year they are destroying themselves. When people beg for a playoff, one of the first things we hear is of how each week is like a playoff. Well, this year kills that argument. When is the last time you saw a team lose early in the playoffs and still make it to the Super Bowl?? The even crazier part is if Georgia beats LSU, there will be two teams who didn't even win their conference playing for the title -and from the same conference at that! I agree, there needs to be some sort of penalty for not winning your conference and again for not winning your division. The fact that Alabama benefits from not playing this upcoming week is just plain stupid.
Agree 100% #
The whole "the season is a playoff" thing is shot to hell if Bama gets back in. Which makes it that much more compelling to have a real playoff.
I think if you had to pick the two best teams in the country and ignored conference affiliation, you'd probably pick Bama and LSU. So in one sense the BCS will "get it right". BUT Bama already had their shot to prove they were better than LSU and lost that "playoff" game. So another team should get a chance to prove it.
It's just inherently unfair to other teams. And this is not beinga VT homer. I am not advocating for us, I am advocating against a system that basically tells teams outside the SEC that no matter what they do, they can't guarantee themselves a chance to play if ESPN wants an SEC team in. Not taking anything from Bama, they just already eliminated themselves in my mind.
I wish we had a playoff though, because then all this would be a non-issue. Bama would essentially be a wild card and not a single soul would debate that.
Also agree #
What about Stanford? They lost their "playoff" game. They are not in their conference championship yet are ranked ahead of the two teams that are.
Could actually #
work out, if Georgia blows out LSU and Oklahoma beats the Pokes, that Stanford and Alabama could meet for the NC, neither of which would win their conference...
I've been #
boycotting the BSC (not a typo) for years. Non-conf winners getting into any BCS game is BS.
A little bit of a defense, but not much. #
I hate the BCS as much as anyone else. I don't want to see an Alabama-LSU rematch and I think there should be some sort of a playoff. It doesn't matter to me if it's a +1, or an 8 or 16 team deal. However, the BCS' job is to identify the two best teams in the country, that's it. There's no rule prohibiting the two best teams in the country from being in the same conference, or even division.
At the end of the day there's one clear cut team worthy of playing for the MNC, LSU. After that, Alabama, Oklahoma State, Stanford and Virginia Tech can all make an argument for why they're worthy of the game. I think the Tide and Pokes make the best case, and Bama's resume probably wins the argument.
I don't like that there's a scenario where to two that didn't win their conference can play for the MNC either. It's stupid, and backwards. However, blame the conferences, and the divisional setups, not the BCS. Alabama should be playing LSU for the SEC Championship, Stanford-Oregon (or USC) for the Pac-12. The divisional structures in professional sports like the NFL make sense, because all the divisional winners make the playoffs. In college football they do not.
At the end of the day if we win the ACC, and had beat Clemson in October we'd be playing for it all. Let's focus on what we can do, another ACCCG W and win in the Orange Bowl.
David Wilson eats Chick-fil-A on Sundays.
From the BSC site #
Their definition: "The BCS is a five-game showcase of college football. It is designed to ensure that the two top-rated teams in the country meet in the national championship game, and to create exciting and competitive matchups among eight other highly regarded teams in four other bowl games."
The BSC "championship" is a match up of the two "top-rated" teams (by the BCS formula). The other games are match-ups of other "highly regarded teams". The problem is the formula and ratings. It is not in any way, definition, or form, a playoff or true championship (see Webster's definition). The contest to get into the championship is decided off the field through subjective voting and subjective computer rankings. Deciding that one team is better than another without them actually playing each other is not a competition.
As the BCS states, it is a "showcase". To me that is just a way to state it is a money making operation. FCS is the only true form of a national football championship.
I decided to boycott #
Before they announced it, IF the result was a rematch. #1 Michigan was not allowed to play #2 Ohio in the title game in 2006 after we lost a close game in Ohio the morning after our football godfather, Bo Schembechler died. This was the last game of the season. It came after much lobbying from the SEC. So . . . yeah not going to watch that.