i cant freakin believe this crap. the BCS Pollsters a WAY too SEC oriented. these bastids suck nutz... the
Oregon Ducks ARE number one on all the other polls. WTF is wring with the BCS?

NEW YORK (AP)�Cam Newton and Auburn blew by Boise State into first place in the BCS standings.

The unbeaten Tigers (8-0) vaulted from fourth to the top spot Sunday, putting the Southeastern Conference in line for a fifth straight appearance in the national title game.

Oregon (7-0) remained second, which works just fine for the Ducks because if they win out they�ll likely play in the BCS title game in Glendale, Ariz., in January.

Boise State (6-0) was still stuck in third place. The Broncos were off last week while Auburn beat LSU 24-17 and Oregon pounded Pac-10 rival UCLA 60-13.

TCU (8-0) was fourth, Michigan State (8-0) fifth and Missouri (7-0) sixth.

Auburn was tops in the computer rankings and third in each of the USA Today coaches� and Harris polls. The polls count for two-thirds of a BCS average and a compilation of six computer ratings account for the rest.

�I can only control how we proceed in this building,� coach Gene Chizik said a few hours before the standings were released. �We just had a team meeting and we talked about being very grounded and understanding that every week is another new week and another opportunity.�

An SEC team has won the last four national championships, with Florida taking two and Alabama and LSU winning one each.

Oregon�s computer rating was still lagging behind most of the top teams at eighth, but the Ducks were a solid No. 1 in each of the polls.

Boise State was No. 2 in the polls and the computers had the Broncos sixth.

Boise State from the Western Athletic Conference and TCU from the Mountain West are both trying to become the first teams from conferences without automatic bids to play in the BCS championship game. To have any chance, they�ll have to go undefeated and have Auburn and Oregon lose.

Even then, the Broncos and Horned Frogs could be passed by Michigan State and Missouri if they stay unbeaten, or maybe even by Alabama, which has lost a game but stands seventh in the BCS standings.

Oregon and Auburn both play on the road this week. The Tigers play at Mississippi and Oregon is at Southern California.

Boise State plays Tuesday night at home against Louisiana Tech.

Or it could be because they know Boise State plays NO ONE worth a hoot.

Boise State needs to play some teams that aren't cans of tomato soup first.

+ infinity ...

I agree

Am thinking y'all are missing the Duck-aphile whining.

Newsflash: when the No.4 team beats the No.6 team, odds are that'll carry weight.

Still finding it hilarious that the big-conference faithful are now lamenting the BCS, after it was the big-conferences that designed that abortion to protect their bowls, paychecks, and pigeon-holed NCG. Now that a couple non-big-conference teams have cracked the system, it's all wrong...

Yeah...

Playoffs, and let it be decided on the field.

i have always liked this idea.

Oregon is a good team. Ducks and Aubie Tiggers are a tossup right now. 1 vs 2 don't mean squat at this point. Chill. Boise needs to get a schedule if they want to compete. Get beat up every week in the PAC, Big 12, SEC and see how your bruises heal. Right now they're higher than they have earned. Change conferences (???) if you want more respect. Roll Tide.

I think the whole BCS thing is funny, but not for the same reasons as most people do ...

in a nutshell, if you recall, the reason for the BCS (i.e. computer rankings coming into the picture) is because people got so outraged with the human polls having too much bias in them. So, they kept the human polls as part of the process, and added some "non-biased" rankings to help figure it all out.

Now, people are in an uproar all the time when the BCS poll doesn't agree with the human polls? Gimme a break ... they are NOT supposed to match ... THAT is the entire reason the BCS ranking system was created ...

You may not agree with the way the computers generate their rankings, but to argue because the BCS rankings don't match the human polls is absurd ...

thus I get a good laugh about it when people argue about the discrepancies between the human polls and the BCS rankings ...

Since the beginning of time it's always been TBS (total Bull [bleep])

They play football in Oregon? Just kidding! The Ducks are a great team!

Sean ...

You ALWAYS bring up the playoff system ... and I can't disagree that doing so would be the best way to handle it all...

However, the BCS is around for a while, and continues to be tweaked to make IT as good as IT can be ... So to continually bring up playoffs when discussing how to tweak the BCS is really apples to oranges ...

