Dave2112
Level of Cherry Feather
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2001
- Messages
- 10,292
- Points
- 0
It seems the BCS has again shown itself to be less than the perfect solution for deciding college football bowl games. After beating Georgia 34-13, LSU leapfrogged over USC to take the #2 spot in the BCS rankings. Oklahoma, despite a 35-7 loss to Kansas St. retained its #1 ranking and will play LSU for the National Championship in the Sugar Bowl. This is where it gets wierd.
In the human voting polls, the final votes made USC the #1 team, follwed by LSU at 2 and Oklahoma at 3. However, the computer rankings placed Oklahoma at the top, with LSU and USC follwing. LSU edged out USC by 0.16 points mostly on USC's weak PAC-10 schedule.
Now there's the danger of not having an undisputed champion again, as there has been three out of the last four years under the BCS system. If #2 LSU beats #1 Oklahoma AND #3USC beats #4 Michigan in the Rose Bowl...LSU would win the Coaches' Title and USC could win the Associated Press championship. A share of the title for both teams.
This is exactly what the BCS system was supposed to avoid. After its contract expires at the end of the 2005 season, a one-game championship might be instituted after the bowl games. As USC coach Pete Carroll said "The #1 team isn't playing in the game marketed as the Championship Game. Something's not right."
"What we have are three very deserving teams and only two of them are in the game," said Big East commissioner Mike Tranghese, who coordinates the BCS.
"I'm glad we're bringing the No. 1 and 2 teams in the BCS together. But I have empathy for USC. It's hard to sit here and do cartwheels."
The dream matchup for the Rose Bowl, a traditional pairing of Big Ten and Pac-10 champions with national title implications, is the doomsday scenario for the BCS.
It's the third time in four seasons that a team in the top two in the polls didn't make it to the BCS title game. The Pac-10 has been the victim twice and remains the only BCS conference not to put a team in the title game in the six years of the system.
"It is most unfortunate that the other elements of the BCS standings have overruled the two polls and taken USC out of the national championship game," Pac-10 commissioner Tom Hansen said.
The BCS avoided disaster those years because No. 1 Oklahoma beat Florida State in the 2001 Orange Bowl and No. 1 Miami beat Nebraska in the 2002 Rose Bowl.
The No. 2 teams in the polls won their bowl games those years and could have won the AP title if the top-ranked teams lost. The only way to avoid a disputed finish this year is if Michigan (10-2) beats USC.
Personally, I feel that there should be a post-bowl game of some sort. On the one hand, the arguement could be made that Oklahoma deserved to retain its #1 ranking despite the loss, as they'd won all 11 of thier other games by huge margins (scoring over 50 points in 7 games) and the phenomenal play of thier defense. On the other hand, the one loss was to Kansas St., thier opponent in the Big 12 Championship game. Perhaps there should be a rule within the BCS system (one that is being considered) that a team must have won it's divisional championship game ot play for the national title.
Any thoughts?
In the human voting polls, the final votes made USC the #1 team, follwed by LSU at 2 and Oklahoma at 3. However, the computer rankings placed Oklahoma at the top, with LSU and USC follwing. LSU edged out USC by 0.16 points mostly on USC's weak PAC-10 schedule.
Now there's the danger of not having an undisputed champion again, as there has been three out of the last four years under the BCS system. If #2 LSU beats #1 Oklahoma AND #3USC beats #4 Michigan in the Rose Bowl...LSU would win the Coaches' Title and USC could win the Associated Press championship. A share of the title for both teams.
This is exactly what the BCS system was supposed to avoid. After its contract expires at the end of the 2005 season, a one-game championship might be instituted after the bowl games. As USC coach Pete Carroll said "The #1 team isn't playing in the game marketed as the Championship Game. Something's not right."
"What we have are three very deserving teams and only two of them are in the game," said Big East commissioner Mike Tranghese, who coordinates the BCS.
"I'm glad we're bringing the No. 1 and 2 teams in the BCS together. But I have empathy for USC. It's hard to sit here and do cartwheels."
The dream matchup for the Rose Bowl, a traditional pairing of Big Ten and Pac-10 champions with national title implications, is the doomsday scenario for the BCS.
It's the third time in four seasons that a team in the top two in the polls didn't make it to the BCS title game. The Pac-10 has been the victim twice and remains the only BCS conference not to put a team in the title game in the six years of the system.
"It is most unfortunate that the other elements of the BCS standings have overruled the two polls and taken USC out of the national championship game," Pac-10 commissioner Tom Hansen said.
The BCS avoided disaster those years because No. 1 Oklahoma beat Florida State in the 2001 Orange Bowl and No. 1 Miami beat Nebraska in the 2002 Rose Bowl.
The No. 2 teams in the polls won their bowl games those years and could have won the AP title if the top-ranked teams lost. The only way to avoid a disputed finish this year is if Michigan (10-2) beats USC.
Personally, I feel that there should be a post-bowl game of some sort. On the one hand, the arguement could be made that Oklahoma deserved to retain its #1 ranking despite the loss, as they'd won all 11 of thier other games by huge margins (scoring over 50 points in 7 games) and the phenomenal play of thier defense. On the other hand, the one loss was to Kansas St., thier opponent in the Big 12 Championship game. Perhaps there should be a rule within the BCS system (one that is being considered) that a team must have won it's divisional championship game ot play for the national title.
Any thoughts?