Just sayin' ...

Don't worry. Oregon will lose one (or more) that they probably shouldn't. Schizophrenic-10 ...

The best way to "tweak" the BCS is to abolish it, and seed the conference champs in a playoff system.

THAT, would produce a national champion, just like every other level of football (and other sport) does.

Well Marty a computer is only as good as what is fed into to it. Garbage in garbage out.

Crap LSU barley made it pass Tennessee, and Oregon handed them a azz whooping. Some how Auburn beats LSU and its a big deal.

that's akin to saying "The best way to improve (tweak) your .30-06 is to turn it into a .280rem." ...

apples to oranges ... (grin)

Two teams from each conference, let the conferences decide the two and two at large, independents..
But you asked Sean

If it's FUBAR'd, from the get go, scrapping it and building what is KNOWN to work, is never the wrong answer. Fiddle-[bleep]', just to see if the turd can be polished, always nets the expected results.

If NCAA basketball had system similar to the BCS, you would never have seen Butler come within a bucket of winning a national championship last season. Just sayin'.

Steve

Nor Valvano's Wolfpack win the crown.

do you think they could beat 'bama, or auburn? I just think that the SEC plays at a different level. (donning my flamesuit).

It's simple, the SEC thinks their balls are bigger than they really are. That's why they convienently wont come west to play.
Pussys........all of them.

The worst SEC team would bury any of those ankle biters like TCU and Boise...

moore would be lucky to survive one quarter with a defensive lineman like auburns nick fairely planting him in that sissy blue turf lolol

Sean ... We had a LONG discussion the other night about the pros and cons of both a 'functionally correct" BCS system and a playoff system. If I recall we both agreed that both can work, but you still favor the playoff system.

Personally, what I do like about the BCS approach (as opposed yo a one-and-done playoff system) is that you eliminate the possibility of a true, worthy contender being knocked out of the tournament by a lesser team because they had a bad night. The problem with the BCS though is that it can often be hard to figure who really are THE two teams that should be playing in the championship game.

Going to a playoff system also puts more favor on the team that's hitting their stride at the end of season instead of rewarding the teams that earned it all during the regular season.

I don't want to see the regular season in college football be reduced to where teams are simply vying for a spot in the playoffs ... Which I feel could happen with a playoff system ...

I'm an SEC pimp too, but truth be told, I think they'd have a shot at winning the SEC East this year.

May be able to find out with a playoff

we've heard that a lot. Then the super tough- we've never seen that kind of speed and athleticism team seems to have an 'off' night. I could just as easily speculate that BSU would destroy Auburn but then I'd sound silly too. We'll more than likely have some more questions answered towards the end of the season.

Either a play off, to be the best you must beat the best, or play one championship game when the #1 and #2 combatants can't be unanimously decided... I think the play off is a better way to decide the outcome.

When Number 4 beats Number 6 its . . . . .


Ummm . . . . .


Expected.

Not a jump to Number 1.

That math don't work.

Oregon Pounded the schit out of UCLA (weaker this year) but still a serious program.

Oregon plays USC this week. Also, down this year, but holder of numerous national titles. Another serious program.

Exactly when does Oregon get the #1?

Again, the computer produced garbage.

BMT

Copied this from myself in another discussion. Everybody should already know how I feel about a play-off.


120 D-I teams
Make 12 pools of 10 teams each.
Look back a given number of years that is thought to be
appropriate and match the teams in each pool as to
strength. This would make each pool competetive.
Pool play would make for 9 games.
For the 10th game, pools would be matched against each other,
based on a draw. #1 would play #1, #2 would play #2, etc.
For the 11th game, pools cross once again, with winners playing
winners and losers playing losers.
For the 12th game, pools cross once again, with winners
playing winners and losers playing losers. This stage of
the festivities will present a glitch because we have now
reached 3 teams. One will receive a bye. (See notes
below for byes and ties.)
The 13th game will be the "CHAMPIONSHIP ROUND" for each place,
1st through 10th, with places 1-5 coming from the right
(winners') side of the bracket and places 6-10 coming from
the left (losers') side of the bracket.
After all of this, the traditional bowls are held for the fun
that they were intended to be.

Notes:
Ties for spots within pools are determined thusly:
First tie-breaker = the LOSER in head-to-head. (This
makes much more sense than the winner, since the
loser's loss came against a better opponent.)
Second tie-breaker (AND: determiner for getting 12th
game bye) = greater/est improvement over previous
year's record.
Third tie-breaker = lower/est athletic budget.
Pools would be refigured based on records each X number
of years.
Home games for play-offs would be based on second and
third tie-breaker rules.
Conferences could still exist with their current
members. Many conferences don't have all of
their members playing each other anyway, so that
shouldn't be any big deal. At the end of the
season, the supporters of each conference
could brag about the records that their members
achieved without cutting down the number of wins
given away while beating up on each other.

VERY IMPORTANT NOTE: The author of this plan does not wish for it to be implemented. He wishes that we could just return to the days when each game was an enjoyable event in and of itself, conferences existed so that each team within that conference could play each other team in it, a conference championship was the goal of the season, and the bowls were played as a reward for a good season. He offers this only out of frustration with the whole play-off, gotta-have-a-CHAMPION fixation of which he is so fricking tired. He realizes that he is in a tiny minority (alone?) in his feelings, but he still likes to express them. Best to all, John
_________________________
Not a real member - just an ordinary guy who appreciates being able to hang around and say something once in awhile.

Right here is the SEC fan biggest scare in a nut shell and why they like the BCS polls. Its called a playoff system the NFL uses it every year and works great.

+1

Oregon 48 Tennessee 13

Like I said Garbage in Garbage out

Quite simply, I'd like to see the BCS stay in place to determine the rankings, but with one small change to the way the champ is decided ... If/when there is a discrepancy in determining who should be playing in THE game at the end, there should be a pseudo playoff of however many teams are in the mix ...

I am NOT in favor of a pre-set number of teams getting into a playoff tournament because I have never liked the idea of a cinderella story simply like what happens at times when a one-and-done playoff system is in place ...

Tennessee hasn't won but about 2 games this year. Auburn has beaten the following top 25 teams, Miss St, LSU, South Carolina, and Arkansas. Clemson and Kentucky were in the top 25 when they beat them. Auburn has gotten better as the year moved along. Hopefully they will get even better before season ends. They were jipped out of playing for the national championship in 2004 with a very good defence that year, and also a good offence. Oklahoma played instead and got trashed by USC. Auburn would have played better and at least made a game of it with their defence.

+1

UCLA 34 Texas 12

Any team that has worked hard all season long to prove they are the best should be worried about the inherent possibility of a fluke happening in a playoff system ...

I bet you do! most SEC fans love the BCS.

Being favored, or ranked higher is far different from actually pulling off the victory.

way to go, pulling one small part of my sentiment out to quote it, as if I am saying the BCS system is perfect and shouldn't be tweaked at all. you want a cookie for that? ... (grin)

the who beat who doesn't pan out to rankings in the SEC....South Carolina beat consensus number one Bama, but SC lost to Kentucky, which lost to Ole Miss, which lost to Vanderbilt.

But one thing they all have in common is that they're better than the wuss schools BSU runs over week after week.

No just a playoff system will be fine.

if you went to a playoff there would be just as much bitching.....and unless it was a three step deal somebody would be left out and pissed off. which conferences would get to be in the playoff, and which independents? who would do the seeding? how many more games would the winner have to win after school was out for the holidays before they would be the champion? two? three?

Playoffs ain't that hard.

We payed 'em in Division II without a problem.

Its the Division I money that is the problem.

BMT

let me add some clarity to my position, for whomever may care ...

I'm not a fan of one-and-done playoffs at any level, in any sport. Quite frankly, I think that the NBA and MLB have it right. Those two leagues (as well as the NHL) have teams play a 'series' against each other so that they can help to eliminate the possibility of one team advancing due to a fluke'ish night for their opponent ...

Problem with football is, that type system would take too many games to be incorporated. Thus, they play a "post-season tournament" in a one-and-done fashion because that's all they can reasonably do. And if you think that a post-season playoff system in football is truly about determining who is THE best team, you're kidding yourself. It's about creating/generating interest from the fans ... which is why they continue to explore expanding the amount of teams that make it into the NFL playoffs.

Another example is March Madness in college basketball ... At the rate they are going, at some point in time, the post-season tournament will include ALL the teams ... Now, is that a real determination of who is the best team out there? My opinion is that it's not.

I think one of the beauties of college football is that there is only ONE season ... the REGULAR season ... with a simple game at the end to let two of the most deserving teams play it out for the trophy, and the right to say they are the champions.

Once you start down the playoff road, you have effectively created a second season - and that adds an entirely new dimension to things, and takes away from the regular season.

Like I said ... be it the BCS rankings, or the human polls, there's usually only a few teams - maybe 4 - that are universally considered worthy of having a shot at the title ... and when that happens, I'm all in favor of having a mini-playoff that involves ONLY those teams ...

Some years it may only be the #1 and #2 teams in the polls, if those two teams are clearly better than all the rest ... but some years, the difference between #1 and #4 may be negligible at best - in which case I would be fully in favor of those 4 teams playing a mini-playoff to "settle it on the field" ...

So, let me get this straight, Trey...

EVERY other level of football, and EVERY other sport uses a playoff system to determine their champion. But 1-A CFB is "so different", that the playoffs can't/won't work to determine a true champion there?

The computers have to factor in the "best" team from the year, regardless of the outcome of an actual match-up on the field?

Seems the New England Patriots would LOVE that system, as that little loss they suffered in '08 wouldn't have deprived that "best" team of their title.

120 teams in Div.1. 10, twelve team conferences. 10 conference champs get an automatic bid. 6 at large bids. Seeding done via polls, records, etc., VERY much like the NCAA basketball tournament is done.

Win your conference, and you're in, no questions. 6 other teams will get in on the strength of their resumes (i.e. like Texas would have last year, had the rule not been invented on the spot by the Big12 to protect McCoy's 'horns, and Nebraska gotten the win they earned).

120 teams start the season with the same goal. At the end of 10 regular season games (8 conference, 2 non-conference), 16 go to the playoffs. One emerges as the champion.

Simple, easy, and right.

We all knew last week when the BCS put OK as #1 they didn't belong there. That became obvious this weekend.
The BCS had it wrong then and they have it wrong now.

Auburn shouldn't be in the top 5.

Sean ... read what I wrote ... I think that anyone using a one-and-done playoff system has it WRONG ...

and yes, I think that the Pats were the best team that year, period ... the fact they lost ONE game that season (regular and post-season combined) doesn't mean that the Giants were THE best team that year ...

I would rather have seen the Pats and Giants play a best 2 of 3, or 3 of 5 to see which team was/is truly the better of the two ...

but again, the very nature of football won't allow for teams to play a 'series' of games, so they use the NEXT BEST THING within a "playoff format", which is a one-and-done ...

Your system, which lauds the regular season CFB season, IS a one-and-done system for 90% of the teams out there. Alabama, Florida, TOSU, USC, Oklahoma, and a handful of others out there can lose one, sometimes two, games and still get into the NCG. Try that as any other team, and see how far you get.

Hell, until last year, Notre Dame still got ranked in the Top 25 and was mentioned in the BCS mix. THAT, is laughable.

see, now i like the idea of a playoff system, or, if you want to keep the BCS in place, a "mini-playoff" system to see who get to go to the Big Show.

i dont want to see Oregon get screwed out of the championship game and handed a spot in the Rose Bowl as a consolation prize.

dont get me wrong, the Rose Bowl is definitely big, but it isnt the national championship...

and Happy Birthday Larry!

Even a caveman..

Can't be done in football.

Too damn physically damaging.

That's why football is one and done.

Its a tough sport.

We all seemed to deal with it, though.

BMT

Oregon will lose at least one game. And likely pretty damned soon.

GARBAGE in GARBAGE out. The computer is only as good as what is fed into it.

Let me quote myself, from this thread, since it seems to continually fall on deaf ears ...

as a Duck fan i hope you eat those words with a smile.

I won't, and you know it.

WTF....can't you spell CAT?????

A playoff system might work the following way:
Go back to a 10 game schedule, have all conferences with 12 teams and two divisions.
1) play a division championship
2) Have all division champions and fill in with enough good teams to have 32 team playoff in the bowls.
3) Then 16 play each other
4) Then 8 lay
5) Then 4 play
6) Finish with the championship.
Total number the top two teams play is 16 games.
With the 12 game series plus a championship in some conferences then a bowl game, you play 14 games.

Have the bowls rotated to play the different championship and playoff games.

16 game might still be too many for college students, and would create a very long season.

no way ... If a playoff system were to be implemented, no more than 4 teams in the playoffs, period. The "cinderalla story" may play well for the fans, but has nothing but bad juju for actually determining who the best team in college football is ...

you take the 4 best teams in the country, period... so what if #5 is arguably part of the top 4 ... because no matter how many teams are in the playoffs, whoever is the "next team" that just missed a spot in the playoffs, someone is going to be whining about it...

I can't recall a time in college football where there were more than 4 teams who were potentially considered by a vast majority to be true contenders ...

Adding more teams than that to a playoff system would just be inviting more controversy when one of the "lower seeded" teams beat a top seed - that is, assuming that the seeding for the tournament was done properly.

Ever consider when the No 1 team in the nation plays the No 2 team in the nation in a conference championship? Never get to play for the national title even if they are the two best teams..

It's crazy. One thing is that over the years the Major Bowl games are the money bowls... There should be no major bowl games. All bowl games should carry the same weight. SEC champ, auto bid to Sugar Bowl unless they are a national championship contender...that is nonsense, etc.

g

We have a playoff already. It's called the SEC regular season topped off with the SEC title game.

If not Auburn, then who?

I'm good with Auburn at #1.

I can like that way of thinking ... (grin)

No playoff in Div I. Who'd benefit most? CBS gets to put a thousand more idiot commercials on the air and extend their games to 5 hours each? Talking heads everywhere get to outtalk each other for 16 more games? The "fans" get a "true" champion? The bookies get some more lines?

What about the players? At this level you're not playing the Sweet 16 Bball Tourney. You're cracking heads, ribs and legs. You're gut checking and gut spewing. Teams now play 12 to 14 games a year and players, though many get schlorships, don't get any raise in pay for a tourney. For the percentage that have pro ability only their risk increases; no upside, all down.

Yeah, the National Championship is part objective and part subjective. It is what it is. Not perfect, never will be. But for the teams good enough to play in whatever championship is designed it will mean another 4 games a year to be crowned #1. It ain't worth it. Takes a lot longer to heal than to be injured no matter how young you are. And for these 18 to 22 or so year old players these can be injuries that last a lifetime. They're giving enough already. Don't ask more.

Dude . . . . . . .

Hard Work Patting yourself on the back like that.

BMT

BCS problem?
What problem. The #10 team shuts out an inner conference rival
49-0 and then DROPS one place in the standings! ?

WTF ... nothing to see here, move along.

Cut the regular season to 10 games. At most the two best teams will play 14 (two more than they do currently). The others will play 13, 12, 11 (playoff teams and bowl teams), and 10 (non-playoff, non-bowl teams).

Amazing how we can't/shouldn't ask any more of those players, but all the ones in D-1AA and down do exactly that every year.

D1AA and down isn't at D1 level. Different game. You gonna pay them a bonus plus med expenses? And the season will not be cut to 10 games. Won't happen. These are students not pros. They play enough.

High schools do it every year and there is no disagreement, when all is said and done, who is numero ono
It's worth a try!

g

Amazing how only D1A football supporters trot out that tired line.

D1AA and down IS the same game, and EVERY other D1 sport plays tons more. Last time I checked, they were students, too. You know, basketball, baseball, soccer, lacrosse...

Are they just not "special" enough, or is it that the power conference supporters are really just that damned scared of having to play in a playoff and not having the NCG pigeonholed to only a "selected/chosen" few?

Hell, if it's the latter, just start ranking Notre Dame, Army,, Penn State, Alabama, USC, Ohio State, Michigan, UCLA, Texas, and Oklahoma every year, and have the best of those teams play, because of their "history and tradition". That argument carries just as much weight as the other ones you tried.

Thats only cause you don't wanna see the Ducks get beat by the Spartans.

I ask again...

http://bcscentral.info/sos.html

Don't see how anyone can really argue against Auburn at number 1 right now. I would love to see some quick schedule changes and have Boise and TCU play one of the top couple of teams from SEC, Big Ten, etc.... Give them the chance they say they want.